Misconceptions About Health Care Inside and Outside of America

Until recently, I was under the impression that all of the other developed countries of the world only had communist style socialized medicine. I thought that they were all owned and operated by the government. No private hospitals or doctors. No private insurance. Bureaucrats making medical decisions. The perception given by many is that what we have here in America is the best in the world and any system other than ours is a disaster. All you ever hear is horror stories, long waits for medical treatment, antiquated equipment, people suffering and dying due to a lack of funding, old people being refused treatment. You have heard the stories and probably most are true. But are these stories the norm for the average person or are they the exception?

In his book, "The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care", T.R. Reid has gone around the world researching health care. Through his research and travels he is able to provide a window into the different health care systems that each country uses. He details the four major types of systems being used around the world today.

The Beveridge model was developed in Great Britain, and is used in Spain, Italy, Cuba, and most of Scandinavia. This is government run health care funded by taxes. No health insurance companies or private hospitals. Most doctors are government employees, but some are private and all are paid by the government. In America, the members of Congress have their health care needs meet through this model, as do the Armed Forces and the VA.

Originally developed in Germany, the Bismark model is also used in France, Switzerland, Belgium, and Japan. This system uses private doctors, hospitals and insurance. To control cost, the government regulates the medical community and the insurance companies, which are non-profit. If you have employer provided insurance or you purchase insurance privately, you are using a form of this model. Instead of the government regulating medical cost, your insurance company does and makes a profit for its investors.

Canada, Taiwan, and South Korea use the National Health Insurance model which has elements of both the Beveridge and Bismark models. Health care is provided by private doctors and hospitals, but the government is the insurance company and the citizens pay premiums. This is the system used by those who receive Medicare or Medicaid. By the way, the name Medicare originated in Canada.

Most poor countries have the Out-of-Pocket model because they do not have the ability to provide any of the others. This is the model that Americans without insurance must live with. According to the Census Bureau (Link) the percentage of people without insurance in America is 15.4% or a little over 46 million. It is not that these people do not receive any health care, its just that when they are seriously ill then the tax payer ends up paying much of the bill.

As you can see, the United States uses a variety of systems to provide health care. If these other countries are providing health care for all of their citizens, why can't this be done in America? America already has some "Socialized Health Care," through the Beveridge and the National Health Insurance models. Why does America spend more for its health care every year than any other country, 16-17% of GDP, but not everyone is covered? For those who say that the status quo is fine, how would you provide health care to the 46 million who have no insurance? Isn't someone already paying for any health care that the uninsured receive? Anyone who is seriously sick can go to the emergency room and receive services, this is mandated by Federal Law. But that is a very expensive way to provide coverage.

To me these are some of the questions that need to be asked. I hope that this has been helpful to you as the debate on health care in America continues.

Health Care Debate

President Obama spoke to a joint session of Congress last night about the health care legislation that is moving through Congress. He outlined what he would like the legislation to contain. There is justifiably great debate over the cost of new health care legislation and the impact that it would have on our national debt and the economy. Many fear that to provide health care for every American will come at too great of an expense and that as a result our taxes will spiral out of control and/or the quality of our health care will go down. A large segment of our society truly fear what is commonly referred to as "Socialized Medicine."

We have all heard the horror stories of long waits and people dying while waiting to receive treatment for their ailment. I remember reading a story about how a Canadian woman who went into labor prematurely with major complications had to be airlifted to a nearby hospital in the U.S. This story seemed to dramatically underscore the problem with "Socialized Medicine." But, upon further investigation it was revealed that the Canadian hospital was perfectly capable of caring for the woman and her child, but their neo-natal unit was full to capacity and that in order to provide the best care for them both, they were moved to the U.S. hospital. The point is that often times the stories that we hear about unacceptable healthcare in other countries with "Socialized Medicine" are not always as dramatic as they first seem.

The President outlined many aspects of this health care reform that he would like to see included in the upcoming bill. Republicans need to stay engaged in the process and not just opt out because they do not get to showcase all of their ideas about health care. The Democrats won control of the Congress and the White House and now they have the opportunity to try things their way. Democrats need to remember that with leadership comes responsibility. They have a responsibility to make sure that the concerns of all Americans are addressed and not to run rough shod over the opposition, just because they can. Both parties need to remember that they represent all Americans and that we sent them to Washington to serve the people.

