One of the best families I know of has struggled because of the greed of insurance companies and now advocates Universal Health Care. http://quietdonkey.blogspot.com/
With all the love for them in my heart I had to reply with this message. I will not sit idly by as so many Americans ignorantly seek our self-destruction:
Caring for the sick and afflicted is a moral obligation that you and I both agree on. How we live that principle is where you and I have the debate. You and I agree that our collective ability to take care of one another is falling tragically short of what God would have us do. You blame it on the greed of insurance companies. I blame it on the American people for letting government get involved in health care in the first place and I blame the greed common to human nature. This greed cannot be overcome by the force of law, but rather by the changing of our hearts to love God and our fellow man.
Universal health care is immoral and in fact satanic inasmuch as it violates the eternal principles of agency. To take from one person by force and give to another is a violation of the eternal principle of agency, no matter how mingled with scripture that philosophy of Universal Health Care is. Every sick and afflicted person being cared for by everyone else of their own free will and choice would be Zion.
Some may argue that UHC is not really by force since we the people elected our government and gave them the power to impose taxes. My argument is that we have allowed the government to have more power than was ours to give. (see Ezra Taft Benson's essay on the Proper Role of Government, not doctrine, but pretty sound logic. http://robertkmortensen.blogspot.com/2008/10/proper-role-of-government-ezra-taft.html ) The government should never have the power to do something that I personally cannot do without violating the rights of others.
True statesmen would not invent government administered programs to help the sick. True statesmen would inspire and motivate their constituents thru word and action to be truly charitable and to care for those around them. Church leaders don't hold a gun to your head and tell you to pay fast offerings, but they sure can motivate spiritually. Occasionally hell-fire-damnation sermons are necessary to remind us to stop being so darn selfish.
When you force people to care for the sick and poor you rob them of true charity and you rob them of their agency to do good from their own hearts. That is why I say UHC is satanic. Satan has sought from the beginning to rob us of our freedom to choose good or evil. The sacred and eternal principle of agency is infinitely more important than short-term mortal suffering. The risk of people using their agency to choose to be selfish and greedy is a tolerable risk from an eternal perspective.
That being said, if we as motivated private individuals could pull our resources and skills together, coupled with faith, fasting, and prayer we could be really effective at relieving the burdens of sickness and poverty without legally plundering anybody.
6 comentarios:
I am NOT a fan of universal health care; I believe it would be extremely wasteful of resources. I do wish everyone had more pure motives.
Hi Robert,
Wow, I feel famous now. Imagine my surprise when I discovered I had received a personal entry on your blog. I am so proud.
I am just curious what your position is on the issue of abortion. I didn't see it listed as a topic on your site, but I think I can guess what it is based your following statement:
"The risk of people using their agency to choose to be selfish and greedy is a tolerable risk from an eternal perspective."
but, I am simply curious to see if I am correct.
I hope all is going well for you. I will eventually publish a more thorough response when I have time.
Please keep in mind that I work for a school of medicine and have unfortunately personally experienced the darker side of health care in America. So, please forgive me and permit me to ramble on endlessly...
Thanks,
Quiet Donkey
Quiet Donkey,
I hope you know how much I love you and your family and only wish I could do more to help. There is no question in my mind that the topic of Universal Health Care should be debated, if not for the sole purpose of reminding people to care for one another. Well, another good purpose is to hold insurance companies accountable and hopefully reform the insurance industry.
I do have an old blog on the abortion issue. You can see it here: http://robertkmortensen.blogspot.com/search/label/abortion
I can see the danger of that sentence you quoted used out of context. The freedom of choice debate regarding abortion is completely different than the debate about legal plunder. While both issues have to do with life and quality of life, I stand on the side of life for both scenarios. I am not heartless and want every sick person dead. I hope for health care universally, but not goverment run UHC.
I do believe in legislating moral issues and have discussed my litmus test for how and why in other blog entries.
