OUR COUNTDOWN TO FASCIST MEDICINE

There is no constitutional authority for the U.S. to establish or operate a national healthcare system

and yes, if it provided services more cheaply than private enterprise can do so, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer, that would be unfair competition.

Quote:

There is no constitutional authority for the U.S. to establish or operate a national healthcare system

"Provide for the general welfare." A phrase intentionally left vague. You can't believe that the authors of the Constitution were very intelligent men, who knew what they were doing, and not think that this was left vague precisely for said reason.

Quote:

and yes, if it provided services more cheaply than private enterprise can do so, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer, that would be unfair competition.

You might believe it would be unfair to the companies; but it wouldn't be unfair to the taxpayers. And it isn't necessarily 'courtesy of the taxpayers;' it would be more cheap for the simple reason that they don't need to run a profit.

I would prefer those who want the government to be in charge of everything to move elsewhere where it has already happened and just enjoy it to their hearts' content. I do not want that form of government and I will continue to resist those who want to force it on me.

It is well known that vast, complex and rich societies need the government to be in charge of important things and individuals to be in charge of what colour to paint the front door or which alpine plants to put next to the north facing wall.

Principle of the Common Good

In general, the common good consists of all the conditions of society and the goods secured by those conditions, which allow individuals to achieve human and spiritual flourishing. The social teaching of the Catholic Church insists that the human community, including its government, must be actively concerned in promoting the health and welfare of every one of its members so that each member can contribute to the common good of all. This teaching is encapsulated in the principle of the common good and its corollary principle of subsidiarity. According to this understanding, the principle of the common good has three essential elements: 1) respect for persons; 2) social welfare; and 3) peace and security. All three of these elements entail the provision of health care in some way as an essential element of the common good (see Ethical and Religious Directives, Part One, Introduction).

In so far as the common good presupposes respect for persons, it obligates public authorities to respect the fundamental human rights of each person. Society should allow each of its members to fulfill his or her vocation. Insofar as it presupposes social welfare, the common good requires that the infrastructure of society is conducive to the social well being and development of its individual members. In this respect, it is the proper function of public authorities to both arbitrate between competing interests and to ensure that individual members of society have access to the basic goods that are necessary for living a truly human life, e.g., food, clothing, health care, meaningful work, education, etc. Finally, this conception of the common good requires the peace and security that accompanies a just social order. Public authority, then, should be used to ensure, by morally acceptable means, the security of society and its individual members. [See: Documents of Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, n. 26; USCC, NCC and Synagogue Council, "The Common Good: Old Idea, New Urgency," Origins 23 (June 24, 1993): 81-6.]

...Obamacare..

In his case DTOMs insurance refused to pay for a specific treatment. What you are saying is that insurance in Germany pays for referred treatment. What we are discussing is that his insurance refuses to pay at all.

Foxfyre wrote:

In his case DTOMs insurance refused to pay for a specific treatment. What you are saying is that insurance in Germany pays for referred treatment. What we are discussing is that his insurance refuses to pay at all.

exactly. the insurance company is standing between me and my doctor.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

In his case DTOMs insurance refused to pay for a specific treatment. What you are saying is that insurance in Germany pays for referred treatment. What we are discussing is that his insurance refuses to pay at all.

exactly. the insurance company is standing between me and my doctor.

No, not quite. Again, the insurance company is obligated to insure only what it agrees to insure in the insurance policy it sells you. If you want a treatment that the insurance company did not agree to insure at the time the policy was issued, the insurance company can say no, no matter how much you and your doctor think the treatment is necessary. That is no different from any other forms of insurance you take out or from any other contractual agreement. And it will certainly be no different if the government was handling it--the President has absolutely confirmed that without being the least bit vague.

However, unless it violates a contractual obligation he made, there is nothing to prevent your doctor from treating you on his own time at his or your expense and there is currently no law preventing you from seeking treatment elsewhere at your expense. Once the government takes control over the whole system, however, you might not even have that option.

Under the system that exists now, lack of insurance is not necessarily synonymous with lack of healthcare.

One of the reforms I think we should be lobbying for is ability for a more a la carte insurance structure. For instance, a couple who does not intend to have children or is past child bearing age does not need maternity insurance and it would be a large savings to them to be able to eliminate that from insurance coverage. Those who want to pay their doctor's visit or routine labwork or whatever out of pocket should be able to to do that just as we pay routine repairs and maintenance on our cars and houses and computers out of pocket. Then we could purchase a much cheaper catastrophic policy to take care of major hospitalizations, surgeries, cancer treatment etc. at a far lower cost. The law should not only allow that but encourage that.

