www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall USCCB on health care "reform"

What's the incentive to offer coverage at all?

Would it now be better to employ only "part-time" employees to avoid this? Say less than 35 hours per week and have more around. Not what I'd advocate, but what future employment might begin to look like, especially in the companies that pay just slightly more than minimum wage: retail.

And who will determine what is "affordable"?

BOB

I do believe there are a lot of problems with this healthcare plan, but one thing I think is that Republicans and conservatives in general are in denial that we have a health care problem in this country.

If you are a poor Catholic your hands are really tied when you vote. Vote for the Repubs because they are pro-life but then again they will cut programs that will help you. Vote Dems and they will be more willing to implement social programs, but then you lose your soul because they implement immoral laws as well.

It's a catch 22. It's like Northern Ireland. My friend from Northern Ireland said the 'Catholic' Party is actually pro-abortion and the 'Protestant' party is pro-life. Yet if you vote for the Protestant Party they will enact laws not beneficial to Catholics socially. Sinn Fein however is pro-abortion, so vote for them and lose your soul.

My situation is so bad that when I get sick, as I have been the past year, I am afraid to go to the doctor because of the bill that will come afterwards. Additionally, financial aid which was pushed by Dems in my State has helped my studies greatly.

I, however, only vote for pro-life candidates, because I put pro-life issues before my own needs, but in reality if the people that I voted for actually got in power they would probably cut financial aid for studies and take an extreme capitalist approach to health care.

LOL! Well Tradycja, I will say this much. With your postings you sure aren't trying to score "brownie points" here!

Alexandr,
A Conservative "in denial" LOL!

The first principle of the Hippocratic Oath is "do no harm", and thus the first principle of health care reform should be "Don't make things worse"--which this new law manifestly does.

But you are wrong in thinking that the Republican party ignores health care reform and has offered no alternative solutions. Because its solutions are market based and put more power into the hands of patients to control their own costs and manage their own health care needs, the liberal opposition, which dislikes the market in general and has a low opinion of the intelligence and good sense of the common man, denigrates these solutions as heartless and catering to the interests of the "health care industry".

Specific proposals have included allowing the sale of health insurance across state lines, transferring the deduction for health insurance from companies to individuals, allowing individuals and small businesses to form pools in order to qualify for lower group rates, tort reform to reduce exorbitant malpractice suit awards and eliminate costly "defensive" medicine (needless tests and procedures), expanded health savings accounts, bringing more of the people already eligible into existing government health programs (most of the poor without insurance are qualified for government assistance but fail to register for it), and in general eliminating the third party payment problem, which insulates the patient from the true costs of health care, thus eliminating market discipline and causing patients to make choices that are not cost effective.

You may not agree with these proposals, but don't pretend that they don't exist or won't affect the manner in which health care is administered in this country

As a welfare caseworker I can verify this is not correct in large part. If you are a single adult between 21 and 64 and not disabled or pregnant there is no medical assistance available for you. Adults with children have a slightly better chance but the limits are not very generous. People are shocked to find out that even though they have no income and no health insurance they are not eligible. Obama and Crew could have just changed eligbility criteria and increased income limits to cover many (possibly most) of the uncovered but that would not have allowed them to takeover health insurance. That said I concur with the rest or your points.

True, many people don't qualify for medical assistance.....they can be seen at clinics that have charity programs and sliding scale fees, but many need an advocate to link them to that care.....

and I just want to add that giving more people access to health care will only help part of the problem.....

health is affected by where you live, so it's a socioeconomic problem.....inner cities are 'food deserts' where there are no grocery stores to buy fresh fruits and vegetables etc.....the only store is a convenience store with unhealthy snacks.....lots of bars and liquor stores.....and billboards advertising cigarettes.....drugs and violence.....

the other area that needs to be addressed is primary prevention: helping people to adopt healthier habits and decreasing their risk factors for 'diseases of lifestyle' (e.g. obesity that can lead to diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, hip & knee problems; stop smoking to prevent many lung diseases; get regular exercise etc. as outlined in Healthy People 2010.

What we call 'health care' is actually 'sickness care' because you don't seek medical care until you're sick.

Hopefully there will be more money spent on programs to help people take better care of their health, before more serious problems develop. Many health professionals, & lay persons as well, volunteer in health ministries in their churches and also reach out to marginalized people in their communities. This is a good start!

When people actually have to pay for their own health care, instead of having it paid for them, either through their employer's health insurance policy or by the government, then they will do more to take care of their bodies, because the dividend ends up in their wallets. After all, if I have to buy insurance, being obese, smoking, having hypertension or diabetes is going to drive up my premium. I will take elementary steps to minimize or eliminate those conditions so as to get a better rate. But, if someone else subsidizes my health care, what incentive do I have? Someone else will pay for my medications, hospitalizations and surgical procedures.

And, if someone else is paying, just how will anyone be able to convince people to alter their diets and lifestyles--unless, of course, you want to go that final mile and have the government regulate what you can eat and when you can eat it; and enroll you in mandatory exercise classes? Do you really create mature, self-reliant adults by coddling people in that manner, or do you just make them more dependent and irresponsible?

Sorry, Stuart, but not really. The people in the worst health I've met are uninsured, and not eligible for medical assistance.

Now, in some states, it's a matter of finances... We're Uninsured, but on medicaid, and qualified by virtue of finances.