Health Care Debate Morality Question

[bytor2112]

We currently work nearly half the year to pay taxes....I suspect that will be more than half because of the out of control, reckless spending in D.C. How much more debt will be added as a result of this monstrous spending bill in the name of healthcare??????

Frankly, I am taxed out. Right to health care???? How about a right to keep some more of my hard earned money and let me decide how I choose to spend it. The IRS sucks!!!!!!!!

[Moksha]

Moksha, I have a burning question for you:

What do you think the meaning is of Doctrine and Covenants 82:22?

"And now, verily I say unto you, and this is wisdom, make unto yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness, and they will not destroy you."

Truthfully, I do not know what to make of it. Might as well have said, "go ahead kid, play with the fire". Make yourself friends with the money of unrighteousness??? I suppose that explains some political beliefs.

John Doe wrote:

As far as I know, under the current US system, no one who needs health care is turned away from ERs. Are you aware of anyone who has been turned away because of their lack of money or insurance?

Ah yes, the road to backruptcy. You do know that you are billed for those highly priced ER services, don't you?

Pale Rider wrote:

how is it that Mormons can morally divorce themselves from homeless and people without food

Good question. Perhaps as Maxel suggests, it has to do with being friends to the money of unrighteousness.

:)

[john doe]

Ah yes, the road to backruptcy. You do know that you are billed for those highly priced ER services, don't you?

:)

You do know that Medicaid and Medicare already exist, don't you? Have you heard of CHIP? Or HIP?

While medical care can be quite expensive depending on circumstances, there are outlets already in place to help those who have little or no money to pay for them. I agree the system needs some repairs. But to throw the whole thing out in favor of a new plan which is destined to fail by the judgement of the government's own accounting office, is not the way to go about it. And to those who claim the Canadians have a great system, they may want to read this: The Canadian Press: Overhauling health-care system tops agenda at annual meeting of Canada's doctors

Apparently Canada's top doctors don't think their system is doing as well as some of those who claim they are the next best thing to sliced bread. One quote from the article:

"(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right now - if it keeps on going without change - is not sustainable," said Doig.

Dr. Anne Doig is the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association. She may know a little bit of what she's talking about.

[Just_A_Guy]

Ah yes, the road to bankruptcy.

Pot, meet kettle. :)

[Maxel]

Truthfully, I do not know what to make of it. Might as well have said, "go ahead kid, play with the fire". Make yourself friends with the money of unrighteousness??? I suppose that explains some political beliefs.

I'm trying to remember Talmage's exact explanation of Luke 16:1-12, which says the exact same thing. I think his exegesis consisted of "be wise with your money" (don't overlook verses 10 and 11).

I have to agree that "be wise with your money" makes a lot of sense as one meaning of the scripture. So, I ask you this:

Does spending billions of dollars that we don't have on a government program that is going to be clogged, ineffective, and plain crap all the while screwing the propsperous out of their hard-earned money while favoring the man who will not work sound like a wise use of money to you?

Edited August 18, 2009 by Maxel

[bytebear]

It would be one thing if the bill really set out to just ensure insurance for those who cannot get it through traditional means, but have you actually seen the bill. There are so many pet projects from clinics on school property, to additional government czars to come up with "preventative" initiatives. There are a lot of new boards, with who knows what kind of power to create all sorts of new programs that aren't clearly laid out in the bill. It's just a bunch of new crap that we don't need.

Personally, I thought it was the job of charities to help those who cannot get help any other way. Here's my problem with government programs over charities. Say you have charity A and charity B. Charity A has a philosophy that you don't agree with. Well, you can give money to charity B. So, we have direct control over how successful a charity is. If a charity is corrupt, we stop funding it, and it goes away. And it has to compete with other charities for money, so it will be forced to be better than others to gain supporters. If it's a government program, we are forced to pay into it via taxes, regardless of what the program does. It may be wasteful, immoral and corrupt, but we must support it.

Edited August 18, 2009 by bytebear

[bhcs]

So, I ask you this:

Does spending billions of dollars that we don't have on a government program that is going to be clogged, ineffective, and plain crap all the while screwing the propsperous out of their hard-earned money while favoring the man who will not work sound like a wise use of money to you?