Homeowners insurance that covered plumbing repairs, peeling paint, inadequate wiring, a worn out roof, or cracked concrete on your patio would be exhorbitantly expensive--prohibitive for many. Car insurance that covered bad batteries, spark plugs, oil changes, flat tires, and window washer fluid would probably exceed the cost of our car.

Since insurance companies have paid me to explain it to their attorneys in advance of legal actions, however, I think I might know a bit more than the average bear.

foxfire wrote :

Quote:

Homeowners insurance that covered plumbing repairs, peeling paint, inadequate wiring, a worn out roof, or cracked concrete on your patio would be exhorbitantly expensive--prohibitive for many. Car insurance that covered bad batteries, spark plugs, oil changes, flat tires, and window washer fluid would probably exceed the cost of our car.

do you really see home and car insurance being at all - even remotely - similar to health insurance ?
i doubt VERY MUCH that you do , but are willing to accept your word for it .

i also invite you to freely comment on my post to spendius re.
THE PRINCIPLE OF COMMON GOOD .

http://able2know.org/topic/134494-14

it would be very enlightening to me to read your comments on it .
btw. i'm not looking at it from a catholic point of view - simply as a "reference point for humanity" .
while one can debate individual points of that principle , i wonder if you might think that THE COMMON GOOD might be suitable as a concept/guideline for living in an enlightened society ?

a/t the article , it is the government's RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that all citizens contribute appropriately to the common good .
simply "giving alms" to the poor would not be sufficient to the citizens to discharge their responsibility towards the COMMON GOOD (if i've understood it properly - perhaps i have not ) .

perhaps someone with a good background in modern principles of catholic living - in its broadest sense - might be willing to contribute .

take care !
hbg

The Common Good and Community“Human beings,” Kenneth R. Himes O.F.M. said in his book Responses to 101 Questions on Catholic Social Teaching, “only truly flourish in the context of a community.” Human beings can only reach their full individual potential if they work to promote and protect the good of society as a whole. Our obligation to love our neighbor is not only an individual commitment; it requires a broader social responsibility.

“It is imperative that no one, out of indifference to the course of events or because of inertia, would indulge in a merely individualistic morality. The best way to fulfill one's obligations of justice and love is to contribute to the common good according to one's means and the needs of others, and also to promote and help public and private organizations devoted to bettering the conditions of life.”

- Gaudium et Spes: Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World
Second Vatican Council, 1965

Role of Government and Subsidiarity
Government, or the state, has at its core a positive moral function. It's an instrument to promote human dignity, human rights and the common good. Its mission is to work for the benefit of all people. Therefore all people have a right and a responsibility to participate in political institutions. Government functions should be performed at the lowest level possible, as long as they can be performed adequately.

“Society as a whole, acting through public and private institutions, has the moral responsibility to enhance human dignity and protect human rights. In addition to the clear responsibility of private institutions, government has an essential responsibility in this area. This does not mean that government has the primary or exclusive role, but it does have a positive moral responsibility in safeguarding human rights and ensuring that the minimum conditions of human dignity are met for all. In a democracy, government is a means by which we can act together to protect what is important to us and to promote our common values.”

- Economic Justice for All: Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy
U. S. Catholic Bishops, 1986

To the extent that you're talking about individual health insurance policies, such "a la carte" policies already exist -- or, at least, the policyholder isn't paying premiums for services that he or she would never get. For instance, a male policyholder's policy may still cover him for pregnancy (policy forms, after all, are approved by the state dept. of insurance and so can't be altered very easily), but his premiums would be calculated to reflect the fact that he has zero percent chance of getting pregnant. On the other hand, if you want a policy that covers only certain conditions or certain procedures, you can probably get one from a specialty or surplus lines carrier. If you can't, it's not because legislation prevents it but because no insurer wants to underwrite it. So, in the case of individual health insurance, you're complaining about a problem that doesn't really exist.

On the other hand, if you're talking about group coverage (which is what most people have through their employment), then you can't get "a la carte" coverage, but that's because the whole point of group coverage is to pool all the participants together in a large enough group so that the good risks balance the bad risks. In that context, "a la carte" coverage makes absolutely no sense. There again, it's not legislation that prevents you from getting "a la carte" group coverage, it's the fact that no group health insurer would ever issue such a policy.