RE: [asa] health care

Moorad:

What Rush suggests is only possible, not necessary, unless the terms
"government control of healtcare" entails what the statement asserts.
Before everyone exalts national healthcare as a panacea or the devil's
handiwork, we ought to at least examine instances of such programs. It
is most likely to be neither. I suspect that national healthcare will
not solve the "health care crisis" nor that all our freedoms will be
drained away were it implemented. It will ultimately look a whole lot
like what it is now in the long run and everyone will complain about it
and be thankful for it pretty much the way it is now. That's my guess.
I'm just glad that some healthcare is available.

bill

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009,
Alexanian, Moorad wrote:

> I think Rush Limbaugh said it right, if the government controls healthcare, then the government will control all aspects of your life-- what you eat, what is sold, what kind of car you can buy, what kind of car can be manufactured, and on and on. Is that what we want?
> Moorad
> ________________________________
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of John Walley [john_walley@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 5:52 AM
> To: Jack; Schwarzwald; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] health care
>
> This assumes we remove the financial incentive from doctors to do those last surgeries. And it means we have to define the worth and value of life in old age, or in Jack's words, what "suboptimal" really means and who it applies to and who it dosn't. Further it turns doctors roles into policing our country's fiscal health instead of our physical health.
>
> This will still be the death panels but I agree it is better to trust it to the doctors rather than the gov't.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jack <drsyme@verizon.net>
> To: Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>; asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 11:54:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] health care
>
> It has nothing to do with the government. It has to do with doctors making decisions based on sound medical judgement, and denying treatment at times when it is suboptimal, for lack of a better term. It is an adjustment of priority that is needed, not a change in laws. The current situation is a societal/traditional, not government mandated.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Schwarzwald<mailto:schwarzwald@gmail.com>
> To: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 11:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] health care
>
> Jack,
>
> I'm having trouble figuring out what you mean. You say you think these decisions should remain at the level of individual decisions between patient and doctor. And you're also saying we need to shift from an individual perspective to a community one, and that someone (doctors) need "more power". But what can that mean? If it means government power, legal authority to say "this is the treatment you should get" or worse "this is the treatment someone who occupies your position on the Treatment Worthiness Scale should get", that's not keeping decisions on the level of patient and doctor. That's good old-fashioned decision by government, with the doctor deputized with certain amounts of authority along with rules about how to use that authority.
>
> And if that's what is meant, then the "who is in a better position to make these decisions?" question gets even blurrier than it is to begin with. At that point we have to go back and look at the track record of modern governments when it comes to respect for individual rights, humans as persons, etc. And that's when the picture isn't just "not pretty", it's downright ugly.
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Jack <drsyme@verizon.net<mailto:drsyme@verizon.net>> wrote:
> I want to emphasize my point that I think the decisions about allocation of health care needs to remain at the level of individual decisions between the patient and the doctor, not with the government. I am claiming that doctors should have more control over these decision than they have now. We (doctors) have given up too much to individualism, and need to reclaim some paternalism for the sake of decisions made in the communities best interest. There is a large grey area here, and there should be much debate about what is reasonable, and what is not, and who should decide. Nevertheless, in the big picture, who is in a better position to make these decisions?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Schwarzwald<mailto:schwarzwald@gmail.com>
> To: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 10:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] health care
>
> I think the suggestion that the Christian commitment to "sanctity of life" adds up to "preserving every life to the maximum extent possible" simply doesn't wash. I know in the Catholic Church - which tends to talk about "sanctity of life" constantly, and is perceived to do so to an extreme - it's explicitly stated that "preserving every life to the maximum extent possible" or goals close to such is rejected as a moral obligation. "Extraordinary means" to prolong life are entirely optional rather than obligatory, and refusing such means on the grounds of burden to family or otherwise are acceptable.
>
> At the same time, there is a strong rejection of euthanasia - typically seen as an active killing, offering up drugs or "treatments" that are themselves designed to kill the recipient. For myself, that is a key area, and one of massive importance - the line between recognizing death as a natural, and inevitable, part of this human life, and regarding death as a desirable thing, a solution to a problem. Worse, an accounting problem.
>
> I also think in this debate far too much emphasis is placed on the role of government, when (as always) the major work required is at the level of the individual, culture, and community. "There is a problem, how should the government solve it?" often strikes me as a red herring - maybe the problem isn't one appropriate for government to solve. Maybe fewer problems than we think are.
>
>
>
>
> 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.
Received on Sat Sep 26 09:35:05 2009