Re: Re: [asa] health care

"And the elderly and disabled are a group of individuals and they all want
their health care and have formed large lobbying groups to ensure it. AARP
is a group of individulas who all want their individual rights."

Is this a bad thing? The elderly and disabled are among the most vulnerable
in society.

Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Walley" <john_walley@yahoo.com>
To: <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com>; <wjp@swcp.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>; <drsyme@verizon.net>; <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [asa] health care

> "but the whole point of such a system is that in some sense the whole
> community agrees to assure a certain level of income to the elderly,
> disabled,"
>
> Sure we grant it corporately but it is received individually. And the
> elderly and disabled are a group of individuals and they all want their
> health care and have formed large lobbying groups to ensure it. AARP is a
> group of individulas who all want their individual rights. The whole
> effectiveness of the death panel scare is that no individual wants to
> surrender or ration their individual heatlh care for the greater good.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "gmurphy10@neo.rr.com" <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com>
> To: wjp@swcp.com; John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu; drsyme@verizon.net; grayt@lamar.colostate.edu
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 12:30:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: [asa] health care
>
> At a continuing education event on end of life issues some years ago a
> speaker (a RC lawyer as I recall) insisted that we can't allow "economic
> triage." But we not only can, we have to, for the same reason that ERs &c
> have the traditional kind of triage - resources are limited. If we had
> infinite resources (including trained personnel) then unlimited care could
> be provided to everyrone. But we don't. & talk about the "infinite value"
> of each person (cf. Harnack's "infinite value of the human soul"), while
> perhaps a useful concept in the abstract, is meaningless in the real
> finite world.
>
> Precisely how one does the economic traiging is of course a more difficult
> question. IMO it shouldn't be on the basis of who has the most money or
> the best insurance.
>
> & in response to John's 1st sentence, why is Social Security an example of
> "individualism"? Of course it involves a tacit assertion of an individual
> "right" but the whole point of such a system is that in some sense the
> whole community agrees to assure a certain level of income to the elderly,
> disabled, &c.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
>
>
> ---- John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I think the "decades of individualistic thinking" were in part germinated
>> with the New Deal social security programs where we set this expectation,
>> not fully appreciating that it may one day lead to this, although it
>> should have been obvious. I think this is a good lesson for us on all
>> entitlement programs no matter how well meaning and needed they start
>> out.
>
> But now that we are here, how do we fix it? Who is going to tell the
> seniors that their expectations of "no procedure left behind" is no longer
> reality and maybe it should never have been? The Republicans won't because
> they are already making hay telling them the opposite. I don't think the
> Dems can because they have already denied the death panels too
> emphatically which logically is where this is leading. Bottom line is
> somebody has to make these decisions and people will likely die earlier
> from them. I think it will take a third party like the Libertarians or
> independents to ever give sanity a voice in our political system.
>
> I would have been a death panel if the doctors had asked me what to do
> with my dad and I was sure he was ok with skipping the last surgery and I
> think he would have been if given the option. And I think that is just
> life. Yes it should be a personal decision but the problem comes in when
> it is gov't money funding Medicare. I think we ought to let the hospitals
> and doctors and health insurance agencies merge to provide a holistic
> reasonable level of health care to those that can afford it and a separate
> govt plan providing minimum basic care to those that can't. That way you
> wind up with a private health insurance plan that has a cash value like a
> life insurance policy and you can choose to spend the money or not based
> on the situation.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jack <drsyme@verizon.net>
> To: wjp@swcp.com
> Cc: john_walley@yahoo.com; drsyme@verizon.net; grayt@lamar.colostate.edu;
> asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 10:45:31 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: [asa] health care
>
>
> Ezekiel Emmanuel (brother of Obama advisor Rahm) proposed in a Hastings
> Center article 15 years or so ago that one possible calculus of a health
> care treatment could be whether or not that treatment returns the patient
> to a contributing member of society. Of course this is what he got in
> trouble for with the seniors saying that Obama wants to kill grandma.
>
> But perhaps it is decades of individualistic thinking instead of
> communtarian thinking, that has gotten us in this postion. In my opinion
> it is time that we become more communitarian.
>
>
> Sep 25, 2009 12:16:53 PM, wjp@swcp.com wrote:
>
> John et al.
>>
>>It seems to me that the issue of how resources are used must intersect
>>with notions of the individual and their relationship with society.
>>
>>On one extreme it could be said that any use of resources should be a
>>communal decision, at the other extreme that it ought to be an
>>individual one.
>>
>>In answer to the question of who is our neighbor, the answer is
>>everyone. So then, morally we need to at least apply the Kantian notion
>>of universalizing all our actions.
>>
>>Universalizing actions can be accomplished by the individual or by
>>society at large. Of course, if society is everyone, this becomes quite
>>burdensome and impractical that every action be determined by the whole.
>>
>>On what basis should the decision of the whole be determined? On the
>>basis of cost (whatever that means), on some utilitarian principle, or
>>on the basis of an absolute morality? Is what is moral determined in
>>practice by what the majority thinks, or by an Absolute measure?
>>
>>As Christians, we believe that was is right and wrong is determined by
>>God, and has an Absolute standard. Even knowing this does not tell us
>>how exactly to act in every given situation. For example, in your
>>father's case is it "better" to hold life in the highest regard or to
