[Oe List ...] A Matter of the Rights of the Doctor

Wed Sep 2 18:52:09 CDT 2009

I appreciate the respectful and reasoned dialogue, Randy, but there are a
lot of things we're awfully far apart on.  I can't agree that we have the
worst healthcare record among the industrialized nations.  What does that
mean?  Why do people from all over the world try to come here for medical
care? We have a diverse system that ranges from emergency rooms that are
prohibited by law from turning people away, to Medicaid that provides
coverage for the truly indigent, to HMOs (that's what my son, who is self
employed, has, and it's amazingly reasonable), to low end semi-HMO style
coverage with doctors "in system" charged covered more fully than doctors
outside their "allowed" providers, to high end coverage where you pay higher
premiums but can go to any doctor you want, to plans that have high
deductibles and cost less monthly to plans that have low deductibles and
cost more monthly, to pre-tax savings accounts, to employers that self
insure, to the Veterans medical system that took very good care of my father
when he had lung cancer, to ... well, you get the picture.  I see health
clinics "for the uninsured" all over.  I see pharmaceutical companies
providing free prescriptions for people who can't afford them.  I see
Medicare for those over 65 -- free coverage for hospitalization, and
reasonable cost for Part B that covers other stuff.  What kind of coverage
don't we have?  And why would we want to destroy that for a
one-size-fits-all even if you get bunions from the wrong size shoe.

But I guess at the heart of things is your concern about profit.  What is
wrong with profit?  It has funded a lot of benevolent things for a lot of
people.  Sorry, friend, but I am an unabashed capitalist. Just because I see
other people living in mansions doesn't mean I can't be happy in my modest 2
bedroom condo.  I don't mean to over-simplify -- your comment was "profit
over care".  All I want from a doctor is professional skill applied to my
problem.  Do I really need him to "care"?  He or she has foregone income for
about 10 more years than the rest of us while incurring school loans in the
$300K range in order to become qualified to earn a bunch of money that is
constantly being eroded by exhorbitant jury awards for specious malpractice
suits (again, I totally "get" that some malpractice suits are legitimate and
justified) and hysterically escalating malpractice insurance costs and the
need to treat more and more people who will never pay.

THAT is what is broken.

Susan

  _____  

From: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf
Of R Williams
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 6:30 AM
To: Order Ecumenical Community; Colleague Dialogue
Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] A Matter of Human Rights

Susan,

I agree that the sustainability of the approach is a big concern.  However,
there has to be a way to bring the insurance and pharmaceutical companies,
and the medical institutions who put profit above care, to heel.  That's not
going to be done by the churches, etc.  Can we not, rather than to say
government has no role, which again I believe is unrealistic, work toward
defining what the role of government should be?

The people in my neighborhood (if The Big Sort is true, boy did I ever pick
the wrong place), good church-goers all--may or may not be good
Christians--insist the poor are so because of their own lack of initiative
and that "we the people" through government or otherwise have no
responsibility.  All this is contrary to the facts.  Most of the country
does not have the moral courage to address the problem at the root, but we
can't wait for them to change their minds.

Here's the quandry for me.  The US has the worst healthcare record among the
industrialized nations.  The innocents--the unborn and their mothers,
children, the elderly poor, the chronically ill, the working poor--are
suffering and it's costing not only them but all of us tremendously,
financially and otherwise.  The system is broken and we can't fix it without
government playing a major role, it's going to cost you and me money, and
the solution will not be perfect whatever it is.  If we keep on doing what
we've always done we'll keep on getting what we have.  So what do we do?

If people of good will can agree to this much then it seems to me the
disagreement in the approach can be overcome by sitting down and reasoning
together.  My view is, that's what the President has been trying to
accomplish, which is why he hasn't put forth a plan of his own.  Those who
are seeding the town meetings with ranters and using this whole thing as a
partisan ploy to try to unseat the President and the Democrats are not
people of good will.  Thankfully the President has caved in neither to them
nor the far-left wing of his own party, but I'm not sure how long he can
hold out.  I would not like to see him sign into law legislation with no
bi-partisan support as he did the stimulus plan.  However, I believe the
priority, after all the attempts at compromise and consensus are done, must
be to get something passed.

