Is National Health Care Hazardous to Your Health? Check the Facts

Tramadol is an analgesic used to treat or prevent pain.Tramadol works like a narcotic pain reliever. While Tramadol treats moderate to severe pain, Tramadol extended-release works by treating moderate to chronic pain- http://www.cheapusameds.com

I come from the UK and have been living here in the States for nearly ten years now and have a large family still in the UK.

I do agree that the health care system in this country needs to be hugely revamp and personally I have struggled to find adequate health insurance coverage for my family. It is quite hard considering the UK covers every tax payer no matter.

My big question, however is this: I agree that we are no better in terms of life expectancy and cancer survival than Italy, but have you seen how Italians eat compared to us here? I don't wish to offend anyone, but let's be honest about our unhealthy diets we maintain in this country. Just last night on Nightline there was a report about the cost of health care burden that this country has as a result of unhealthy eating and obesity. I wonder what the life expectancy and cancer rates would be if as a nation we ate healthier?

Therefore, even though we have similar rates as Italy etc, how much different would it be if we ate the same as the Italians? I wonder?

"Can you elaborate on your quote about "devouring widow's houses"?"

The quote is from Jesus. Ask Jesus to elaborate his meaning, in your
heart.

"...you are clearly envious of the wealth/property of others. You can't
stand that some people have wealth, and you can't do what you would do
with it if that wealth were yours."

Your psychoanalysis (judgementalism) of me has missed the mark.

I disagree. We live in a country where the government may take property
from individual citizens and give it to Walmart. Our respect for property
rights has waned drastically in over the last fifty years.

I don't think God looks at the fact that the average life expectancy is 6
months shorter than that of the UK and shakes his fists with rage at the
inconsistency. I think he has bigger fish to fry in the department, what
with Swaziland and all.

Honestly, I think our health care is very good. Americans don't have
healthy diets. We don't walk. We don't exercise. We also have citizens of
extremely varied ethnicity, each with unique vulnerabilities.

Our obesity rate (30%) is 2.5 times that of Germany (12%), which boasts a
life expectancy 10 months greater than our own. On average, obesity shaves
three years of life expectancy. If I take the most rudimentary approach,
which is to estimate that 18% of our population, then, would have a de facto
lifespan expectation of -3 years, that amounts to about 6 months when spread
across the population, before you even take into account the number of
overweight and morbidly obese.

We live longer than people in Denmark, even though three times as many of us
are fat. Take that, Denmark.

The issue of expense is far more compelling, but Obama's plan does nothing
to that end. Economists on both sides of the aisle agree that we need to
extricate healthcare from employment, and that the employer tax deduction
for healthcare benefits has failed. We need a system (like that of France)
that introduces market components. Want more health coverage? Pay for it.
Our present system does nothing of the sort.

This doesn't begin to answer the question of whether God is really THAT
concerned with small differences in life expectancy. Most Americans reject
his son. That, I assure you, makes him unhappy.

If you define "unfettered" as absent rule of law, then of course. But no free market advocate worth his salt would advocate no rule of law, no protection against fraud, theft, et al. Your other alternative, fascism or centralized control, is obviously not a good choice. I think you're falsely understanding the two as opposite ends of a spectrum, and a "middle ground" approach is best. There is not always a middle ground approach to everything. I do not believe semi-fascism, or a little bit of fascism, is a good thing. It's one thing to have rules set in place to keep people from harming another person against his/her will. It's quite another to insist that your way of running society is best, and everybody else has to follow your way.

If what you really want is freedom with boundaries, then fine, and we can have a debate one what those boundaries should look like. But central planning assumes a domination, and I am not for domination.

My concern is that people get what they need. I see a lot of people
without health insurance and a lot of people being denied basic health
care. This materially hurts the quality of their lives.

In a nation as rich as the U.S., and a nation that spends so much more
on health care than any other nation on earth, I ask WHY do we still
have a health care crises among so many people?

I believe it is because the free market insurance system and the greed
that capitalism causes.

You say "perhaps you should gain some basic economic understanding". I
challenge you that perhaps you should gain some basic understanding of
Biblical justice.

