yikes, you advocate civil war? Because some of us want health care to be more accessible to everyone? Just because you have access to the health care you need, please do not forget many of us do not.
No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick.
Roy, you are right. Greed has brought us to where we are now with respect to healthcare. As a nation we pay more for healthcare than any other industrialized democracy on the planet. Healthcare costs account for 17 percent total gross national product. Compare that figure with France which spends only 11% of her GDP on healthcare. You would think that with that kind of outlay, Americans would be the healthiest people on the planet, wouldn't you? Yet, when you look at what we get for our money another sharply different picture emerges. Consider, these statistics compiled by the World Health Organization.
A. Healthy Life Expectancy:
1. Japan 74.5 yrs
2. Australia 73.2 yrs
3. France 73.1 yrs
4. Sweden 73.0 yrs
5. Spain 72.8 yrs
24. United States 70.0 yrs
B. Preventable Deaths (per 100,000 population)
1. France 65
2. Japan 71
2. Australia 71
4. Spain 74
4. Italy 74
14. United States 110
C. Infant Mortality (infant deaths per 1,000 live births)
the major problems I have and most of my friends have with the bho obamacare is that abortions are required coverage, which will force Catholic and other Christian hospitals and health care facilities to close. Catholic and other Christian hospitals and doctors have historically been on the forefront of service provided to those who can and cannot pay. This loss and the forced legislation of what to many (including myself) is murder on demand is a shameful thing and bodes no good.
THe promised 'stimulus' package has funded planned parenthood and to add forced abortions into further obamacare is not careful of the good of the country,in my opinion.
Hogwash, Kit. Another scare tactic and misinformation campaign pandered by special interests, i.e. big Pharma and insurance companies that will have to face real competition if healthcare reform goes forward. The real question you should ask yourself are you satisfied that we as a nation pays more for healthcare to get such a dismal return on investment as indicated by the statistics above?
Perhaps your fears will be somewhat eased by the knowledge that there are many good Catholic hospitals in France such as Hopital St Vincent de Paul in Paris.
Roy, I believe Oeno presented numbers that indicate we already have too many infant deaths. One reason is the lack of prenatal care affordable to pregnant women. yet another reason affordable health care and universal coverage is needed.
Kit- I know of no provision that would require all hospitals to provide abortions. Some of the proposals do require insurance coverage for the procedure. Pretty much everyone, including the late Senator Ted Kennedy and President Obama has stated that they do not support requiring health care PROVIDERS to violate their conscience on such things, to the best of my knowledge.
Further, most proposals I believe would require insurance abortion coverage to be funded by private dollars, in accordance with existing Federal law.
Roy, I believe Oeno presented numbers that indicate we already have too many infant deaths. One reason is the lack of prenatal care affordable to pregnant women. yet another reason affordable health care and universal coverage is needed.
Kit- I know of no provision that would require all hospitals to provide abortions. Some of the proposals do require insurance coverage for the procedure. Pretty much everyone, including the late Senator Ted Kennedy and President Obama has stated that they do not support requiring health care PROVIDERS to violate their conscience on such things, to the best of my knowledge.
Further, most proposals I believe would require insurance abortion coverage to be funded by private dollars, in accordance with existing Federal law.
Hap,
I think you are referring to the Hyde Amendment(s), which are provisions in appropriations bills that provide Federal funding for Medicaid. These provisions are not codified and so have to be passed with each year's appropriations bills. For example, in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, the language said:
SEC. 507. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for any abortion.
(b) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.
SEC. 508. (a) The limitations established in the preceding section shall not apply to an abortion—
(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or
(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.
(b) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as prohibiting the expenditure by a State, locality, entity, or private person of State, local, or private funds (other than a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching funds).
(d)(1) None of the funds made available in this Act may be made available to a Federal agency or program, or to a State or local government, if such agency, program, or government subjects any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
(2) In this subsection, the term ''health care entity'' includes an individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.
The key point to remember is that this is within an annual appropriations act and it must be passed each and every year. For the pro-choice among us, that should be considered good news. For the pro-life among us, that should be very worrisome.
In regards to the Hyde Amendment's implementation, it primarily referred to Medicaid funding. It specifically did not cover military medicine, VA medicine, or Medicare, nor did it include Federal Employee Health Insurance.
As to HR 3200, there is no specific mention of abortion. There is neither a mandate for it nor is there a prohibition for coverage.
For the pro-life among us, here are the concerns in that bill (I haven't seen a Senate Bill introduced yet and so can't comment on it. I won't waste my time looking through an informal committee markup):
For a person to be considered to have health insurance (for the purposes of this law), the insurance plan held by the individual must be a "Qualified Health Benefit Plan"
The decision on what procedures are and are not covered is not a matter of statute. The decision will be made by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Kathleen Sebelius) (See sec 124 of the bill). Her decision on coverage is the minimum coverage required.
In other words, it will be up to Kathleen Sebelius (I'm quoting that name to make Kit cringe ) whether abortion is considered a service that must be covered by a Qualified Health Benefit Plan or not.
So what?
Companies or non-profit organizations (for example the Catholic Diocese of Las Vegas or the Catholic Diocese of Reno) will have to provide their employees with health coverage or pay a 8% "contribution" to the government if they don't do so. (See Section 313). The plans offered by an employer must be Qualified Health Benefits Plans (See section 311 and review the above to show what must be covered), otherwise, for the purposes of this law, the employer isn't offering health coverage.
