UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE: SHAME ON AMERICA

UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE: SHAME ON AMERICA

An estimated 22,000 Americans die each year who would not otherwise had they adequate health coverage. (See: pnhp.org.)

The U.S. has the most expensive healthcare system in the world. It spends 40% more per capita on healthcare than the next most expensive country. Yet, the U.S. is ranked 37th in the world in terms of health-system results. A huge part of the cost is on account of private-insurance-provided care costing more than 3 times as much in insurance overhead when compared to Medicare, Medicaid, and VA care. The other huge area of cost is ordering too many unnecessary tests and performing too many unnecessary surgeries and the like. This is not driven by malpractice suits. It's driven by profit-seeking at the expense of patients and others.

(See: "The Cost Conundrum: What a Texas town can teach us about health care," by Atul Gawande. The New Yorker. June 1, 2009.)

UPDATE:

Chris Wright over on Facebook commented:

Chris Wright at 3:36pm June 29
Single payer systems do not work and end up going bankrupt and rationing healthcare (like Canada does). A better way is through incentives to actually make things cheaper. Despite higher costs, America has the best healthcare in the world.

And that 46 M without health insurance includes illegal aliens, inclues folks my age who don't want it to... Read More begin with. Ages 24-34 who usually don't want it. And includes people who make over 50,000 and 75,000 a year who can afford but just havent bought any. Around 8 million are chronic and can't get any. I think a health voucher would be good and much cheaper. :O)

Not sure where you stand but just felt like saying that :O)

I replied:

No harsh tone intended in the following:

Which single-payer went bankrupt and didn't recover or reorganize as still public?

Also, where did you get the idea America has the best healthcare in the world? That's a thought-terminating sound bite. According to the article cited in my post, America is ranked 37th. The U.N., for instance, ranks France as number one.

Did you read the post and the linked articles?

In addition, the number of people who aren't covered in the U.S. for the reasons you gave doesn't compare. Other first-world nations treat everybody regardless of private insurance, and they don't send people to emergency rooms for primary care or to county hospitals.

Here's some food for your mind:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

As for where I stand, I'm an Acts-communist.

"And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need." (Acts 2:44-45 KJVR)

I'm not a Marxist. I don't hold with coercion. I'm a Christian.

I'm anti-capitalist and take Acts 2:44-45 to another level via the Christian Commons:

Peace to you.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.