We have government run Fire Departments, Police Departments, Ambulance Services, Roads, Schools, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Veterans Administration, FBI, Airports, MIlitary, etc., etc., etc. Most of the time this myriad of local, state & federal agencies provide us with outstanding services and a better quality of life. Let's not shy away from providing all Americans health care just because the government is involved.

Have the Terrorists Won?

I was amazed at what I was reading. Without firing a shot the Islamic terrorists had scored a tremendous victory in America. Yale University Press has decided not to reproduce the cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad in a new book titled "The Cartoons That Shook the World" by Brandeis University professor Jytte Klausen. (Foxnews.com carried the story; see it here). These are the cartoons that caused so much violence when the Dutch newspaper published them. The University questioned many experts and the consensus was that if the cartoons were included in the new book, then there would most certainly be more violence. The decision was made by Yale University Press not to include the cartoons.

Are we now living in a society where a small group of radicals can trump the First Amendment? The United States government cannot prohibit free speech, but I guess that if you are willing to be violent enough, then some in the academic world will give up free speech in order to keep that violence from occurring. What's next? Sharia Law? Christians in America are expected to endure any and all forms of criticism and outright hatred without so much as a peep. After all everyone has a right to their own opinion, right? Want to put a crucifix in a bottle of urine and call it art? No problem, Christians might be mad about it and might protest about it, but they cannot stop it because this is "freedom of expression." Have the Islamic terrorists taught us a lesson? That through violence you can restrict free speech in America? I hope not.

The Bill of Rights guarantees that all who live in this country have religious freedom. But as a follower of Christ Jesus, I have seen my rights slowly diminished. There are those in this country that want to completely restrict when, where, and how I am able to share my faith. More and more of my civil rights are being taken from me in the name of "separation of church and state." Christian religious freedoms in America are being eroded mostly by bureaucratic regulations and court decisions that infringe on our First Amendment rights. Christians are treated as second class citizens, not allowed to practice their faith in the public square, because someone might be offended. Yet, now deference is being made to Islamic terrorists would not grant any religious freedom to Americans.

Have we lost the "War on Terrorism?" Should we bring our troops home from Iraq & Afghanistan? Aren't they fighting for FREEDOM? Please do not give in to these terrorists, who would rob of us of the freedoms that have been purchased with the blood of our Fathers and Mothers, Brothers and Sisters, Sons and Daughters, Nieces and Nephews, Aunts and Uncles. You get the point. If there is something in a book that Muslims find offensive, then they have the same freedoms to boycott and peaceful protest that are granted to all U.S. citizens. We have laws to deal with those who commit violent acts in our country. Let us not voluntarily give up our freedoms, but let us deal with those who would use violence to take them away.

Has Civility Ceased to Function in Our Society?

I like to discuss issues with people that have opposing views. I went to the Facebook page One Million Against Sarah Palin to see what they have to say, and I must say that I was quite disappointed. Has civility ceased to function in our society? I have a hard time understanding why there has to be such hate and animosity towards someone with whom you disagree. The Bible tells me to love even my enemies and someone with whom I disagree certainly isn't my enemy. It is one thing to strongly disagree on an issue and to even steadfastly be unmovable from your position, but it is quite another to stoop to the level of name calling and vicious personal attacks on someone just because they have an opinion different from yours. Not everything that conservatives say is always correct, but then again, the same goes for the liberal position. If we truly want to find solutions to some of the complex problems that face our nation, we must learn to work together with civility. As long as anyone who has an opposing position is treated so despicably then we will never be able to find solutions to our problems. To my friends, if you have not been to this group's page, don't go! The vile, disgusting, revolting comments made about Sarah Palin by some of the members are not something anyone should have to read.

Red Letter Christians?

Normally I respect Tony Campolo and his work, but his book excerpt in The Huffington Post, "Who Are Red Letter Christians?" really got my goat. For one thing, I think there is a danger in divvying up the Bible in to More Important and Less Important. I've heard too many people say disparaging things about Paul, and dismiss his letters as something they don't really have to follow. The book of James is in contention as well. The words of Jesus while He lived on earth are of course very important, and I certainly wouldn't want to minimize them. But God says the Bible is the Living Word of God. He calls Jesus The Word. (John 1:1 -- "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:14 -- "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.")." He says all scripture is relevant for teaching and exhorting. (2 Timothy 3:16, 17 - All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." ) He says it is all Truth and not to be added to or taken from. (Revelations 22:18-20, Deut. 4:2).

