What Sort of Preventative Treatment, Should the State Fund???

[Stephen3141]

Supreme Court to hear challenge to Obamacare rule on free preventive care

The Affordable Care Act requires insurers to cover a range of preventive services, including cancer screenings, statins and HIV-prevention medications.

www.nbcnews.com

Rather than focussing on the (VERY expensive) preventative medicine that
currently the medical insurance companies MUST pay for (such as preventative
HIV medicine, that may const $30,000 a year), Christians should be thinking
about the general questions...

1 Does every citizen have some human RIGHT to have the state pay for ANY
preventative medicine?

2 What are the criteria under which the state SHOULD pay for preventative
medicine, for a citizen?

3 Do parents have the RIGHT to reject ANY preventative medicine treatment,
for their children? Under what criteria?

4 Should parents be allowed to reject preventative medicine, IF the result
does not affect the population, as a whole?

5 *** Where is the line, between the preventative medicine treatment that
Christians OUGHT TO comply with, as opposed to preventative medicine
decisions that the Christian Moral-Ethical model does not really address?
---------- ----------

Instead of simply getting angry, when this topic comes up, Christians
should openly debate these questions.

As for (1), I reject this claim. Because that blank assertion that the state
should pay for ALL preventative medicine, ignores the topic of personal
responsibility.

As for (2), the state (I assert) should pay for preventative medicine, IF
the preventative medicine has been proven to be effective, in rigorous
scientific studies, AND IF the resulting disease would substantially effect
the health of citizens who are not directly involved in the decision of those
who refuse the preventative treatment. As an extreme example of this, there
is no known "preventative" treatment for road rage. BUT, road rage results
in all sorts of damage to citizens, every year. HOWEVER, the psychological
"state" of a person can often be diagnosed as some sort of mental
dysfunction, that CAN be diagnosed by psychiatrists. Although psychological
dysfunctions may not be SPECIFIC to committing road rage, I assert that the
state has a moral-ethical ought to try to prevent certain citizens from driving
a vehicle. (There is the same situation, with owning firearms.)
---------- ----------

Unfortunately, some Christians reject the modern scientific methodology of
double-blind studies, to determine whether or not a treatment effectively
prevents some disease or dysfunction. Those who reject the reasoning
foundations of modern science, are blurring the line between logical
evaluations of efficacy, and religious constraints, and personal opinions.
This is not a purely a topic of "religious freedom".
---------- ----------

Christians need to be considering that there are many other deeper topics
that they should be discussing, and NOT simply whether or not some parents
have a "right" to withhold (for example) Measles vaccines from their children.

 

[FireDragon76]

The medications were deemed necessary for healthcare coverage by a panel of experts from a variety of fields related to public health.

 

[Laodicean60]

I like all the preventive medicine, even though I don't use it much, but my wife has every test done. I'm fixing to get a colonoscopy because I'd rather catch cancer early rather than wait. After all, the longer you wait, the more expensive the treatment is when cancer gets out of hand. I hope RFK Jr. wins.

 

[KevinT]

Supreme Court to hear challenge to Obamacare rule on free preventive care

The Affordable Care Act requires insurers to cover a range of preventive services, including cancer screenings, statins and HIV-prevention medications.

www.nbcnews.com

I work in the healthcare industry, so these issues are front and center in my day to day life.

1 Does every citizen have some human RIGHT to have the state pay for ANY preventative medicine?

I would first like to look at the concept of "rights."

It seems to me that the concept of human "rights" is nebulous. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the constitution (signed by the founding fathers), "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." There is no proof of these rights. It is just that they seemed to be true, and thus asserted to exist.

In Mosaic law, either explicitly directed by God or written by Moses under inspiration from God, there ARE some rights that afforded to people. For example, if a master struck a slave and thereby knocked out his or her tooth, then the slave was to be set free. (Exodus 21:26-27) We can view that as the slave having this intrinsic right to freedom in those circumstances, OR we can say that the right thing to do would be for the master to set the slave free. Underlying all the law and prophets where the principles of Love God and also Love fellow mankind.

As society has changed, it has come to be understood that slavery itself is a horrible thing. And in most places it is seen for the evil it is. As an aside, it is unfortunately estimated by the International Labor Organization (ILO) that there are tens of millions of people in modern slavery (encompassing various forms of exploitation, including forced labor, human trafficking, debt bondage, and forced marriage etc), with more people NOW "enslaved" then ever before in the past. But even so, most would agree with the signers of the constitution that humans have a "right" to liberty and that is is "wrong" for some to keep another in slavery.

So what do I believe about "unalienable rights"? I think that the question is a logical trap. Because if someone asks me if they have the right, for example, to telephone service, I don't really know upon what grounds to begin considering my answer. But what I think is a BETTER APPROACH, is to flip the question around. Going back to the issue of slavery, rather than considering if a human has a right to not be enslaved, I think it is easier to ask the question, is it morally right for a person to hold slaves? And of course I can clearly answer that question, NO!