If a person is not covered by an employer-provided Qualified Health Benefits Plan, the employee must participate in the Health Insurance Exchange (See Title II, in whole). If the person doesn't wish to participate in the Health Insurance Exchange, then that person will pay a "contribution" to the government (Section 401). That fine is 2.5% of the difference between the person's Adjusted Gross Income and the minimum amount where a person would have to file an income tax return (I know, the formula is a pain in the butt).
Here's the rub: a person who participates in the Health Insurance Exchange does not automatically have a cost-share, like what happens with employer-based health coverage. Typically, the employer will pay 75% and the employee will pay 25% (or some other proportion). So, rather than paying $3,000 - $4,000 per year for family health coverage, as it is now, a person in the Health Insurance Exchange will be liable to pay the full $12,000 to $14,000 per year.
In order to "help," Congress has a provision in the bill to provide "Affordable Premium Credits" (Section 243). What this does is provide a federal subsidy to help low to moderate income families pay their premiums. It is done on a sliding scale based upon family adjusted gross income. For a family making 200% of the poverty rate, that means that the government will provide a credit to make sure that coverage does not exceed 7% of that family's Adjusted Gross Income. On the other hand, if a family makes 400% of the poverty rate, that means that the government will provide a credit to make sure that coverage does not exceed 11% of that family's income. (See sec 243(d)(1) ).
There is no provision in this bill to have these federal subsidies segregated to make sure federal monies are not used by plans in the Health Insurance Exchange to provide abortions.
So, from a pro-life perspective, there are three issues:
IF abortion coverage is mandated as a requirement, through regulation, for a "Qualfied Health Benefits Plan," employers will be required to provide that coverage for their employees, even in situations where abortion coverage is anathema to those employers (for example, the Catholic Church) unless the employer opts out of providing coverage for his employees. In which case, the 8% "contribution" will be used to provide abortion coverage via the "Health Insurance Exchange."
IF abortion coverage is mandated as a requirement, through regulation, for a "Qualfied Health Benefits Plan," participants in Health Insurance Exchange plans will have no choice but to participate in a plan that has abortion coverage (whether they, themselves, use it or not is besides the point, their money will go toward providing abortions)
IF abortion coverage is mandated as a requirement, through regulation, for a "Qualfied Health Benefits Plan," tax money will be used, through the "Affordable Premium Credit," to pay for abortions
From a pro-life perspective, respect for life includes not only a prohibition of women receiving abortions and men pressuring women into having abortions, but also includes providing material support for abortions to occur.
As to hospitals being required to perform abortions, that, too will be a part of the regulatory process. There are quality control provisions in this bill that impact how well providers implement the provisions of the bill. DEPENDING UPON HOW THE REGULATIONS ARE WRITTEN, that could provide a tremendous amount of pressure on hospitals to provide required services, including abortion services and on physicians to provide those services as well (in order to keep qualification to receive insurance payments). But the important thing to remember is that this bill calls on reams and reams of regulations to be written, none of which will be overridable by the Congress, even if they were so inclined.
What would make pro-lifers far more sanguine (even those who would otherwise not object to this bill...unlike me) is if abortion funding was explicitly prohibited and if conscience clauses were explicitly included protecting doctors and hospitals. But neither will happen and you know it.
I have a question for anyone here who is anti-choice here on abortions.
The normal procedure for an abortion is called a D&C (Dilation and Curettage). This procedure is done for other reasons, though. Unfortunately, in my wife's first pregnancy we suffered a miscarriage. As a result, the doctor had to perform this procedure. The procedure would have been the same had the baby been alive (as in an abortion), or dead (as in a miscarriage), so whether the doctors plan to perform abortions or not, they need to know this procedure if they are an OBGYN.
Now let's take it another step forward, what if a test is done, and they find that the baby will miscarry or will not live more than a few days at most because of some horrific, extremely painful disease? If, like me, you are not a fan of human suffering, you may want to abort a foetus with a condition like that before it ends up suffering too much. Would it be ok for a doctor to abort then? Should a mercy "abortion" like this be covered by insurance, whether private or government-run?
Let's look at it another way too. The "day after" pill is used to basically kill a fertilized egg. If you believe that it is a human being at conception, why not prohibit the sale of this pill? Of course, this is just a higher dose of other birth control hormones, so even they could be banned under the belief that it's a human being at fertilization. Would you ban birth control too?
The thing is, there is no neat answer to the questions surrounding abortion. Most of us, including us pro-choice folks, are not comfortable with late term abortions except in extreme circumstances. However, the further back you go, the more people go towards the "pro-choice" side. Rather than being a binary, "for or against abortion" debate, there are really a wide range of issues to discuss. However, politicians always use it to their advantage. The minute a politician wants to give free condoms or birth control to someone, he's labeled a "socialist eugenicist" or a "baby killer" by extremist anti-choice people. The problem is that the extremists are the ones controlling the debate on the abortion issue. In reality, most of us are both for and against it, depending on the time frame.
So the question is, what procedures, under what conditions, at what time, should be allowed? Should Catholic hospitals be required to provide emergency birth control to rape victims? Should religious hospitals be allowed to not have doctors on staff that can perform a D&C just in case they might accidentally perform an abortion? This isn't about the debate over who pays for the healthcare, this is about how care is regulated. Whether the government pays for it or we pay for it, these questions need answers.
The abortion issue is like one of those handy-dandy screwdrivers that can do 16 different jobs. When people get close enough to a particular issue to begin to understand it, simply bring out the trusty 16AS tool and dissemble it (the issue) beyond the point of recognition.