Putting Jesus' words in red is a man-made contrivance that can muddy the waters a bit, as can all things not directly from God. Already the gays who attend churches teach that since Jesus Himself never uttered words to the effect that homosexuality is wrong, that it must not be wrong. Anyone who wants to say Christians have no call to get involved in politics could well point to the fact that Jesus never mentions or advises that course of action. When He fed the multitudes, after all, He never began a campaign to get the government to begin feeding them. God says in John 1: 17 that the Law was given through Moses, grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. We must remember and teach that "what Jesus taught" is the Bible in its entirety. ALL of Jesus' teachings are valuable. And from what I can tell, we are taught to do things individually, or through churches, while praying for our elected and appointed government leaders.

We are indeed taught that visiting orphans and widows in their distress is pure religion, along with keeping ourselves unstained by the world. (James 1:27). We as Christians are exhorted to feed the hungry, give water to the thirsty, clothe the naked, care for the sick, visit those in prison; we as individuals are told to do what God puts before us to do. Large lectures about all the problems in the world, and angry agreement that "other people" aren't doing their share, really don't solve much. We each must quietly do what inconveniences us personally, without fanfare or praise, usually without even the thanks of the person we helped, sometimes with persecution for our efforts. I could not get past the story about the starving Haitian children. All I could think was, "Why didn't you get up and go out and feed them?" Rather than turning this episode in your life in to a lecture about how other Christians "pull down the shades" on the needs of the world, why aren't you repenting of your own reaction? That would have made a powerful point. But saying that the government of America is not budgeting enough to help the world is disingenuous, because not only does America do far beyond what is budgeted whenever there is a crisis of any kind, but the individuals and churches that you mention do far beyond what the citizenry in those other countries mentioned do. If we agitate for the government to do more, we will simply be taxed more. This will lead to us being less able to help as individuals, and will also mean we have no say in what charitable projects are contributed to. There will also be no giving it in Jesus' name if the government is the one doing it.

As for the problems in places like Camden, they do not arise from physical poverty so much as from spiritual and family poverty. Universal health care and minimum wage reform will do little to help. The breakdown of the family, personified in such issues as gay rights and abortion, contribute more to the problems then slender paychecks do. Abortion preys on the weakest and most vulnerable, and if we won't do any thing about that, it's unlikely we'll do much to help those more able to help themselves. I do think we need to follow the words of Jesus - all of them. I do believe we are stewards of the earth, our brother's keeper, and servants to our fellow man. I even believe we need to remind each other of that when we get too comfortable inside our church buildings and begin to think it's all about us. But soapboxes just make the speaker feel self-righteous. We are the body of Christ, each with our own role to play. We should do what God calls us to do, while supporting others in what He calls them to do. That way we can better accomplish the things Jesus Christ, the Head, wants done in the world.

The Most Dangerous Man in America

Yes, It's Rush Limbaugh's moniker. But my question is, dangerous to whom? I cannot believe the ferociousness of the attack against John McCain by Rush and others in the conservative talk show circles. They are just hammering away at him in an obvious effort to derail his nomination as the Republican presidential candidate. I know that McCain has not been the darling of the Republican party. He tends to go his own way and that irritates the party faithful. But, if I was a pundit who favored the Democrats, then I would be waiting with glee at the prospect of McCain winning the Republican nomination, so that I could use all of the stuff that Rush is saying against McCain now. In their effort to undo McCain, the conservative pundits are giving the opposition ammunition for the future.

These pundits have gotten too big for their own britches. They think that we are sheep and that they need to shepherd us in the right direction. The American people are tired of the bickering and partisanship in Washington and want people who will work together for the good of the people. The Rush Limbaughs of talk radio have crowned themselves as the gatekeepers of the conservative point of view. Well, I say that anyone who is self appointed does not have the true welfare of the people at heart. "Lord High Muckety-Muck" as my friend GAH would say, is the title that I would give him.