In summary, I will change questions about rights from a consideration of the recipient, into instead the actions of the responsible party.

And thus I now come to the question:
Does every citizen have some human RIGHT to have the state pay for ANY preventative medicine?

which I will reword as:

Is it the right thing (considering the ethical, moral, financial etc factors) for the State to pay some arbitrary preventative medical element?

And once reworded, it is much easier for me to consider. I would consider this under the following elements:

• Will the money the State spends on a preventative service generate a financial return? Healthier citizens are more productive, more able to generate tax revenue. So how much does the service cost and what is the return? For example, when considering mammograms (used for early detection of breast cancer), some analyses have estimated costs from tens of thousands to over a hundred thousand dollars per life saved, depending on the age group screened and the healthcare setting. It is much easier to consider this term instead of asking of the citizen has a "right" to this study.
  
  
• Aside from a direct financial return from taxes, how does this service affect the psychological well-being of the citizens. In some socialized countries (e.g. Denmark), the fact that the government provides health care based on higher tax rates is generally seen as a positive thing for citizen of that country. That would NOT be the case where I live in TN. A Denmark citizen would state that they have a "right to healthcare", whereas a Tennessean would commonly assert they have a right to have lower taxes and manage their own healthcare expenses. So again, here, the consideration of intrinsic "rights" is confusing, and better considered in terms of how it affects people. If tomorrow, an official of Denmark changed policy and withdrew all state-sponsored healthcare and told people they were on their own (and reduced taxes accordingly), that would likely not be seen as a loving act. And likewise, if an official in TN told everyone their taxes were going up and healthcare would be covered, that would also not be seen as a loving act. God has given us the positive command to love others as ourselves. In every case, we should determine which course of action best achieves this.
  
  
• Is there a moral element to be considered? It is generally considered to be immoral to murder. And the State therefore has been empowered by citizens to step in and imprison (or even execute) murders. Likewise, if there was some action the State, given its size and influence, could easily undertake for the benefit all, that would otherwise be available to the ultra-rich, there is an argument to be made that officials and elected officials of the State have a moral duty to do it.

2 What are the criteria under which the state SHOULD pay for preventative
medicine, for a citizen?

Having laid out groundwork above, I feel that if a preventative measure is found to be cost-effective, it is in the States best interest for it to spend the money on those services. The United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) is notoriously conservative in its recommendations. The joke I've heard is that USPSTF would never recommend looking both ways before crossing the street because there is no randomized double-blind study showing it to be cost-effective. So when they finally do recommend something, it usually has good science behind it. And regarding cost, I try to compare it to the spending by the government in other areas. For example $2 billion to make a single B-2 Spirit stealth bomber.

3 Do parents have the RIGHT to reject ANY preventative medicine treatment,
for their children? Under what criteria?

This is a hot-button issue. There have been cases where parents turned to faith-based healers in cases of meningitis, instead of getting them to a doctor for antibiotics, and the child died. When I hear of this I recoil. But then also, the Amish and Mennonite communities tend to not run to the doctor if a child, for example, breaks a bone. But their overall child mortality numbers seem good -- perhaps because their children are healthier. I'm not certain on the statistics of all this.

Overall, it is a complicated topic that brings into play one's view of the role of government. Does the government have the responsibility of protecting a child from abusive parents? What is the line of abuse? The answer to many of these questions is unclear. I do know that if a healthcare professional has reason to believe that a child (or senior citizen) is being abused, they have a legal responsibility to report the situation to government personnel, who will investigate the situation.

4 Should parents be allowed to reject preventative medicine, IF the result does not affect the population, as a whole?

Currently, parents do seem able to reject, for examples, vaccinations. They may have to have them for the child to attend public school, but they can always home-school the child. Where I live, HPV vaccination to prevent cervical cancer, is not required for entrance to school. So many parents will get the core vaccinations for measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria etc, but not get the one for HPV. I generally disagree with parents who won't vaccinate their kids for HPV, but not to the point that I would want the state to override the parents.

5 *** Where is the line, between the preventative medicine treatment that
Christians OUGHT TO comply with, as opposed to preventative medicine
decisions that the Christian Moral-Ethical model does not really address?

I'm not exactly sure where you are going on this questions in regards to "Christian Moral-Ethical model". I think as Christians, we should consider our bodies as the Temple of God. And we should do everything in our ability to keep it healthy. So any preventative measure that can be done in good conscience should be followed.

As for (1), I reject this claim. Because that blank assertion that the state
should pay for ALL preventative medicine, ignores the topic of personal
responsibility.

