Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    >    Let's try to keep this from getting too politically-charged
    >    or US-centric.
    
    
    That doesn't leave much to say.  Sure everyone should be healthy and
    have access to health care when they are not.  I don't know anyone
    who says differently!  That just leaves how to implement the ideal
    and how to pay for it!
    
    Nancy

re Note 383.1 by LJOHUB::NSMITH:

>     Sure everyone should be healthy and
>     have access to health care when they are not.  I don't know anyone
>     who says differently!  

        Oh, there are plenty of people who believe that if you
        haven't personally provided for your health care (or any
        other good thing for that matter), you just shouldn't get it.

        Bob

    >    Oh, there are plenty of people who believe that if you
    >    haven't personally provided for your health care (or any
    >    other good thing for that matter), you just shouldn't get it.
    
    Isn't that an issue of who pays for it?

re Note 383.4 by LJOHUB::NSMITH:

>     >    Oh, there are plenty of people who believe that if you
>     >    haven't personally provided for your health care (or any
>     >    other good thing for that matter), you just shouldn't get it.
>     
>     Isn't that an issue of who pays for it?

        "Who pays" is a somewhat separate issue from "do you get any
        if you DON'T pay?"  It would seem that there must be a moral
        issue in there somewhere!

        Bob

I believe health care should be available to everyone, regardless
of the ability to pay.  Jesus said that that which we fail to do
for the least of persons, we also fail to do for him.

I believe malpractice insurance is one of the chief contributors to
skyrocketing health care costs.  I also believe that too many hospitals
within the same region are duplicating ownership of very expensive
high-tech equipment.

In a study Bill Moyers did for PBS on poverty a few years back one
of the statements made brought me emotionally and spiritually to my
knees:  "In America, if you have cancer and you're rich, you live.
If you have cancer and you're poor, you die."

The United States is lagging sinfully behind several other nations in
this important area.

Peace,
Richard

    Here in the UK, we have something called the National Health Service.
    Guaranteed health care for everyone... at least that was the idea. It's
    degenerated a lot of the last few years for various reasons - the
    queues have gotten longer, the doctors are overworked, quality seems to
    have suffered. There's been a slow change towards private medical care.
    
    The current Conservative government says "NHS is safe in our hands" but
    I have doubts. Labour would spend, spend, spend and end up with an
    over-staffed expensive monster... depending on your politics and who
    you believe.
    
    Pete.

re Note 383.7 by SYSTEM::GOODWIN:

>     Here in the UK, we have something called the National Health Service.
>     Guaranteed health care for everyone... 

        Does "health care for everyone" imply or require that the
        government itself provide health care delivery, or even that
        the government itself provide health care insurance?

        I live in Massachusetts, and with Massachusetts' reputation,
        I hesitate to offer it as an example, but other states do
        this too:  many states require automobile insurance (or
        equivalent financial capability) in order to license a car. 
        The insurers have come up with various schemes so that the
        otherwise uninsurable drivers can at least meet the letter of
        the law (possibly at great cost).
         
        Couldn't employers be required to offer some minimum level of
        insurance or health plan to workers?  Obviously there will be
        exceptions to this where it is impractical, but this could be
        a more limited form of government-provided (or -paid)
        insurance.  In fact, the US already has this for many of the
        very poor (Medicaid) and the elderly (Medicare) -- it would
        seem that "all" that is needed is to close the big gaps in
        the net by extending private plans to (nearly) all of the
        employed and public plans to all others.

        Or does a healthy economy require that some be unable to
        afford or obtain health care coverage?

        Bob

    To go back to .0, and the question of 'Is "Access to Health Care" a
    Christian issue?'.
    
    I believe it is.  But my stand on this is not that taken by the rest of
    the conference.  The healing that Jesus and his followers did was based
    on prayer, not on the application of medicine and access to doctors. 
    In the continuing and ongoing political debate over the best way to
    provide health care, let us keep open availability of the spiritual 
    healing that Jesus practiced and taught.  Let us not mandate that the
    only "approved" health care must come from those with AMA approved
    training.
    
    It isn't easy to watch people we love take a path to health, happiness,
    and holiness with which we disagree.  But if we are to be a country of
    religious pluralism, I believe that our political decisions must
    support all religious practice.
    
    Alison 

    Re: .7
    
    We're taxed on the NHS. I think it's the National Insurance payments
    (but I could be wrong!).
    
    Pete.

Okay, suppose access to health care was left up to religious bodies.

It's not unprecedented.  It was the church which began and operated
the some of the first hospitals and educational institutions in the
United States.

How might Christians rise to this challenge?

Peace,
Richard