I'm not anti-choice, I'm pro-life, but I'll take a stab at your question.
First of all, there is nothing particularly good or evil about the D&C procedure, in of itself. My wife and my first child died while in her womb; she had a D&C done after it was determined that the baby was no longer alive. The baby would have eventually been expelled anyway.
As to the second example (a severely malformed or diseased baby), let me reframe the question:
Would it be morally licit to kill a patient who was ravaged with cancer and only had a few days left? Please note: I am not asking if it would be OK to allow the patient to kill himself, nor am I asking if it would be OK for a doctor to do the deed if the patient asked for it. I am asking if it would be OK for the doctor to do so of his own volition
Alternatively, in the absence of a clear directive or proxy by the patient, would it be morally licit for a doctor to let a trauma victim go because the trauma victim might wake up a paraplegic?
There are a couple of us on GSC who might posit that these two situations would be morally licit, but I don't think that the majority would. Since I consider the baby to be alive from the moment of fertilization, I don't see that there is morally much difference between killing a baby for therapeutic reasons and killing an adult for therapeutic reasons.
As far as the "plan b" drug, I, for one, would not allow it to be used, nor would I allow hormonal contraceptives or IUDs to be used for the reasons that you state. I am morally opposed to the use of birth control, but I would not be in favor of banning "barrier type" or "spermicidal" contraceptives, though, because I would think that banning those types of contraceptives would be imposing my specific religion upon others. If you ask why banning barrier or spermicidal contraceptives would impose my religion upon somebody else, while banning hormonal contraceptives or IUDs would not be doing the same thing, my answer would be that once a life is created, the natural moral law applies ... and that is something that should be discernable regardless of one's religion or not (the same as banning murder and theft is not imposing Judaism, Islam, or Christianity on somebody)
Should Catholic hospitals be allowed to provide "plan b" to rape victims? If the chemicals are legal, then they should be allowed to do so by the state. But the state should not impose itself on Catholic hospitals, Baptist hospitals, or Muslim hospitals to mandate its use. By the way, we've run into situations where a Catholic hospital has decided to disassociate itself with the Church because of a disagreement on these matters. And, as long as its board of trustees does not try to play both sides of the fence (let folks think it is a Catholic hospital while at the same time performing abortions), I don't really have much of a problem with such a decision.
(Well, any more of a problem than I have with any hospital performing abortions in the first place, that is)
The same holds true with abortion or any other procedure.
What would make pro-lifers far more sanguine (even those who would otherwise not object to this bill...unlike me) is if abortion funding was explicitly prohibited and if conscience clauses were explicitly included protecting doctors and hospitals. But neither will happen and you know it.
Mark- I certainly do not KNOW for certain about whether either of those clauses will be explicitly included. If I were to hazard a guess however, I think conscience clauses should and WILL be explicitly included as logical compromises. No health care provider should be required to provide end of life counseling or procedures, whether near the beginning of life or towards the end. Other providers can and should give such counseling and services to patients seeking them.
I do think that insurance coverage should include these, but you raise a good argument then about the coverage provided to employees of firms who oppose such procedures. I will have to ponder that.
In other words, on this issue, I understand the concerns you and Kit express especially regarding Catholic principles. I was initially only meaning to address Kit's comment about requiring hospitals to provide abortion procedures, and I very much doubt such a requirement has a chance of being included or that Catholic Hospitals will be forced to close. One reason is the political reality of the administration needing the support of a group who otherwise has a general conceptual support for the reforms. Of course that conceptual support still has a long list of specifics that must be considered before it comes to agreement.
Mark- I certainly do not KNOW for certain about whether either of those clauses will be explicitly included. If I were to hazard a guess however, I think conscience clauses should and WILL be explicitly included as logical compromises. No health care provider should be required to provide end of life counseling or procedures, whether near the beginning of life or towards the end. Other providers can and should give such counseling and services to patients seeking them.
Hap, none of us know whether or not any measure is going to be in the bill signed by the President. And we won't until the last second. What will happen is that the House will pass their version and the Senate will pass theirs. Then they will form a bicameral reconciliation committee who will meet behind closed doors and craft one bill that must be passed by both houses without alteration...just an up and down vote. If that reconciled bill passes, it will go to the Presdient for signature. We won't know the content of the reconciliation committee bill until probably hours before votes are called on both the House and Senate floors. Frankly, it could be dramatically different than either the House or Senate versions.
We agree on conscience clauses. I wish more on your side would accept that common-sense provision.
I do think that insurance coverage should include these, but you raise a good argument then about the coverage provided to employees of firms who oppose such procedures. I will have to ponder that.
In other words, on this issue, I understand the concerns you and Kit express especially regarding Catholic principles. I was initially only meaning to address Kit's comment about requiring hospitals to provide abortion procedures, and I very much doubt such a requirement has a chance of being included or that Catholic Hospitals will be forced to close. One reason is the political reality of the administration needing the support of a group who otherwise has a general conceptual support for the reforms. Of course that conceptual support still has a long list of specifics that must be considered before it comes to agreement.
~HAP
Well, consider this: In 2006, the Massachusetts Legislature passed a law mandating that adoption services must attempt to place children with homosexual adoptive parents (i.e., the adoption service could not consider a couples' sexual orientation in making a placement recommendation). There was no explicit exemption for religiously-oriented adoption services, like Catholic Charities. Naturally, placing a child with a homosexual couple goes against the teaching of the Catholic Church. Whether you agree with it or not, it does (not up for debate). When regulators finished implementing that law, Catholic Charities of Boston was faced with a choice: go against Church teaching or shut down. According to this Boston Globe article, they decided the latter.