"The very question you ask betrays your desire to use other people's
money to your benevolent wishes."

"The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof."

The very assumption of capitalism (and your phrase "other people's
money") is that the earth is NOT the Lord's, rather it is owned by
people.

I am not being glib here. The assumption framework that you are using
starts with property ownership. That is unquestioned and sacred. After
accepting that, you then ask "what can we do to assure that people's
needs are met". Of course, built on this basic non-God foundation, the
answer may always be "not much". But I don't accept your assumption.

The Bible recognizes the right of property owners, and asserts them rather emphatically.

When property rights are emphasized to the
point where they are used to justify oppression, then God is offended.

I'm not sure what you are referring to, here. If you're talking about slavery, slavery itself is a violation of property rights!

Can you elaborate on your quote about "devouring widow's houses"?

We have a rich society with a wealth of natural resources and massive spending on health care, yet still we have a crises of people not having insurance, people going bankrupt due to health-related spending, a lower life-expectancy that some other countries, higher infant mortality.

You chastise greediness, yet you are clearly envious of the wealth/property of others. You can't stand that some people have wealth, and you can't do what you would do with it if that wealth were yours. You disdain the free market, yet the free market is in large part how we got to this point of wealth.

No, God is not pleased.
... with your envy.

My simple point to the above is that when there are two extremes, assuming a middle ground is just as fallacious as assuming an extreme. There is no "middle ground" on racism, rape, or torture. I would add to that list tyranny.

First of all, blaming capitalism is too broad. You may want to actually look into what capitalism really is, and not just naively assume that what we have now is capitalism, and what we need is less of it. What we have now is not a free market health care system, especially with government mandating that I pay for the medicare and medicaid, neither of which I voted for, asked for, or wish to pay. When government is paying 50% of the health care being provided, that is not a free market.

In a nation as rich as the U.S., and a nation that spends so much more
on health care than any other nation on earth, I ask WHY do we still
have a health care crises among so many people?

The very question you ask betrays your desire to use other people's money to your benevolent wishes. And kudos for feeling that way. But that isn't biblical justice. Biblical justice is not enrolling the force of the empire to take money from the wealthy and give it to those without. Biblical justice does not compromise one ethic for another.

I'd love for every rich person to donate more money than they already do, and out of the goodness of their hearts, to pay for the healthiness of those who cannot. But unfortunately I don't have that authority or power, nor should I seek power-over tactics to get my way. That's not the nonviolent way of Jesus.

So, while you look up basic economic principles (Thomas Sowell wrote a book called Basic Economics that is a good start), maybe you should try understanding biblical justice alternatively than you already do (Money, Greed, and God is a new book that I recommend).

I mean no disrespect. I understand there are competing views and understandings of economics and biblical justice. But having studies several sides of this, I've concluded that some basic things are just that: basic.

Property rights and "the earth is the Lord's" are not competing presuppositions. I affirm with you that what I "own" is not truly mine. Whatever I "own" under a "property rights" basis is simply mine to steward for the Kingdom. But it is mine to steward, and other people are to steward their money according to their conscience and their faith. Jesus told many parables that assumed that people "owned" something, but that does not mean he implied that he didn't own everything.

Using your logic one could counter the pro-choice woman who says, "It's my body and my fetus" by saying, "Actually, 'The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof,' so it's not really your body."

Obviously we're talking about stewardship when it comes to property rights. We're not talking about something not being God's but being "ours."

Yet Jesus chastised those who "devour widow's houses".
There has to be balance. When property rights are emphasized to the
point where they are used to justify oppression, then God is offended.

I believe that in the present we have tilted the scale so far in favor
of individual property rights that people are being hurt. God is not
pleased with such selfishness.

We have a rich society with a wealth of natural resources and massive
spending on health care, yet still we have a crises of people not having
insurance, people going bankrupt due to health-related spending, a lower
life-expectancy that some other countries, higher infant mortality. No,
God is not pleased.

Please, when you get an e-mail or see a web page giving statistics to argue that the United States already has excellent health care and doesn't need to revamp the system, stop and ponder.