Now that Mitt Romney has suspended his campaign, what is Rush going to do? Take it all back and now extol the virtues of John McCain? I hope not. McCain does not need the Rush crowd, he has the Republican voters to thank for his rise in political fortune and I hope that he remembers that all the way to the White House. McCain/Huckabee is the ticket I would like to see.

Clone Wars

So the FDA is telling us that cloned meat & milk is alright for human consumption. I wonder. "Dolly" the sheep, the first mammal cloned from an adult stem cell successfully, was cloned in 1996. That's only 12 years. I am sorry, but that is not a long enough time to determine that we can now eat her or her offspring. The American people don't agree with our government that this is a good way to go. Around 60% do not think that we should be cloning animals, especially for consumption. The FDA report that supports the further use of clones and the suggestion that it is ok for consumption, cites study after study where everything seems normal. But the FDA report is full of statements that hedge their bets. There are anomalies, but they fall within the accepted parameters of the scientific community and are therefore deemed safe. There seems to be a belief at the FDA, that if we can't find something wrong through our science, then it must be OK.

Economics is playing a large role in this. Corporate farmers and the scientific community that is associated with farming, see this as a way to increase profits. Not that I am opposed to profit, but not at the expense to the general welfare of the public. I understand that there is great pressure to produce more with less. If you can clone a cow that produces more milk, and its offspring also produce more milk, then you make more money. Are you willing to be the guinea pig to determine whether or not their profit comes at the expense of your health?

We need to stop. Just because we can do something, does not mean that we should. What happens when we have cloned ourselves a homogenous cow population and some new disease wipes them all out. Same with crops, we are genetically engineering plants at an amazing rate. Science has not yet proved to us that what they are doing is safe. It seems like the American people are taking a stand here. There is a growing number of people that are demanding to know the origin of their food. There are already companies that promote their products based on the fact that they are not being manipulated with genes, drugs, hormones, or anything unnatural. People seem to be buying these products more and more. Maybe the marketplace will slow this artificial manipulation process down.

Goodbye?

It seems that we have to say goodbye to some of the candidates already. After 1 caucus (IA), 1 convention (WY) and 1 primary (NH), we now have 3 less candidates to vote for. The amazing thing is that with less than 1 million people having voted, these men have left the contest. Now, I understand that it takes money to run a campaign, but why get in, if you are not even going to let the vast majority of voters have an opportunity to vote for you? What's the old saying, "in for a penny, in for a pound"? If these men want to be our leaders, they need to be able to discern whether they have enough determination to go the distance. They will certainly need determination if they do become President.

The media does not help the situation. If you listen to the pundits, then maybe more should have dropped out already. The endless polling and the constant drum beat of the media that a candidate must win in Iowa or New Hampshire or it's over, wears on both the candidates and the voters. Approximately one hundred twenty million voters turned out in the 2004 election. So, literally, tens of millions of voters have lost the chance to vote for the candidate of their choice. Those in the media need to reexamine how they report on campaigns. It does not serve our democracy to have the electorate become discouraged and stop voting. Report on all of the candidates. Stop polling and let the voters decide at the ballot box. Just report the news, do not try to predict the future. Leave that to God, He is much better at it.

In 2004, approximately 60% of the eligible voters voted. For various reasons, the remaining eligible voters stayed home. You hear many complaints about the election process. "It's already determined who is going to win." "The politicians just do whatever they want to anyway." "My vote doesn't count." They are RIGHT! The Republican and Democratic parties rely on the party faithful to keep them in power. It is a small number of moderates and independents that tip the balance back and forth. If that 40% of eligible voters would vote, they would turn the political establishments on their heads. Then, no one could determine who was going to win, politicians would listen and your vote would count. They fear the power that you have. So USE it!

The Search for Truth

I wanted to start this blog to create a dialog about politics, religion, science and social values. There seems to be very polarizing attitudes among the politicians. Very few seem to be willing to listen to the opposition. Not every Democratic or Republican idea is bad. The American people are ready for the bickering to stop. Those who are on opposite sides of an issue, need to respect the fact that the opposition just might have some valid points. There is nothing wrong with having a strong point of view. I do. I am a Conservative Christian with the view that the Bible is The Truth, period. But, I respect the views of those from other religions, political parties and world views. I am in search of people who are willing to articulate their position and respect those who disagree, so that we may all receive the benefit of the give and take of ideas.

Well, that's all for now. I look forward to finding those who want to explore the best ideas.