I don't know what the right answer is to the question of healthcare in this country. I do know, by very painful personal experience, that your question is in some ways a false dilemma.

I have a chronic, debilitating, progressive illness. Within the next 10 to 15 years, I will most likely become completely disabled (i.e. unable to walk, work, feed myself, etc.)

When I became sick, I had just started my own business. At the time, we had a high deductible, "temporary", private insurance since that was all I could afford. The insurance company didn't wait for the diagnosis - they dropped us as soon as I saw a doctor.

I have been routinely rejected by insurance companies since then. And with good reason - the only treatment for my condition starts at $1700 a month.

To get assistance from the government, I have to be declared 'disabled'. Which I am not, currently. One day I will be, unless I get access to the above-mention costly treatment. The advice from the Medicaid people was to do whatever I could (including lying) to get declared disabled now - they can't help otherwise. I opted to not do that.

When I got very ill and could no longer work, I sold my house and moved in with family so I wouldn't default on my mortgage. Through it all we have managed to never miss a payment for all the MRIs and doctor's visits or any of the groceries we put on credit cards. I have since improved somewhat and can work now. I just bought a small house so my wife and kids could have their own space again. It costs less per month than the medication does.

At this point, my only insurance options are to get hired by a very large organization (private or public) or go it alone. Currently, I am going it alone. I am doing all I can so that when I am disabled, my family will hopefully have the financial wherewithal to make it.

I just want the ability to take care of myself and my family. The system we currently have does not allow me to do that. It is skewed in favor of those who seek to profit from the business of providing health insurance. I don't know if a 'public plan' is better. I do know that what we have now is a farce. I am not a unique case. There are many who have fallen through the cracks. I believe those cracks are getting bigger and every year more people will fall through them.

Maybe that belief makes me, as you put it, a man who will not work and who is only interested in screwing you out your hard-earned dollars. But I don't think that's true. There must be a way that health care can be affordable and available to everyone - even those like me who are un-insurable simply because we are not profitable to the insurance companies. I am open to many types of solutions - from the 'public plan' to a truly free market where insurance and drug companies can't wield power over consumer choice.

In answer to your question and to your scripture, I offer this one:

Mosiah 4

[MorningStar]

Just because we don't agree with the reform bill doesn't mean we aren't compassionate. I think most of us are for reform - just not reform that involves the government taking over healthcare. I don't think it's the best for anyone including those without health care.

Let's say there were a bill to feed homeless people. Sounds great. Of course I would want to help the homeless people. But then let's say it includes a requirement that all of their meals would be fast food. I would be against it because it would be bad for their health. Yes, it would end their hunger, but they would become unhealthy. I don't think we would be uncompassionate to vote against such a bill anymore than we are uncompassionate because we are against government run healthcare.

[bhcs]

Just because we don't agree with the reform bill doesn't mean we aren't compassionate. I think most of us are for reform - just not reform that involves the government taking over healthcare. I don't think it's the best for anyone including those without health care.

Let's say there were a bill to feed homeless people. Sounds great. Of course I would want to help the homeless people. But then let's say it includes a requirement that all of their meals would be fast food. I would be against it because it would be bad for their health. Yes, it would end their hunger, but they would become unhealthy. I don't think we would be uncompassionate to vote against such a bill anymore than we are uncompassionate because we are against government run healthcare.

I don't necesarrily think that 'government run healthcare' is the answer either. I do take exception to Maxel's implication that anyone in favor of reform is someone who refuses to work and is merely interested in 'screwing the prosperous'.

Trust me, I get small-government political ideaology. I largely agree with it. What we have now is not a small-government system. We have a system in which monied interests use the goverment to enforce their monoply and ensure their profit.

Health insurance is not about making sure people get the healthcare they need - it's about making as much money as possible while paying out as little as possible. In other words, it's a business. My experience has made me rethink how I view the world. Maybe, in the realm of healthcare, their is a better model to use when making decisions about how to keep people healthy. Maybe this is an instance in which markets don't work. Maybe not. I really don't know.

I do know that I have never shied away from hard work. I've always paid my share. I don't want to take away anyone's 'hard-earned money'. I simply want to be able to take care of myself and my family. As far as healthcare goes, I am a loser in the current system. I work my butt off everyday to change my situation. I may win out or I may lose even bigger. Either way, I can't help but view healthcare in this country as anything but a very cynical enterprise.