Am I saying that this guarantees that Catholic hospitals will close down? No. But they might have to stop calling themselves "Catholic" if they did start allowing it. The decision would likely belong to the board of trustees who exercise control over the individual hospital or hospital system. A hospital that was directly a function of the local diocese would, undoubtedly, shut down before being forced to perform abortions, but I don't know how many of those there are any more.
Mark- I am aware of the bill process, but thanks for explaining it for anyone who might not be familiar with this time honored system. You propounded that I knew stuff would not be in the bill I explained I did not, and, in fact expect part of it to be included. Peace.
I think more of us agree on "conscience clauses" than you might think, at least here in CO (a curious mix of left and right, faith and faithless, causes we have here)
Crazy stuff going on with my computer...I don't get all the posts until I reply...???
Anyway, this is not about healthcare or insurance companies in the US, BUT about the lifestyles of the countries in Oenophile's post. Thanks, Oenophile it got my chef thinging going....
The everyday life habits of Japan, France, Iceland, Australia and all mentioned are vewwy intewesting.
Because of their life habits they are healthier people. Thus, less is spent on health care. Their life habits is their health care.
The everyday diets of Europeans and Asians consist of what we Americans are warned not to eat...rice, pasta, meats, fried foods, butter, oils, and meat. Check out French Provencal cooking amongst the many other cooking habits of those countries mentioned. Other parts of the world don't eat garbage like we do. One interesting point is they don't consume sugar like we do. They grow and make what they eat for the most part. They exercise. They walk, they bicycle and then they walk and bicycle some more, just to get from one place to another. They don't drive to Mickie D's for lunch and then pick up KFC for the family dinner and then settle down in front of the boob tube.
They don't hog out when they eat. I have a friend from Iceland. We were talking about food portions with another friend of mine and her husband who lived in Scotland for many years. He said in Iceland he and two other friends go out to a pub for lunch. They order lunch. No menu. You get what is for lunch. It was a sausage about 8 inches, 3 potatoes and a chunk of bread. That was split between the three of them.
Friends from Scotland said Europeans would be shocked by the mega bars we have here. Friends from India are the healthiest folks I know.
Crazy stuff going on with my computer...I don't get all the posts until I reply...???
Anyway, this is not about healthcare or insurance companies in the US, BUT about the lifestyles of the countries in Oenophile's post. Thanks, Oenophile it got my chef thinging going....
The everyday life habits of Japan, France, Iceland, Australia and all mentioned are vewwy intewesting.
Because of their life habits they are healthier people. Thus, less is spent on health care. Their life habits is their health care.
The everyday diets of Europeans and Asians consist of what we Americans are warned not to eat...rice, pasta, meats, fried foods, butter, oils, and meat. Check out French Provencal cooking amongst the many other cooking habits of those countries mentioned. Other parts of the world don't eat garbage like we do. One interesting point is they don't consume sugar like we do. They grow and make what they eat for the most part. They exercise. They walk, they bicycle and then they walk and bicycle some more, just to get from one place to another. They don't drive to Mickie D's for lunch and then pick up KFC for the family dinner and then settle down in front of the boob tube.
They don't hog out when they eat. I have a friend from Iceland. We were talking about food portions with another friend of mine and her husband who lived in Scotland for many years. He said in Iceland he and two other friends go out to a pub for lunch. They order lunch. No menu. You get what is for lunch. It was a sausage about 8 inches, 3 potatoes and a chunk of bread. That was split between the three of them.
Friends from Scotland said Europeans would be shocked by the mega bars we have here. Friends from India are the healthiest folks I know.
There is a HUGE cultural difference between other countries and the US. I lived in Europe for 9 years (while stationed over there) -- I saw those differences first hand.
There is no amount of law that can turn us into Europe, no matter how much a politician wants to do so. If, for no other reason, geography. This is changing somewhat, but traditionally, Europeans live in clusters (to include farmers). Whether those clusters are cities, towns, or farming villages. They might own land, upon which they could farm, but it is highly unusual to see a home placed on 5-6 acres of land (the exception being a baron or the like). Urban sprawl, like what we have in this country and have had since WWII, is a very recent phenomenon in most parts of the world. The clustered nature of living as they do allowed for the development of really effective mass transit systems...thus encouraging walking. The idea of park-and-ride is a fairly unique American attempt and, at least when I lived over in Europe, was unheard of (if you're going to drive to work, you just drive to work. If you're going to take transit, you take transit). So to adopt the walking culture like you accurately point out exists over there, we would really-and-truly have to change our culture to live in far denser housing in relatively self-contained clusters.
One other thing is that Europeans are, even today, a lot more classist than they are over in this country. For example, at least up through the 80s in Germany, a person's class for life would basically be determined for them by the time they were in 5th grade. It would be at that time that they would be tracked into a college-preparatory curriculum, or schooling that would prepare them to enter a skilled trade or the arts, or a "practical" education that would prepare them to be a laborer. I don't know if that is the situation any more or not. When I lived in Italy, the situation was pretty much the same. I also understand that there is education tracking in the UK, as well (but I'm not sure exactly how it works over there). So it would be pre-determined whether or not you could go to college or not at an early age. For the most part, at that time, people lived within their class. As a result, the concept of "climbing" as we have over here and have had for ages, particularly since the 60s, did not exist (though I recognize that this has been changing in recent decades, as well).