Randy

--- On Tue, 9/1/09, Susan Fertig <susan at gmdtech.com> wrote:

From: Susan Fertig <susan at gmdtech.com>
Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] A Matter of Human Rights
To: "'Order Ecumenical Community'" <oe at wedgeblade.net>, "'Colleague
Dialogue'" <dialogue at wedgeblade.net>
Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2009, 11:31 PM

Randy, thank you for that research and reasoned response. And yes, you got
my point exactly.  I still feel that this country's incredibly generous
citizenry has demonstrated over and over again that, presented with a need,
they will respond.  But when government co-opts that role, they turn away.
This current government has already created a situation that is
unsustainable financially, even without the addition of universal health
care.  Individuals and communities are much more creative and capable of
finding solutions than the massive and unwieldy machine that the federal
government is.  Canada has already proclaimed that its health system is
unsustainable and has warned the U.S. against using it as a model.

Susan

  _____  

From: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf
Of R Williams
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 12:45 PM
To: Colleague Dialogue; Order Ecumenical Community
Subject: [Oe List ...] A Matter of Human Rights

Colleagues,

The conversation about rights--generally "human" rights although the
non-human has been interjected--has been fascinating.  I have been
encouraged to go beyond my usual knee-jerk reactions when I hear something I
disagree with.  So I've done a little research on the subject through
religious and secular sources, namely the Social Principles of the United
Methodist Church, The Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church and The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the U.N.  Interestingly, none of
them gives a theoretical definition of "rights" or "human rights."  Each of
them gives their list of human rights -and- each of them in one form or
another proclaims human rights to be rooted in human dignity which, in the
religious tradition is because of the belief that humans are created in the
image of God.

The Methodists say, "We support the basic rights of all persons to equal
access to housing, education, communication, employment, medical care, legal
redress for grievances, and physical protection."  They then get more
specific about the rights of particular groups--racial and ethnic persons,
religious minorities, children, etc.

In the case of Catholics one must search a little more diligently since
everytime a new Pope comes along he appears to write something somewhere
that implies directly or indirectly a new stance on the subject.  The latest
list of specific human rights I could find comes from the Pastoral
Constitution of Vatican II and includes food, housing, work, education and
access to culture, transportation, health care, the freedom of communication
and expression, and the protection of religious freedom.

The UN Declaration has several very abstract human rights listed and reads
in part a little like the American Bill of Rights enumerating a several
items of "freedom from."  The more practical, material ones that compare
with the Methodist and Catholic lists are found in Article 25 and include
food, clothing, housing, medical care, security during unemployment,
sickness, disability, widowhood, old age "or other lack of livelihood in
circumstances beyond his control."  Article 26 includes education as a
right.  You really have to read the entire document to get the full impact.

These three sources, but especially the Catholic one, relate rights to
responsibilities, insisting that every person has the responsibility not
only to provide for his or her brothers and sisters but also, and perhaps
first, for himself or herself.  When we hear strident voices that seek to
deny basic material human rights to anyone and claim that all should make
their own way, I believe they have the view that most people who lack basic
necessities simply have not worked for them and therefore do not have a
right to them.  The facts do not bear this out.  For example, nearly 50% of
the 39 million Americans who live in poverty work at full-time jobs, some
more than one job, and still are impoverished.  Others are the very young,
the very old or the chronically ill.  When you put such faces on the need,
what are their rights?

The issue, as I heard Susan Fertig raise it, was not whether people in dire
circumstances should be provided a safety net, but who should provide it,
and whether government has a role to play.  I appreciated Marsha Hahn's
reminder that our government is "by the people, for the people and of the
people," "we the people."  We and our government are not adversaries.  I
believe it is naive to think that those in need can be provided for without
government mandates in the form of legislation, funded by our taxes.  I
believe the business and social sectors, including certainly faith-based
groups, have an obligation to participate but for better or worse we cannot
rely on the voluntary good will of the people anymore than we can rely on
the trickle down of Reaganomics.  Not that legislation changes anyone's
heart and mind, but where would we be today in terms of race relations and
the practice of racial equality without the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Each of us in deciding what we believe are inalienable human rights must
rely on some kind of input to help us decide responsibly.  In the Christian
faith, depending on the flavor we rely on some combination of Scripture,
tradition, experience and common sense (reason.) Whether this or something
else, I would encourage those ranters at the healthcare town meetings, etc.,
and each of us as well, to rely on something other than our own immediate
emotional reactions.

Randy Williams
rcwmbw at yahoo.com
<http://us.mc593.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=rcwmbw@yahoo.com> 

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
OE mailing list
OE at wedgeblade.net
<http://us.mc593.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=OE@wedgeblade.net> 
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20090902/bc92fee2/attachment-0001.html>