[john doe]

I think you read a little too much into Maxel's post.

[Vort]

Before people start slicing the 18% into groups of people who don't 'deserve' or 'need' Health Care, I'd like to remind you what forum you are in.

This is a forum based on religion. I am not LDS, but I have to think? / hope? / guess? that somewhere there is a tenant about compassion and helping others? Or is compassion only to be done when it's convenient... or doesn't cost you anything?

So then, anyone who suggests anything that you (Shego) don't find "compassionate" is hereby condemned for lack of compassion. Do I read you right?

I am asking how YOU FEEL, so please keep your answer about yourself and your feelings and not attack another's posting.

So you start out by preemptively attacking the ideas of anyone who doesn't agree with you, then request that no one else follow suit.

Thanks anyway, but I don't really want to play by those rules.

[mightynancy]

I dunno, when we talk about social governmental issues, I often think of Zion. It is said of Zion, "There was no poor among them." I really doubt that it was because they didn't let them in.

Now, do I think the federal government is able to create Zion? Of course not. But, in my heart, I can carry a generosity worthy of a citizen of Zion. It's not my place to judge whether someone else has worked hard enough to merit whatever they get...it's my place to share what I've been given. If I have "earned" anything, it's through the grace and blessings of God, not to mention that I and everything in the world belong to Him.

BHCS has it absolutely right - "Trust me, I get small-government political ideaology. I largely agree with it. What we have now is not a small-government system. We have a system in which monied interests use the goverment to enforce their monoply and ensure their profit."

[Guest]

I don't necesarrily think that 'government run healthcare' is the answer either. I do take exception to Maxel's implication that anyone in favor of reform is someone who refuses to work and is merely interested in 'screwing the prosperous'.

Trust me, I get small-government political ideaology. I largely agree with it. What we have now is not a small-government system. We have a system in which monied interests use the goverment to enforce their monoply and ensure their profit.

Health insurance is not about making sure people get the healthcare they need - it's about making as much money as possible while paying out as little as possible. In other words, it's a business. My experience has made me rethink how I view the world. Maybe, in the realm of healthcare, their is a better model to use when making decisions about how to keep people healthy. Maybe this is an instance in which markets don't work. Maybe not. I really don't know.

I do know that I have never shied away from hard work. I've always paid my share. I don't want to take away anyone's 'hard-earned money'. I simply want to be able to take care of myself and my family. As far as healthcare goes, I am a loser in the current system. I work my butt off everyday to change my situation. I may win out or I may lose even bigger. Either way, I can't help but view healthcare in this country as anything but a very cynical enterprise.

BHCS, I truly feel for you. Truly. It must be difficult for somebody in your situation.

From your post, I read "negativity" towards a business. I would like to address this. Healthcare insurance being a business is not a bad thing. You can research this as much as you can - you will get the same conclusion - Competition is a driver for improved Quality. And business is all about competition. In this case, markets DO WORK. IF - left well enough alone. Unfortunately, that is not the case in America. This is where we need the reform to happen. To make the private market a healthier environment than what is currently in place.

I'll give you one example. Private health insurance is tied to the hip with employers. Why. Because there is regulation in place that dis-allows private citizens to band together to create a health insurance group. So, say, Miami East Ward would like to band together and purchase group insurance. Can't. Not allowed. So, members of the Miami East Ward only has very limited options - to join their employer group (insurance offerings may not be the best but you have not much choice in the matter) or go with a more expensive Individual Coverage.

Another example is the limitation that Health Insurance Coverage cannot be purchased across state lines. I find this silly. If you look at Educational Savings Plans - it works great because if you live in a state like Florida where the ESP is not too great and you don't get tax incentives because there is no State Tax anyway, there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to purchase Utah's ESP which is super duper great and cheaper - managed by Vanguard, one of the best in the country. So, many Floridians do so which caused Florida to revamp their ESP to make it better and be able to compete against other states!

There are soooo many more changes that we can make to improve on the current system and make insurance companies and doctors put quality of health a priority - malpractice lawsuit reform is just another one...