>>consider the "cost" to the community. The same might be asked of a
>>child born with a serious and life threatening illness. Perhaps we
>>should simply let that baby die and not try to save it.
>>
>>If the society decides, is the individual no longer a moral agent?
>>
>>Got to go. It's sprinkling and my teenage son easily dissolves, or so
>>I'm told. I've never actually seen it.
>>
>>bill
>>
>>On
>>Fri, 25 Sep
>>2009, John Walley wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with this comment and its relevance to science and faith.
>>> Although I was not an Obama supporter in the election I applaud his
>>> attempts to surface this issue of end of life care. He is right that it
>>> is out of control. I think he was a little politically naive to think he
>>> could float that though just because he supposedly had the endorsement
>>> of the AARP. But the Republicans are shameless to politicize it and
>>> rally the seniors by countering that they deserve unlimited healthcare.
>>>
>>> My dad was 79 and recovering from cancer surgery from 2 days previous
>>> that almost killed him, and then they found a large brain tumor and
>>> rushed him back in for emergency brain surgery and that did kill him. I
>>> didn't even get asked about it, it was already decided and they told us
>>> they had to do it to save his life. Looking back, I now think it may
>>> have been better for all us to just let him live out his last few days
>>> in peace.
>>>
>>> I think in my dad's case, the decision got made by the doctors and it
>>> was an easy decision for them since their was a financial incentive to
>>> them to do the surgery and since it was covered the family could hardly
>>> make any objection to prevent it. I guess it is possible that he could
>>> have survived and maybe we could have kept him around a few more years
>>> but I think the tragedy of it was that I saw in his eyes that he was at
>>> the end of his fight and I think he knew he wasn't going to make it. I
>>> only got to see him for a few minutes before he got rushed back in. So
>>> from that perspective I feel it was maybe not the best decision for him
>>> or the family, not even considering the costs of an extra brain surgery
>>> operation. There is a point of diminishing returns on healthcare, both
>>> in results and quality of life. I think if my dad had time to think
>>> about it and the decision wasn't made for him, he would have rathered to
>>> die at home surrounded by family than on
>>> an operating table getting his skull sawn open. I think I would.
>>>
>>> I am not a fan of letting the gov't make these decisions either but at
>>> least in this particular case I don't think the doctors did any better
>>> job. This really is a thorny ethical dilemma and one the church should
>>> have dialogue on. I think the best solution would be some type of free
>>> market solution where each family gets some level of health care credits
>>> for their seniors like a health savings account and they can choose
>>> whether to have the surgeries or not based on all these factors. I
>>> particularly like Dick's observation of denying health insurance to
>>> attorneys. That certainly shows the wisdom of the free market in my
>>> opinion. :)
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>> From: Jack <drsyme@verizon.net>
>>> To: Terry M. Gray <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>;
>>> AmericanScientificAffiliation <asa@calvin.edu>
>>> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 6:39:44 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [asa] health care
>>>
>>> If you want to have a discussion on this topic that is relevant to our
>>> purpose here why dont we discuss the issue of what amount of health care
>>> is everyone entiltled too?
>>>
>>> Discussions on how health care is delievered is interesting, but more
>>> political than moral or scientific. But there is no question that
>>> resources used in providing health care are limited. I would like to see
>>> a discussion on who deserves to get what and at what time, and who
>>> decides this?
>>>
>>> To give a more specific example, we spend an inordinate amount of money
>>> in the last month of a persons life. Is this the best way, most
>>> efficient way, the fairest way to distribute health care?
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry M. Gray"
>>> <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
>>> To: "AmericanScientificAffiliation" <asa@calvin.edu>
>>> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 5:35 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [asa] health care
>>>
>>>
>>>> Not even close.....
>>>>
>>>> But we're a patient lot here. Most of the responses heretofore are
>>>> proof that it's "off topic". But if we can control ourselves and
>>>> connect it with faith/science matters (and we're not talking faith OR
>>>> science here) then we can keep talking.
>>>>
>>>> TG
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 24, 2009, at 12:07 PM, Jack wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This thread is not even close to being on topic is it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sep 24, 2009 05:39:07 PM, michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk wrote:
>>>>> Thank goodness we have the National Health Service for all its faults.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "John Burgeson (ASA member)" <hossradbourne@gmail.com>
>>>>> To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 5:50 PM
>>>>> Subject: [asa] health care
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> In eight US states and Washington, D.C., insurance companies are
>>>>>> legally allowed to deny health insurance coverage to victims of
>>>>>> domestic abuse, treating it essentially, if not literally, as a
>>>>>> pre-existing condition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is one practice of the insurance companies I hope will be
>>>>> stopped
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Great short clip about Health Care Reform!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwRAIdVdVS4&feature=related
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Burgy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> www.burgy.50megs.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>>>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>>
>>>> ________________
>>>> Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
>>>> Computer Support Scientist
>>>> Chemistry Department
>>>> Colorado State University
>>>> Fort Collins, CO 80523
>>>> (o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe
>>>asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.112/2393 - Release Date: 09/24/09
18:00:00

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Sep 25 21:08:47 2009