The federal government is simply the worst entity to run health care. I would not be opposed to local (city and smaller) governments having some sort of health care system as long as it has been put to a vote of that local population and all benefit from it equally, and people could opt out. Local government seems to allow for a lot more accountability.
Thanks for your response, Robert. I love you and your family, too. I appreciate the kindness and concern you have always shown.
In 1776 the Declaration of Independence boldly declared, "all men are created equal." Despite this we have chosen at times to deprive individuals of those inalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This has been done largely for monetary gain, as in the case of the southern slave holders.
Now we have entered a new era in our country, one where God has blessed us with some very amazing gifts and talents that allow us to reduce pain, suffering, and even death. As amazing a blessing as this is, it is being offered only to a particular subset of our population, for monetary gain. This to me is wrong.
As I said in one of my previous posts, (http://quietdonkey.blogspot.com/2009/03/capitalism-and-health-care.html) I believe very much in capitalism. I wish the private health insurance industry would begin to believe in it as well. Right now, they have allowed their version of taxes, monthly premiums, to expand to the point that they are as much as a mortgage for most Americans, and their employers. These premiums have doubled in the last eight years. One capitalistic practice they could employ would be to not allow themselves to be overcharged for goods and services. One example is the wheelchair that I bought. When I went into the store to get one I asked the salesman, how much is this wheelchair? He responded, and this is a direct quote, "If you buy it, it's $5,000. If your insurance company buys it, it's $10,000." Then they billed my insurance company $11,000+ for it. This happened because they knew that if my insurance company didn't buy it, the next guy's would. They know that insurance companies will fight to pay whatever he asks, so they don’t look like they are neglecting their patients. This is why if the insurance companies don't want us to go to a single-payer system in this country, they should take it upon themselves to unite and emulate a single payer system with a common “umbrella” group so we are not paying $11,000 for a $4000 wheelchair, or $5000 for a $1,000 colonoscopy, and etc., etc...
Now, back to the equality issue. When people are denied health insurance they are not denied health care, right? Not in the greatest country in the world. Wrong. I have insurance and when my insurance denied me on my doctor's orders to have an infusion to prevent disability and prolong life, I told the hospital to go ahead and bill me. They said they can't because of the high number of medical bankruptcies. I was denied both medical coverage and medical care. The truth is, you can't be denied medical care in this country if you are dying immediately or giving birth. Other than that, you have no protection. The infusion that my insurance company denied me was a $5,000 treatment and isn’t it ironic that they wouldn’t pay for that, but they gladly paid $6,000 too much for a wheelchair. Where is the logic in that? And I bet you thought a life was worth more than $5,000. Not in this country, not right now.
I would like to see the insurance companies take the higher road, myself. I would like to see them take the moral road. Right now they prefer profits over people and I can't stand for that. When you are purchasing health insurance they want to be the least expensive option, so you choose them. That is understandable. What is not, is the way they achieve their low rates. They are choosing to do this not by paying the correct amount for equipment and services, but by denying their paying customers the service that they are paying for.
I have some friends who have a form of genetic breast cancer in their family. They refuse to have their daughter checked for the gene because she would be labeled with a pre-existing condition and denied medical coverage and medical care for the rest of her life. This sort of nonsense doesn't happen in other countries. In America right now private insurance denial or death from exclusivity of private insurance has become the third leading cause of death, following only cancer and heart disease. Imagine if we could cure cancer, or heart disease, all the suffering we could prevent. We can’t right now, but we can and should cure the third leading killer.
I believe this is not right. I will never walk into a voting booth and vote for anyone who will deprive these God-given blessings to a brother or a sister of mine. If I did, I fear that at some point I would have to explain my decision. I find it ironic that some people in the history of this country have been very willing, to give their very lives for their fellow citizens, and yet now we see so many so unwilling to give so much less.
