Posts tagged with: health care

Everybody realizes that the current healthcare system in the United States has problems. Unfortunately, much of the discussion about what to do rests on a false premise. The argument goes something like this: Our current free market system is not working: health care costs are astronomically high, and close to 50 million people aren’t insured. Maybe it’s time to let the government try its hand.

But we don’t have a free market health system; we have a highly managed, bureaucratic system that lowers the level of health care and increases costs.

As Acton’s Michael Miller argues in a new video short, the government is already involved in healthcare, and this is part of the problem. Getting the government more involved will only make the situation worse.

Blog author: lglinzak
posted by on Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Ray Nothstine, Associate Editor at the Acton Institute, had his Acton Commentary, “Veterans First on Heath Care” republished by The Citizen, a newspaper in Fayetteville, Georgia.  Nothstine explains in the article that the federal government needs to prove that it can provide adequate health care for 8 million veterans before we can trust them to provide health care reform for the entire United States.  Nothstine points out flaws with medical system operated by the Veterans Administration.  It is a timely piece especially among the constant health care reform debate that is occurring in the United States.

Blog author: jcouretas
posted by on Friday, July 3, 2009

The Heartland Institute and Consumers for Health Care Choices are sponsoring Health Care Roundtables across the country. Earlier this week, Acton development associate Charles Roelofs attended a roundtable and offers this report:

The event was co-sponsored by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy and Americans for Prosperity – Michigan. According to event organizers, over 100 people registered for the event. Participants included, local and national health care experts, medical and insurance representatives, current and former elected officials, and concerned citizens.

Common themes in many of the presentations included the need for reform of the current third-party payer system, the potential for consumer driven health care to reduce costs, and how much of recently proposed legislation to reform our health care system is ineffective. However, the discussions were varied and ranged from practical advice for saving money on prescription drugs to tips on communicating with elected officials regarding health care.

These policy discussions often lend themselves to moral questions regarding reform. Which types of reform most respect the dignity of the human person? Which types provide the most effective, highest quality health care for those least able to afford it? The Acton Institute has many resources available to answer such questions. The Health Care Resource web page has lectures, commentary, articles, and other media on the subject. Recently, Acton also published a new monograph by Dr. Donald P. Condit, A Prescription for Health Care Reform, which is available through our bookshoppe.

Amongst the health care debate Ray Nothstine offers a good analysis of Verterans Health Care.  Nothstine brings a good argument to light for those to consider who are in support of reforming health care.  Many supporters of reforming health care look to the health care provided by the Veterans Administration (VA); however as Nothstine is able to demonstrate, the VA health care system is far from perfect.  Nothstine also provides real life situations that demonstrate the flaws of the health care system managed by the VA.

Nothstine advises those who want to reform health care and model it after the VA health care system to proceed with caution:

Veterans’ health care has accomplished amazing feats, and many of the health officials and workers who work in that industry do so because of their desire to serve those who served their country. But the government must and should do a better job taking care of veterans, especially those wounded in America’s wars. The government needs to prove it can handle existing obligations before proposing the adoption of any universal government plan. If it cannot handle the challenge of caring for 8 million veterans, how will a government bureaucracy manage a system dealing with 300 million Americans?

Read Nothstine’s entire article by clicking here.

Blog author: kschmiesing
posted by on Wednesday, June 10, 2009

One of President Obama’s campaign promises was health care reform, and he is now trying to follow through. Last year I looked at the respective candidates’ health care proposals in light of Catholic social teaching. In the midst of a national debate on health policy, it is time to revisit the issue.

One of the best resources out there on the subject is the report from the Catholic Medical Association’s Health Care Task Force, published in the Linacre Quarterly in 2005. The CMA is genuinely committed to the principles of the social teaching, including access to basic health care for all, but recognizes that any reform toward that goal must take into account economic reality, must be cognizant of the drawbacks of further government expansion into this area, and must preserve the rights of conscience of religious medical providers and patients.

A good, brief, and more recent treatment is Jeff Mirus’s reflection on the subject at CatholicCulture.org.

Last but not least, Acton’s contribution to the debate has just been printed and is now available online: A Prescription for Health Care Reform, the latest in our Christian Social Thought Series. Physician Donald Condit outlines the principles of the social teaching, assesses the problems in American health care, and points toward fruitful avenues of reform.

What happens with health care policy will likely have major economic and moral ramifications for decades to come. It’s vital that we disseminate sound ideas such as those contained in these resources.