So, applying just those 2 changes to someone in a situation similar to yours... I can equate your situation with people who have cancer, for instance (you didn't mention exactly what kind of ailment you have). It is progressive, expensive to treat, and debilitating... if just those few changes can be made nationally, people who have cancer in their genealogy can band together and create their own group and purchase standard health insurance coverge with cancer coverage rider. Everybody in the group benefits from the coverage and they can "shop" for the best insurance all over the United States. This will provide people like yourself with a wide array of choices. And you can control the cost - because if you can pick and choose the coverage (no employer to dictate what needs to be covered) you may be able to form a group that will not require maternity coverage but provide cancer coverage. Or form a group that will elect to drop certain things like mental health coverage or non-emergency medical care in favor of top-of-the-line cancer coverage. Whatever floats your boat.

That's the greatest thing about non-nationalized healthcare insurance. You decide what you need and what you are willing to pay for, instead of a governing body creating a one-size-fits-all or a few-sizes-fit-some options.

Because, by virtue of the nature of a business, if there's a need, somebody is going to provide it... I mean, who would've thought anybody can make money making p-mates? There was a need (even if I still shake my head wondering why we need it) so somebody provided it.

So, let's address those who really can't afford it (no, I'm not talking about that guy who says he can't afford to go to the doctor because he can't afford health insurance while flipping channels on his 60" plasma). The poor and downtrodden. What can we do about them? I say we give government tax incentives and government grants to charities or even profitable businesses who provide care for them. Say you are in dire straits - you just lost your house and your job 6 months ago, you are on your last dime and you get hit by a car... what happens then? You should be able to go to a charity, business, or even a government clinic (like the VA) and get treatment. I have no problem with that. But, you will have to give up your 60" plasma though...

In summary... I think it is immoral for a government to mandate compassion. Why... because government is made up of people whose jobs depend on the majority vote. In a population of 5 wolves and a sheep, majority vote is great, unless Jesus Christ is the sheep. Now, if the President is the Prophet and Congress the General Authority, I will immediately hand over my entire life to the government.

There are soooo many more much much better and morally superior solutions to the healthcare dilemma than nationalized healthcare. Let's explore them...

Edited August 19, 2009 by anatess

[Moksha]

I think it is immoral for a government to mandate compassion. Why... because government is made up of people whose jobs depend on the majority vote. In a population of 5 wolves and a sheep, majority vote is great, unless Jesus Christ is the sheep.

Jesus Christ is now against health care for all?

[bhcs]

I think you read a little too much into Maxel's post.

You are probably right. To be fair, his words were not couched in softness. However, I mean no offense to him or anyone else. Obviously, this is an issue that hits close to home for me.

BHCS, I truly feel for you. Truly. It must be difficult for somebody in your situation.

From your post, I read "negativity" towards a business. I would like to address this. Healthcare insurance being a business is not a bad thing. You can research this as much as you can - you will get the same conclusion - Competition is a driver for improved Quality. And business is all about competition. In this case, markets DO WORK. IF - left well enough alone. Unfortunately, that is not the case in America. This is where we need the reform to happen. To make the private market a healthier environment than what is currently in place.

..

Anatess, thank you for your post. Actually, I agree with you. In my first post I stated that I was open to some form of the much 'ballyhooed' public plan OR a truly free market. My negativity, which I fully admit does exist, is not towards health insurance as a business per se, but towards the undue influence that businesses who provide health insurance have over our government and therefore our lives.

I am one person with one vote. I do not have the financial resources to contribute heavily to political campaigns, employ lobbyists, or sway government leaders. The health insurance 'industry' does. This is not a level playing field. So I do feel pessimistic. I don't think any thing in regards to health care is going to change. The stakes are too high for these businesses (which are very large) to allow it to change.

The disease I have is called Multiple Sclerosis (or MS for short). It is a progressive neurological disease that affects some 300,000 Americans. There is currently no cure, but I am hopeful that one will be found in my lifetime. What makes MS so hard and so expensive is that it will NOT lessen the length of my life: I will probably live until an average age accruing whatever medical costs for both treatment of the disease itself as well as for whatever disabilities the disease causes.