Food choices that we have as part of the American culture didn't really exist over in Europe because there wasn't the time pressure brought on by the idea of social climbing (with the extra hours and dual income families), along with transit times to take people out to the suburbs.
In other words, to change our food and exercise habits, we would really need to make organic, integral changes in our entire culture. I don't see that happening any time soon. And I don't see it as something that will be forced by politicians, bureaucrats, or anthropologists.
Over ten years ago CBS 60 minutes did a segment entitled "The French Paradox." It focused on the differences of lifestyle French and Americans with noted the paradox of the French engage in riskier behaviors linked to heart disease than do Americans, yet they are much less likely to develop or die from coronary disease. They smoke more, eat more fatty foods and even tend to be a little more overweight. But they also drink five times more red wine than Americans.
Studies have shown that red wine contains a powerful antioxidant reservatrol, which has been shown in studies to increase good cholesterol (HDL) while reducing bad (LDL). Not only that it has been shown to reduce the risk of certain cancers, rheumatoid arthritis and delays the onset of dementia.
A votre sante.
With that said, they only spend about 11% of their GDP on healthcare compared to our 17% and have far better outcomes. France usually ranks in the top five nations in health indices such as healthy life expectancy and lowest preventable deaths per 100,000 population. France experiences half the rate of infant mortality than does the USA which is an index closely tied to the availability of pre-natal care.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
6
22
5
14
Popular Days
Sep 7
11
Sep 8
11
Sep 6
9
Sep 10
9
Top Posters In This Topic
HAPe4me 6 posts
year2027 22 posts
Mister P-Mosh 5 posts
markomalley 14 posts
Popular Days
Sep 7 2009
11 posts
Sep 8 2009
11 posts
Sep 6 2009
9 posts
Sep 10 2009
9 posts
Popular Posts
HAPe4me
Roy- I hope you watch shows other than Fox now and then. It is amazing the different ideas that are on other networks.
oenophile
Hogwash, Kit. Another scare tactic and misinformation campaign pandered by special interests, i.e. big Pharma and insurance companies that will have to face real competition if healthcare reform goes
Mister P-Mosh
Mark, you may not have knowledge of UK newspapers, but the Daily Mail is a UFO loving tabloid and has been sued numerous times for libel and such. They are on the same level as the National Enquirer.
HAPe4me
yikes, you advocate civil war? Because some of us want health care to be more accessible to everyone? Just because you have access to the health care you need, please do not forget many of us do not.
No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick.
Edited by HAPe4meLink to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
hi HAPe4me
I want health care too but at price Obama has put on it
is too much
a bill does have to be 1,000 pages
i think that greed has got into the bill and we will only go broke if we try it
but cut the bill into small parts about one paragraph then begin again
our government been greedy to long
if big business was not over sea's there would be job here
and the problem would not be here at all
and yes it can get worse
and it will
love Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Roy, you are right. Greed has brought us to where we are now with respect to healthcare. As a nation we pay more for healthcare than any other industrialized democracy on the planet. Healthcare costs account for 17 percent total gross national product. Compare that figure with France which spends only 11% of her GDP on healthcare. You would think that with that kind of outlay, Americans would be the healthiest people on the planet, wouldn't you? Yet, when you look at what we get for our money another sharply different picture emerges. Consider, these statistics compiled by the World Health Organization.
A. Healthy Life Expectancy:
1. Japan 74.5 yrs
2. Australia 73.2 yrs
3. France 73.1 yrs
4. Sweden 73.0 yrs
5. Spain 72.8 yrs
24. United States 70.0 yrs
B. Preventable Deaths (per 100,000 population)
1. France 65
2. Japan 71
2. Australia 71
4. Spain 74
4. Italy 74
14. United States 110
C. Infant Mortality (infant deaths per 1,000 live births)
1. Iceland 2.9
2. Singapore 3.0
3. Japan 3.2
4. Sweden 3.2
5. Norway 3.3
33. United States 6.3
What do you think about them apples?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kit Sober
the major problems I have and most of my friends have with the bho obamacare is that abortions are required coverage, which will force Catholic and other Christian hospitals and health care facilities to close. Catholic and other Christian hospitals and doctors have historically been on the forefront of service provided to those who can and cannot pay. This loss and the forced legislation of what to many (including myself) is murder on demand is a shameful thing and bodes no good.
THe promised 'stimulus' package has funded planned parenthood and to add forced abortions into further obamacare is not careful of the good of the country,in my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
hi oenophile
they are bad my friend
and only we can talk about it more little by little
change some things and leave some alone
love Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
hi Kit Sober
yes I can see that as something to be talk about
does life begin in the womb or X weeks after it been conceive
I think life begin the second it has been conceive
the baby knows to be a human not a dog
i can see these as a something needs to be debated
we will see I guess
love Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Hogwash, Kit. Another scare tactic and misinformation campaign pandered by special interests, i.e. big Pharma and insurance companies that will have to face real competition if healthcare reform goes forward. The real question you should ask yourself are you satisfied that we as a nation pays more for healthcare to get such a dismal return on investment as indicated by the statistics above?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Kit,
Perhaps your fears will be somewhat eased by the knowledge that there are many good Catholic hospitals in France such as Hopital St Vincent de Paul in Paris.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
hi oenophile
are you saying we should kill babies
because is something that should talk about
just the amount that we have
lets get every thing right then see what the live birth are
love Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
Roy, I believe Oeno presented numbers that indicate we already have too many infant deaths. One reason is the lack of prenatal care affordable to pregnant women. yet another reason affordable health care and universal coverage is needed.