This is a straw man. I've not come across any blog, email, or conversation with people who believe that the health care system is fine as it is and needs no reform. Even folks like Rush and Hannity admit that health care is in desperate need of reform.

What lots of Americans don't realize is this: the U.S. government already spends more per capita on health care than do the governments of these other countries

Amen.

"The United States ties with Italy for the lowest cancer mortality rate of all six countries"

In the studies from Cato, I believe, the reasons for the cancer mortality rate being lower here is that the patient(with or without insurance) is seen and gets their treatments, where as in Britian they would still be waiting to see the specialist.

It's very easy for both sides of the health care debate to use stats to make their case. Ask Cuba.

"What lots of Americans don't realize is this: the U.S. government already spends more per capita on health care than do the governments of these other countries

I'm in a quandry about this. I read Mike Tanner's article at the Cato Institute. He talked a lot about rationing health care.

We already have rationing of health care right now. However, it is based upon having or lacking insurance.

As I posted on another thread:

John Jones shows up at a doctor's office with pain in his lower stomach area. He gets an X-Ray and discovers that he has colon cancer. He has insurance so he is able to get chemotherapy and radiation treatments and eventually get surgery to remove the cancer.

John Smith shows up at an emergency room (no doctor's office will treat him) with pain in his lower stomach area. Without insurance, the doctors tell him to take some Tums or Rolaids and send him home. He is not permitted to return to the emergency room unless his condition is considered "iminently life-threatening and unstable." He cannot get an X-Ray, chemotherapy or radiation treatment, much less surgery. By the time his condition has risen to a life-threatening, unstable condition, it is too late and he dies.

I am not convinced at all that a single-payer health plan would help John Smith in his plight. He still could get denied his health care because a government bureaucrat decides that he is "too old" or "too fat" or "he smokes too much." Whether he actually does or not.

However, the current system must be changed. Too many people are dying due to lack of access to health care due to lack of insurance. Ideally, I would support Ron Paul's plan of 100% tax deductions for all health expenses, including insurance premiums, deductibles, co-pays. Also including the operation of any private agencies that would help gain health care access to those who cannot afford it.

However, I would support Obama's plan over what we have currently, with a public option. If the Repubs could come up with a different plan, then I say go for it. However, all the Repubs have done is criticize -- it seems that they believe that things are just peachy the way that they are.

"We already have rationing of health care right now. However, it is based upon having or lacking insurance. "

You are still wrong about what this word means.

"John Smith shows up at an emergency room (no doctor's office will treat him) with pain in his lower stomach area. Without insurance, the doctors tell him to take some Tums or Rolaids and send him home."

So the goal should be to get John Smith enough money to buy health-care. Nothing is going to improve with Obama's method of having the federal government manipulate the health-care market prices. Nobody wins when the government ignores supply and demand and invents prices in the name of do-goodery.

I have a couple of concerns about this legislation, not including the fact the no one has actually read it. Will the legislation hurt the ingenuity of our pharmaceutical companies? What kind of pharmaceutical industries does Italy, France, and the Netherlands have? I believe the UK has GSK. In what ways does the world benefit from our current health industry?

Also, what about the public funding of abortions? It seems to me that public funding for abortions is not a "common ground" approach. Please compare the amount of abortions that are occurring in Europe as compared to the U.S..

Amen.

"The United States ties with Italy for the lowest cancer mortality rate of all six countries"

In the studies from Cato, I believe, the reasons for the cancer mortality rate being lower here is that the patient(with or without insurance) is seen and gets their treatments, where as in Britian they would still be waiting to see the specialist.

We have universal schooling here to. My oldest son goes the a Christian high school and hopeful my youngest will be there soon. Will I get the same choice to do that with my health care?

Can I opt out?

It's very easy for both sides of the health care debate to use stats to make their case. Ask Cuba.

"What lots of Americans don't realize is this: the U.S. government already spends more per capita on health care than do the governments of these other countries

Tramadol is an analgesic used to treat or prevent pain.Tramadol works like a narcotic pain reliever. While Tramadol treats moderate to severe pain, Tramadol extended-release works by treating moderate to chronic pain- http://www.cheapusameds.com