I agree that a person is ultimately responsible for maintaining their health. But so often I see it hard for people to do so. For example, many that I work with smoke cigarettes. They know they should quit, and they have tried to quit, but have ultimately been unable. Once they get to age 50 yrs of life, if they have a 20 pack-yr smoking history, it is recommended that they get annual low-dose CT scans looking for early lung cancer. If they have to pay this out of pocket, it will cost at least $500/yr. And most people don't have that kind of money laying around ready to spend on a preventative service. So on a practical basis, if health insurance, or the government, or someone else doesn't pay for it, it just will never be done.

As for (2), the state (I assert) should pay for preventative medicine, IF
the preventative medicine has been proven to be effective, in rigorous
scientific studies, AND IF the resulting disease would substantially effect
the health of citizens who are not directly involved in the decision of those
who refuse the preventative treatment.

Even this can be problematic. Think about the recent measles outbreak in Texas. Those born after 1957, and vaccinated before 1968, are known to often be susceptible to environmental measles. So now because Johnny didn't get vaccinated, Mrs. Jones catches measles walking past him on the sidewalk. So in that case, if we use your consideration, the state should mandate vaccination of all children. But that then makes many people uncomfortable about the state telling them what to do. The Covid-19 and the push for vaccination has really upset large numbers of people I work with. Now they want nothing to do with any vaccinations, even against tetanus, shingles, pneumococcus etc.

Unfortunately, some Christians reject the modern scientific methodology of
double-blind studies, to determine whether or not a treatment effectively
prevents some disease or dysfunction. Those who reject the reasoning
foundations of modern science, are blurring the line between logical
evaluations of efficacy, and religious constraints, and personal opinions.
This is not a purely a topic of "religious freedom".

Agreed. But I'm not sure if "religious freedom" even comes into play at all. Is vaccination an religious issue?

Christians need to be considering that there are many other deeper topics
that they should be discussing, and NOT simply whether or not some parents
have a "right" to withhold (for example) Measles vaccines from their children.

Great post!

Kevin T

 

[Stephen3141]

THANKS Kevin T for the thought that you put into your response.

I rarely post anything on this site, without "going somewhere".
But, often, where I am "going" beneath the surface of the post, is misread
as free association about whatever an individual reader is thinking about.
---------- ----------

In this thread, I am trying to point out that there are very difficult situations in
which our Christian faith runs up against a pagan (non-Christian) mountain of
expectations that the larger, non-Christian society holds.

The problem is worse, IF Christians in different denominations think that Americans
live in a "Christian" nation, and that all policies of the national government OUGHT TO
conform to core Christian doctrines. This is a worldview in which Christians consider
that EVERYTHING in their life, is their faith, and so they should not value ANYTHING
that a non-Christian government would argue is a moral-ethical OUGHT for the
American society. This seems to be a core belief of the "Christian Nationalism"
groups. *** I cannot agree with this worldview. The early Christian apologists did
NOT think that it was the teaching of Jesus, that it was the duty of Christians to
conquer the pagan world, and establish a kingdom in this world.

The problem is worse, because some Christians groups (by their actions)
devalue all serious discussions of basic philosophical topics (such as moral-ethical
models), and sweep them away under the label of "vain philosophies" (which
I don't think that Jesus, or Paul would agree with).

The problem is worse, I assert, because some Christian groups devalue FORMAL
LOGIC, and do not consider that the basic Rules of Inference and Quantification
rules (that govern valid reasoning about groups) to apply to Christians. That is,
they do not consider formal logic principles to be part of our shared reality,
about which the moral-ethical command "You shall not bear false witness" applies.
---------- ----------

Where I am "going", beneath many of my posts, seems to be VERY offensive to
some North American Christians. I would argue that it is a Moral-Ethical OUGHT
for Christians to develop their mind, and engage in lifelong learning. I would
argue that this ought is connected with the development of "self-control" (in
English translations of the Bible). You could also connect the ought to "discipline".

If a North American Christian could spend endless time studying the design of
stock cars, or playing fantasy football, then they certainly could develop the
self-control to read basic books on philosophical Moral Theory, or Epistemology,
such as the books below...

Moral Theory book by Mark Timmons

Epistemology: A Contemporary... book by Alvin I. Goldman

AND IF THEY DID, they would suddenly realize that many of the topics
discussed in these "philosophical" books, are core to the Christian discussion
of our shared reality, and Christian apologetics, and Christian morals, and
what Christians consider to be "virtues" and "vices".

(Note that many in the "electronic screen" generations, have never developed
the self-control, or personal discipline, or attention span, to read ANY book. In
this, they are ignoring the culturing of basic Christian virtues.)

*** I expect a MUCH higher and more thoughtful level of discussion, from Christians
in North America, about specific topics such as whether parents should vaccinate
their children against Measles.