I hope in some way the fear of the government taking action will cause the insurance companies to do the right thing. It’s sad that they have to be forced. They may just need to have their feet held to the fire. I hope this is the case, for my loved ones and yours.
TOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT H.R. 676,
THE U.S. NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE ACT (The Physician’s Proposal)
1. Everybody In, Nobody Out. Universal means access to health care for everyone, period.
2. Portability. If you are unemployed, or lose or change jobs, your health coverage stays with you.
3. Uniform Benefits. No Cadillac plans for the wealthy and Pinto plans for everyone else, with high deductibles, limited services, caps on payments for care, and no protection in the event of a catastrophe. One level of comprehensive care for everyone, regardless of the size of your wallet.
4. Prevention. By removing financial roadblocks, a universal health system encourages preventive care that lowers an individual's ultimate cost and pain and suffering when problems are neglected and societal cost in the over-utilization of emergency rooms or the spread of communicable diseases.
5. Choice. Most private insurance restricts your choice of providers and hospitals. Under the U.S. National Health Insurance Act, patients have a choice, and the provider is assured a fair payment.
6. No Interference with Care. Caregivers and patients regain their autonomy to decide what's best for a patient's health, not what's dictated by the billing department. No denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions or cancellation of policies for "unreported" minor health problems.
7. Reducing Waste. One third of every private health insurance dollar goes for paperwork and profits, compared to about 3% under Medicare, the federal government's universal system for senior citizen healthcare.
8. Cost Savings. A guaranteed health care system can produce the cost savings needed to cover everyone, largely by using existing resources without the waste. Taiwan, shifting from a U.S. private health care model, adopted a similar system in 1995, boosting health coverage from 57% to 97% with little increase in overall health care spending.
9. Common Sense Budgeting. The public system sets fair reimbursements applied equally to all providers, private and public, while assuring that appropriate health care is delivered, and uses its clout to negotiate volume discounts for prescription drugs and medical equipment.
10. Public Oversight. The public sets the policies and administers the system, not high priced CEOs meeting in private and making decisions based on their company's stock performance needs.
Quiet Donkey,
You point out with living color clarity the holes in the current system. I agree that the greed is horrible. I still maintain that government subsidization of health care is a large part of the cause of higher medical costs as well as unethical insurance practices. Punitive damages for malpractice is another cause of the problems. Insurance fraud is yet another part of the problem.
True statesmen would be find a way to rally community support for those people that fall through the cracks and would benefit from true neighborly charity. True Statesmen would find a way to encourage insurers to take the moreal high ground or face public embarrassement. All this without a government program that taxes the citizenry.
It is unreasonable for people to expect that they will get the best quality of care available in the greatest country in the world. We can and should expect to get the best quality of care reasonally available.
We can't put a price on human life, yet I think our secularist government over-values mortality because of their absence of an eternal perspective. Often, short term mortal suffering is for our eternal benefit. Gods ways are not my ways and I don't pretend to understand all of them. I do believe that God in his mercy has revealed modern medicine even though mankind denies the godliness thereof. I believe that God wants us to use these blessings to the best of our abilities. Using government as the tool to provide health care is not the best of our abilities.
I am with you on the campaign for health care reform as long as it is not at the expense of liberty/agency.
If a man is compelled to do good, what does it profit him? Nothing. If a man does good of his own free will it will reap increased faith in Christ and eternal rewards.
Whenever I have asked a Canadian how they like their health care system I have received positive feedback. It's interesting though, because I have no shortage of acquaintances who know a friend, who has a brother, who used to have a veterinarian, who's mechanic had a great uncle who used to live up there and couldn't stand it. With that sort of fine evidence how could we ever follow Canada's example. I mean, really, the only evidence supporting the idea of moving to a single-payer system are peer-reviewed journals, ooooh, like we're ever going to pay attention to a peer-reviewed journal over my acquaintances, come on people don't be tricked by such tom-foolery!
Publicar un comentario