Kit- I know of no provision that would require all hospitals to provide abortions. Some of the proposals do require insurance coverage for the procedure. Pretty much everyone, including the late Senator Ted Kennedy and President Obama has stated that they do not support requiring health care PROVIDERS to violate their conscience on such things, to the best of my knowledge.
Further, most proposals I believe would require insurance abortion coverage to be funded by private dollars, in accordance with existing Federal law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
hi HAPe4me
yes number is high but how high would be if abortion was outlawed
a matter that needs covering but it the reason I am against health right now
I think is cost to must
but we can be make it fit in our budit
I hope so
but right it not happening
love Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Hap,
I think you are referring to the Hyde Amendment(s), which are provisions in appropriations bills that provide Federal funding for Medicaid. These provisions are not codified and so have to be passed with each year's appropriations bills. For example, in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, the language said:
The key point to remember is that this is within an annual appropriations act and it must be passed each and every year. For the pro-choice among us, that should be considered good news. For the pro-life among us, that should be very worrisome.
In regards to the Hyde Amendment's implementation, it primarily referred to Medicaid funding. It specifically did not cover military medicine, VA medicine, or Medicare, nor did it include Federal Employee Health Insurance.
As to HR 3200, there is no specific mention of abortion. There is neither a mandate for it nor is there a prohibition for coverage.
For the pro-life among us, here are the concerns in that bill (I haven't seen a Senate Bill introduced yet and so can't comment on it. I won't waste my time looking through an informal committee markup):
In other words, it will be up to Kathleen Sebelius (I'm quoting that name to make Kit cringe
) whether abortion is considered a service that must be covered by a Qualified Health Benefit Plan or not.
So what?
Companies or non-profit organizations (for example the Catholic Diocese of Las Vegas or the Catholic Diocese of Reno) will have to provide their employees with health coverage or pay a 8% "contribution" to the government if they don't do so. (See Section 313). The plans offered by an employer must be Qualified Health Benefits Plans (See section 311 and review the above to show what must be covered), otherwise, for the purposes of this law, the employer isn't offering health coverage.
If a person is not covered by an employer-provided Qualified Health Benefits Plan, the employee must participate in the Health Insurance Exchange (See Title II, in whole). If the person doesn't wish to participate in the Health Insurance Exchange, then that person will pay a "contribution" to the government (Section 401). That fine is 2.5% of the difference between the person's Adjusted Gross Income and the minimum amount where a person would have to file an income tax return (I know, the formula is a pain in the butt).
Here's the rub: a person who participates in the Health Insurance Exchange does not automatically have a cost-share, like what happens with employer-based health coverage. Typically, the employer will pay 75% and the employee will pay 25% (or some other proportion). So, rather than paying $3,000 - $4,000 per year for family health coverage, as it is now, a person in the Health Insurance Exchange will be liable to pay the full $12,000 to $14,000 per year.
In order to "help," Congress has a provision in the bill to provide "Affordable Premium Credits" (Section 243). What this does is provide a federal subsidy to help low to moderate income families pay their premiums. It is done on a sliding scale based upon family adjusted gross income. For a family making 200% of the poverty rate, that means that the government will provide a credit to make sure that coverage does not exceed 7% of that family's Adjusted Gross Income. On the other hand, if a family makes 400% of the poverty rate, that means that the government will provide a credit to make sure that coverage does not exceed 11% of that family's income. (See sec 243(d)(1) ).
There is no provision in this bill to have these federal subsidies segregated to make sure federal monies are not used by plans in the Health Insurance Exchange to provide abortions.
So, from a pro-life perspective, there are three issues:
From a pro-life perspective, respect for life includes not only a prohibition of women receiving abortions and men pressuring women into having abortions, but also includes providing material support for abortions to occur.
As to hospitals being required to perform abortions, that, too will be a part of the regulatory process. There are quality control provisions in this bill that impact how well providers implement the provisions of the bill. DEPENDING UPON HOW THE REGULATIONS ARE WRITTEN, that could provide a tremendous amount of pressure on hospitals to provide required services, including abortion services and on physicians to provide those services as well (in order to keep qualification to receive insurance payments). But the important thing to remember is that this bill calls on reams and reams of regulations to be written, none of which will be overridable by the Congress, even if they were so inclined.
What would make pro-lifers far more sanguine (even those who would otherwise not object to this bill...unlike me) is if abortion funding was explicitly prohibited and if conscience clauses were explicitly included protecting doctors and hospitals. But neither will happen and you know it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
hi markomalley
thank you
I enjoy that read I learn a lot
love Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I have a question for anyone here who is anti-choice here on abortions.
The normal procedure for an abortion is called a D&C (Dilation and Curettage). This procedure is done for other reasons, though. Unfortunately, in my wife's first pregnancy we suffered a miscarriage. As a result, the doctor had to perform this procedure. The procedure would have been the same had the baby been alive (as in an abortion), or dead (as in a miscarriage), so whether the doctors plan to perform abortions or not, they need to know this procedure if they are an OBGYN.
Now let's take it another step forward, what if a test is done, and they find that the baby will miscarry or will not live more than a few days at most because of some horrific, extremely painful disease? If, like me, you are not a fan of human suffering, you may want to abort a foetus with a condition like that before it ends up suffering too much. Would it be ok for a doctor to abort then? Should a mercy "abortion" like this be covered by insurance, whether private or government-run?
Let's look at it another way too. The "day after" pill is used to basically kill a fertilized egg. If you believe that it is a human being at conception, why not prohibit the sale of this pill? Of course, this is just a higher dose of other birth control hormones, so even they could be banned under the belief that it's a human being at fertilization. Would you ban birth control too?