Today Dr. Donald Condit looks at a new federal proposal called the Patients’ Choice Act, which promises more freedom in choosing health care insurance. “The PCA will enhance patient and family ability to afford health care insurance and incentivize healthier lifestyles,” Condit writes. “In addition, it would surpass other options in fulfilling our social responsibility to the poor and vulnerable.”

Read the commentary on the Acton Website and comment on it here.

Robert Stackpole of the Divine Mercy Insititute offers a thoughtful analysis of the positions of the major presidential candidates on health care at Catholic Online. I missed part one (and I don’t see a link), but the series, devoted to examining the electoral responsibilities of Catholics in light of their Church’s social teaching, is evidently generating some interest and debate.

Stackpole’s approach is interesting because he tries to steer a course between the two dominant camps that have developed over the last thirty years of presidential elections: Catholics who vote for Republican candidates in large part or solely because they are at least marginally and in some cases significantly more in line with the Church’s teaching on the sanctity of life with respect specifically to the legality of abortion (I belong here); and Catholics who, reluctantly or otherwise, vote Democratic because they perceive that candidate’s platform to be more in line with Catholic teaching on a range of other issues (death penalty, welfare, health care) and thereby to outweigh the Democrat’s unfortunate position on abortion.

Stackpole avoids two common mistakes made by Catholics on the Democratic side: he does not minimize the preeminent importance of abortion as a grave abuse that might be easily outweighed by other issues; and he does not oversimplify the respective Democratic and Republican positions on other issues by claiming, for example, that Church teaching indisputably favors the Democratic policy on welfare.

On health care specifically, he is scrupulously fair both to McCain and Obama, eventually siding with Obama’s plan as being more compatible with Catholic teaching. Not that I agree with the conclusion, but it is a serious argument.

On one more general point, however, Stackpole trips. Here is the problematic passage:

Strictly “political” issues would be things like who has the best experience to be the next president, who has flip-flopped more on key issues, who is beholden to which special interest groups, whose tax and spending policies would be best for the economy as a whole, who is right about offshore oil drilling, and who has the most sensible proposals for dealing with global warming. Such questions are purely political, matters of factual analysis and prudential judgement about which Catholic Social Teaching and the Divine Mercy message can have little to say.

In contrast, he asserts, the issues of abortion, health care, and the Iraq war are “matters on which Catholic Social Teaching can shed considerable light.”

I would say, instead, that every matter that he cites has a moral dimension, and the principles of CST can shed light on them all. It’s true that there are facts, independent of CST, that must serve as the basis for judgment about how to deal with all political questions. To give Stackpole the benefit of the doubt, he possibly means to say that the very narrow question about what economic impact a particular tax policy has is a question of fact, not moral judgment. The statement could easily be interpreted, though, as meaning that tax policy is purely a political question, when it instead has all sorts of ramifications, through the incentives it creates, for the discouragement or encouragement of personal virtue, healthy family life, and the flourishing of mediating institutions (including churches). To separate neatly certain “strictly political” questions from other matters with a moral dimension is, I think, a dangerous move for any person of faith.

Which is not to say that there are important distinctions to be made. Better, however, to go with the approach taken by Archbishop John Myers of Newark, in a 2004 statement on the political responsibilities of Catholics:

Some might argue that the Church has many social teachings and the teaching on abortion is only one of them. This is, of course, correct. The Church’s social teaching is a diverse and rich tradition of moral truths and biblical insights applied to the political, economic, and cultural aspects of our society. All Catholics should form and inform their conscience in accordance with these teachings. But reasonable Catholics can (and do) disagree about how to apply these teachings in various situations.

For example, our preferential option for the poor is a fundamental aspect of this teaching. But, there are legitimate disagreements about the best way or ways truly to help the poor in our society. No Catholic can legitimately say, “I do not care about the poor.” If he or she did so this person would not be objectively in communion with Christ and His Church. But, both those who propose welfare increases and those who propose tax cuts to stimulate the economy may in all sincerity believe that their way is the best method really to help the poor. This is a matter of prudential judgment made by those entrusted with the care of the common good. It is a matter of conscience in the proper sense.

But with abortion (and for example slavery, racism, euthanasia and trafficking in human persons) there can be no legitimate diversity of opinion.

From the UK:

I never for a moment thought that a life could be decided by something as arbitrary as one’s address.