For this reason, a diagnosis of MS is a cause for an immediate denial by insurance companies. And I can't really blame them. I don't see how to make it profitable either. Which makes me wonder about the viability of health insurance as a for-profit exercise. There will always be people like me who are a bad investment.

Again, I really don't know what the answer is. Typically, I favor market-based solutions over nationalized ones. Having been on the losing end of this market-based solution, however, has made me question the wisdom of our current system. Maybe that makes me a hypocrite. Maybe that means I am placing my personal needs above principles. I just don't know. I do know that I could work my way out of poverty. I could learn my way out of ignorance. But, until the Lord sees fit to heal me or our current system changes, I'm stuck being sick.

[bhcs]

I dunno, when we talk about social governmental issues, I often think of Zion. It is said of Zion, "There was no poor among them." I really doubt that it was because they didn't let them in.

Great quote.

BTW, I think it's awesome that you are a Saprissa supporter!

[Prodigal_Son]

Jesus Christ is now against health care for all?

Quite frankly, I think our Savior would prefer we increase our faith and use the Priesthood He's granted to us.

That's the REAL solution. :)

[mightynancy]

BTW, I think it's awesome that you are a Saprissa supporter!

Clearly, you have been brought up with exquisite taste. I'm heartbroken that La Cueva is closing.

[Guest]

Jesus Christ is now against health care for all?

Okay, here is a perfect example of a SPIN.

This here, is the main reason why people in these United States are sick and tired of politics and mainstream press.

It will take somebody of great intelligence and extreme long-suffering patience to actually wade through all the SPIN to garner the true meaning of the statement.

Because, only an Expert Spin-ster can come up with a statement like this in answer to the original statement. And expert spin-sters are very very good at confusing the issue!

Let me re-iterate the dialogue so everybody out there reading this will see the NO-SPIN-VERSION.

Question: Is it moral for a government to decree compassion?

Answer: It is immoral for government to decree compassion because they are elected officials whose job is dependent on the majority vote. If the majority vote is on the side of Christ then all is well and good, but if the majority vote is not on the side of Christ, then morality is sacrificed. Therefore, unless the Prophet and his General Authorities is the government, then government needs to stay out of decree-ing in the name of compassion.

Moshka, if you can't come up with a better rebuttal than that, then I suggest you move on instead of making a mockery of an honest exchange of differing ideas.

[mightynancy]

Oh, I don't think it was an honest exchange Moksha was mocking.

[Guest]

Oh, I don't think it was an honest exchange Moksha was mocking.

Ayayay...

Well, you can spell Moksha properly. I seem to have trouble with it...

And Saprissa is cool, but Necaxa is cooler. <hides behind the pillar to avoid a thrown object from mightynancy>

:D:D

[mightynancy]

Ooh, it's a good thing you're quick at dashing behind those pillars, Anatess. That would've hurt.

My daughter has just moved up an age level, and her new uniform is purple! She's lobbying to name her team Saprissa. Cooooool.

[Moksha]

Therefore, unless the Prophet and his General Authorities is the government, then government needs to stay out of decree-ing in the name of compassion.

No compassion with your tax dollars, eh? I like to see good works happen from multiple sources, especially the source designated to promote all our general welfare.

[john doe]

Forced charity (or welfare) is not true charity (or welfare). The proper role of government does not include being your nanny.

[Maxel]

I don't know what the right answer is to the question of healthcare in this country. I do know, by very painful personal experience, that your question is in some ways a false dilemma...

bhcs-

I'm truly sorry for your situation. People like you, who are legitimately too sick to work and need help with their medical bills due to chronic illness, do need help. My post was in response to Moksha's and is about the principle of governments getting involved in citizens' health care.

Those who are like you who cannot work but who would if they could ought to be taken care of by faith communities- Christ's command to care for the poor was one of the most important for those with resources to follow.

...Maybe that belief makes me, as you put it, a man who will not work and who is only interested in screwing you out your hard-earned dollars. But I don't think that's true.

That's because it's not. There are plenty of people who are healthy but lazy who want to take resources from the poor because of their laziness. You are quite clearly not one of them.

By the way, I'm also dirt poor. I would benefit greatly from socialized medicine- my opposition to it is because it isn't the government's proper role to give health care to its people. Giving the government more power is a very, very dangerous thing.