The thing is, there is no neat answer to the questions surrounding abortion. Most of us, including us pro-choice folks, are not comfortable with late term abortions except in extreme circumstances. However, the further back you go, the more people go towards the "pro-choice" side. Rather than being a binary, "for or against abortion" debate, there are really a wide range of issues to discuss. However, politicians always use it to their advantage. The minute a politician wants to give free condoms or birth control to someone, he's labeled a "socialist eugenicist" or a "baby killer" by extremist anti-choice people. The problem is that the extremists are the ones controlling the debate on the abortion issue. In reality, most of us are both for and against it, depending on the time frame.
So the question is, what procedures, under what conditions, at what time, should be allowed? Should Catholic hospitals be required to provide emergency birth control to rape victims? Should religious hospitals be allowed to not have doctors on staff that can perform a D&C just in case they might accidentally perform an abortion? This isn't about the debate over who pays for the healthcare, this is about how care is regulated. Whether the government pays for it or we pay for it, these questions need answers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The abortion issue is like one of those handy-dandy screwdrivers that can do 16 different jobs. When people get close enough to a particular issue to begin to understand it, simply bring out the trusty 16AS tool and dissemble it (the issue) beyond the point of recognition.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I'm not anti-choice, I'm pro-life, but I'll take a stab at your question.
First of all, there is nothing particularly good or evil about the D&C procedure, in of itself. My wife and my first child died while in her womb; she had a D&C done after it was determined that the baby was no longer alive. The baby would have eventually been expelled anyway.
As to the second example (a severely malformed or diseased baby), let me reframe the question:
There are a couple of us on GSC who might posit that these two situations would be morally licit, but I don't think that the majority would. Since I consider the baby to be alive from the moment of fertilization, I don't see that there is morally much difference between killing a baby for therapeutic reasons and killing an adult for therapeutic reasons.
As far as the "plan b" drug, I, for one, would not allow it to be used, nor would I allow hormonal contraceptives or IUDs to be used for the reasons that you state. I am morally opposed to the use of birth control, but I would not be in favor of banning "barrier type" or "spermicidal" contraceptives, though, because I would think that banning those types of contraceptives would be imposing my specific religion upon others. If you ask why banning barrier or spermicidal contraceptives would impose my religion upon somebody else, while banning hormonal contraceptives or IUDs would not be doing the same thing, my answer would be that once a life is created, the natural moral law applies ... and that is something that should be discernable regardless of one's religion or not (the same as banning murder and theft is not imposing Judaism, Islam, or Christianity on somebody)
Should Catholic hospitals be allowed to provide "plan b" to rape victims? If the chemicals are legal, then they should be allowed to do so by the state. But the state should not impose itself on Catholic hospitals, Baptist hospitals, or Muslim hospitals to mandate its use. By the way, we've run into situations where a Catholic hospital has decided to disassociate itself with the Church because of a disagreement on these matters. And, as long as its board of trustees does not try to play both sides of the fence (let folks think it is a Catholic hospital while at the same time performing abortions), I don't really have much of a problem with such a decision.
(Well, any more of a problem than I have with any hospital performing abortions in the first place, that is)
The same holds true with abortion or any other procedure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
Mark- I certainly do not KNOW for certain about whether either of those clauses will be explicitly included. If I were to hazard a guess however, I think conscience clauses should and WILL be explicitly included as logical compromises. No health care provider should be required to provide end of life counseling or procedures, whether near the beginning of life or towards the end. Other providers can and should give such counseling and services to patients seeking them.
I do think that insurance coverage should include these, but you raise a good argument then about the coverage provided to employees of firms who oppose such procedures. I will have to ponder that.
In other words, on this issue, I understand the concerns you and Kit express especially regarding Catholic principles. I was initially only meaning to address Kit's comment about requiring hospitals to provide abortion procedures, and I very much doubt such a requirement has a chance of being included or that Catholic Hospitals will be forced to close. One reason is the political reality of the administration needing the support of a group who otherwise has a general conceptual support for the reforms. Of course that conceptual support still has a long list of specifics that must be considered before it comes to agreement.
~HAP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Hap, none of us know whether or not any measure is going to be in the bill signed by the President. And we won't until the last second. What will happen is that the House will pass their version and the Senate will pass theirs. Then they will form a bicameral reconciliation committee who will meet behind closed doors and craft one bill that must be passed by both houses without alteration...just an up and down vote. If that reconciled bill passes, it will go to the Presdient for signature. We won't know the content of the reconciliation committee bill until probably hours before votes are called on both the House and Senate floors. Frankly, it could be dramatically different than either the House or Senate versions.
We agree on conscience clauses. I wish more on your side would accept that common-sense provision.
Well, consider this: In 2006, the Massachusetts Legislature passed a law mandating that adoption services must attempt to place children with homosexual adoptive parents (i.e., the adoption service could not consider a couples' sexual orientation in making a placement recommendation). There was no explicit exemption for religiously-oriented adoption services, like Catholic Charities. Naturally, placing a child with a homosexual couple goes against the teaching of the Catholic Church. Whether you agree with it or not, it does (not up for debate). When regulators finished implementing that law, Catholic Charities of Boston was faced with a choice: go against Church teaching or shut down. According to this Boston Globe article, they decided the latter.