The often-maligned US health care system is by no means a free market for health care services; rather, it is more of a hybrid public/private system. It’s imperfect and in need of reform, to be sure. But heaven help us if that reform takes the form of a governmental takeover of the entire system. How such a “reform” would improve our flawed system is beyond me.

Blog author: mvandermaas
posted by on Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Continuing with my posts highlighting just how wonderful things will be here in the United States when the government finally does its job and takes over the healthcare sector of the economy, I’d like to bring your attention once again to the fabulous success story that is the Canadian health care system:

Last year, the Canadian government issued a series of reports to address the outcry over long wait times for critical tests, procedures and surgeries. Over a two year period:
• Wait times for knee replacements dropped from 440 to 307 days.
• Wait times for hip replacements dropped from 351 to 257 days.
• Wait times for cataract surgeries dropped from 311 to 183 days.
• Wait times for MRIs dropped from 120 to 105 days.
• Wait times for CT scans dropped from 81 to 62 days.
• Wait times for bypass surgeries dropped from 49 to 48 days.

Sure, you might have to wait a couple of months for that lifesaving bypass surgery. But remember: it’s free!

This evening, I attended a showing of Michael Moore’s movie Sicko

I wasn’t expecting much, so maybe it was easy to exceed my expectations. But I was pleasantly surprised that the movie wasn’t far more painful for me to watch. Although certainly not without its flaws, it has something to add. And the movie was well-made, humorous in places, poignant in others– effective and provocative.

Moore is quite critical of insurance companies and HMO’s– and quite complimentary of the health care systems of France, Cuba, Canada, and England. With that combination, you would expect him to be optimistic about the United States moving toward single-payer health care. But his cynicism toward our government– in particular, the often-unsavory relationship between politicians and interest groups– leads him to criticize our system (correctly in many cases) without embracing government as a practical means to his desired end.

Some examples? Early-on, he mentions that Medicare fails to cover a lot of things (although he fails to pile on by talking about the program’s extraordinary expense). And he points to the government’s selective provision of health care to the heroes of 9/11. He also notes that the government provides awesome health care for the detainees at Guantanamo. (He could have bolstered this with the observation that our troops receive health care that is largely illegal in the states– since interest groups have restricted competition from competent providers like physicians’ assistants and nurse practitioners.) Implicitly, he notes the absurdity of restricting trade in pharmaceuticals, health care services, and health insurance. In a word, he isn’t happy with the status quo, but he’s not at all optimistic that our government can or will fix the problem.

The problem with health care– from the point of an economist– is that government is too heavily involved in health care: in addition to the above examples, we could also list Medicare, Medicaid, and most notably, government’s subsidy of health care insurance (as a non-taxed form of compensation).

Because of the subsidy, ironically, those who can afford health care insurance have too much of it. First, by definition, something that is subsidized will be purchased too much (at least in terms of efficiency). Second, imagine how insurance typically operates: it covers rare, catastrophic events. In contrast, health care “insurance” covers everything from allergy shots to cancer. By way of analogy, car insurance of this type would cover everything from door dings and oil changes to severe car accidents. And what would happen to the cost of oil changes, the paperwork associated with oil changes, etc.? We’d have exactly the same sort of mess we have in health care.

With government’s current level of involvement– very far from a market-based system– one can make an argument that a single-payer plan would be an improvement over the status quo. But of course, one can also argue that a single-payer plan would be even worse. A quick look at our education system and the post office indicate that a government-run monopoly is unlikely to deliver decent quality with any kind of efficiency or without special interest politics. This seems to be Moore’s dilemma in the proverbial nutshell.

Sure, there were examples of poor analysis in the movie. For example:
-There was a strange reference to “full employment” in England (when all of Europe struggles with significantly more unemployment than us– due to various employer mandates Moore seems to appreciate);
-He repeats the common reference to U.S. infant mortality rates (vastly oversold since we treat premies different for the purposes of that statistic);
-He repeats the tired canard that schools just need more money (while they already spend more than $10K per student; how much more money do you want to inject into a government-run entity with tremendous monopoly power?); and
-His analysis of other countries seems to miss the important factor that their populations are smaller and more homogeneous than ours.

And I suppose that other viewers– perhaps most who would see Moore’s film– could see a call for bringing socialized medicine to the U.S. in Moore’s work. But a more nuanced reading of the film points to an idealistic but laudable desire that our health care system would be something better– without holding out much hope that our politicians will be able to deliver us closer to that outcome.

– Also see Dr. Don Condit’s Acton Commentary: What’s Wacko about Sicko? – Ed.