Am I saying that this guarantees that Catholic hospitals will close down? No. But they might have to stop calling themselves "Catholic" if they did start allowing it. The decision would likely belong to the board of trustees who exercise control over the individual hospital or hospital system. A hospital that was directly a function of the local diocese would, undoubtedly, shut down before being forced to perform abortions, but I don't know how many of those there are any more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Hi Mister P-Mos and waysider and markomalley and HAPe4me
Mister P-Mos - I am glad you ask but I am not able to give a answer but I hope someone can
waysider -- you think but not me
markomalley -- I just not know enough but thanks to markomalley I am learning
HAPe4me -- yes end of life counseling should My choice no other
love Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
Mark- I am aware of the bill process, but thanks for explaining it for anyone who might not be familiar with this time honored system. You propounded that I knew stuff would not be in the bill I explained I did not, and, in fact expect part of it to be included. Peace.
I think more of us agree on "conscience clauses" than you might think, at least here in CO (a curious mix of left and right, faith and faithless, causes we have here)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kimberly
Crazy stuff going on with my computer...I don't get all the posts until I reply...???
Anyway, this is not about healthcare or insurance companies in the US, BUT about the lifestyles of the countries in Oenophile's post. Thanks, Oenophile it got my chef thinging going....
The everyday life habits of Japan, France, Iceland, Australia and all mentioned are vewwy intewesting.
Because of their life habits they are healthier people. Thus, less is spent on health care. Their life habits is their health care.
The everyday diets of Europeans and Asians consist of what we Americans are warned not to eat...rice, pasta, meats, fried foods, butter, oils, and meat. Check out French Provencal cooking amongst the many other cooking habits of those countries mentioned. Other parts of the world don't eat garbage like we do. One interesting point is they don't consume sugar like we do. They grow and make what they eat for the most part. They exercise. They walk, they bicycle and then they walk and bicycle some more, just to get from one place to another. They don't drive to Mickie D's for lunch and then pick up KFC for the family dinner and then settle down in front of the boob tube.
They don't hog out when they eat. I have a friend from Iceland. We were talking about food portions with another friend of mine and her husband who lived in Scotland for many years. He said in Iceland he and two other friends go out to a pub for lunch. They order lunch. No menu. You get what is for lunch. It was a sausage about 8 inches, 3 potatoes and a chunk of bread. That was split between the three of them.
Friends from Scotland said Europeans would be shocked by the mega bars we have here. Friends from India are the healthiest folks I know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
hi HAPe4m and kimberly
I wish we could eat healthier
it would good for me
love Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
There is a HUGE cultural difference between other countries and the US. I lived in Europe for 9 years (while stationed over there) -- I saw those differences first hand.
There is no amount of law that can turn us into Europe, no matter how much a politician wants to do so. If, for no other reason, geography. This is changing somewhat, but traditionally, Europeans live in clusters (to include farmers). Whether those clusters are cities, towns, or farming villages. They might own land, upon which they could farm, but it is highly unusual to see a home placed on 5-6 acres of land (the exception being a baron or the like). Urban sprawl, like what we have in this country and have had since WWII, is a very recent phenomenon in most parts of the world. The clustered nature of living as they do allowed for the development of really effective mass transit systems...thus encouraging walking. The idea of park-and-ride is a fairly unique American attempt and, at least when I lived over in Europe, was unheard of (if you're going to drive to work, you just drive to work. If you're going to take transit, you take transit). So to adopt the walking culture like you accurately point out exists over there, we would really-and-truly have to change our culture to live in far denser housing in relatively self-contained clusters.
One other thing is that Europeans are, even today, a lot more classist than they are over in this country. For example, at least up through the 80s in Germany, a person's class for life would basically be determined for them by the time they were in 5th grade. It would be at that time that they would be tracked into a college-preparatory curriculum, or schooling that would prepare them to enter a skilled trade or the arts, or a "practical" education that would prepare them to be a laborer. I don't know if that is the situation any more or not. When I lived in Italy, the situation was pretty much the same. I also understand that there is education tracking in the UK, as well (but I'm not sure exactly how it works over there). So it would be pre-determined whether or not you could go to college or not at an early age. For the most part, at that time, people lived within their class. As a result, the concept of "climbing" as we have over here and have had for ages, particularly since the 60s, did not exist (though I recognize that this has been changing in recent decades, as well).
Food choices that we have as part of the American culture didn't really exist over in Europe because there wasn't the time pressure brought on by the idea of social climbing (with the extra hours and dual income families), along with transit times to take people out to the suburbs.
In other words, to change our food and exercise habits, we would really need to make organic, integral changes in our entire culture. I don't see that happening any time soon. And I don't see it as something that will be forced by politicians, bureaucrats, or anthropologists.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Over ten years ago CBS 60 minutes did a segment entitled "The French Paradox." It focused on the differences of lifestyle French and Americans with noted the paradox of the French engage in riskier behaviors linked to heart disease than do Americans, yet they are much less likely to develop or die from coronary disease. They smoke more, eat more fatty foods and even tend to be a little more overweight. But they also drink five times more red wine than Americans.
Studies have shown that red wine contains a powerful antioxidant reservatrol, which has been shown in studies to increase good cholesterol (HDL) while reducing bad (LDL). Not only that it has been shown to reduce the risk of certain cancers, rheumatoid arthritis and delays the onset of dementia.
A votre sante.
With that said, they only spend about 11% of their GDP on healthcare compared to our 17% and have far better outcomes. France usually ranks in the top five nations in health indices such as healthy life expectancy and lowest preventable deaths per 100,000 population. France experiences half the rate of infant mortality than does the USA which is an index closely tied to the availability of pre-natal care.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.