Sorry, the browser you are using is not currently supported. Disqus actively supports the following browsers:
This page is forcing your browser to use legacy mode, which is not compatible with Disqus. Please see our troubleshooting guide to get more information about this error.
Jim Winkler and the GBCS does not speak for me.
Nor for me.
WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR THIS?????
The poor in this country had health care to begin with. Here is a case in point. My friend took his little boy into the emergency room one night with a broken arm. He sat and waited while the drunks, addicts, and gang members were treated first meanwhile his boy suffered in pain. My friend has insurance. He kept getting bumped back because of all these drunks coming in that were bleeding from a fight or falling down. Finally he got fed up and started to raise hell in the emergency room and finally got some attention. That little boy and his dad spent 11 hours in the emergency room (most of it waiting). The point is the poor had better and faster medical attention than my working class friend with insurance and they were continually being pushed in front of my friend's kid with the broken arm. And your argument that insurance for these people will make them go to doctor's offices for care and not the mergency room is crap - the drunks and addicts will be what they are and still populate the emergency rooms based on their poor life decisions.
Mark my words, Obamacare will drive up the health care costs of many hardworking Americans who make the correct decisions in life, work hard, stay out of trouble and pay taxes. This law smells bad and will taste bad and will make us all sick.
NMex - as someone with years of experience in EMS - the boy kept having to wait because despite the pain - he was clearly stable - while those who came in after but were treated first - showed some sign that they were less stable. This is called triage and should be employed wherever emergency health care is used - those in the most danger get treated first. It had nothing to do with anything else.
A simple rule to keep in mind to figure out who gets treated first is ABCDE.... Airway - those with trouble breathing are top priority - so a blocked/damaged Airway go first - then come folks with trouble breathing - followed by C - circulation - or those folks in your story who were bleeding. While they may have seemed like minor cuts - it is important to examine and evaluate folks to be sure - especially those with already compromised health - as they are likely to decompensate (go into shock) quickly. Then comes D - disability or disorientation - those who show some sign of not being clearheaded - again it could be they are just drunk - or it could be head/brain injury or other life threatening issues - only a full exam can tell for sure. Then we get to E - in the EMS first response field this is where you start to look for things like broken bones, bruising and other issues that are not immediately compromising ABCD. I am certain this explains why the young man had to wait so long. It is unfortunate, but while he had all that time to wait, come of those taken earlier may not have survived the wait.
As for health care - yeah everyone gets treated at the ER - they get Emergency care - no followup, no preventitive care, no long term antibiotics to fight off the infections that might result from injuries, etc. And that care they do get - guess who pays for it - ever wonder why ER visits are so expensive? Under the new method - the boy's wait time may not change - triage still determines who goes first, but it is quite likely that future hospital bills for everyone will go down since with insurance - everyone treated will be able to pay their bills. Plus with better preventive care - there will be less folks clogging waiting rooms for minor issues, so everyone will be treated in a more timely fashion (hey maybe hew would get treated more quickly). On the health CARE side, this is a win for everyone.
As a last point - I know many hard working Americans - who stay out of trouble, go to work everyday, support their families....everything you would look for in a good neighbor - who still can not get health insurance for a variety of reasons. With this bill in place, that should no longer be the case - Another win for the hard working.
And where are all the Doctors that will be available to treat these newly insured folks, pray tell. With the mess we already have this "affordable healthcare" will wind up costing everyone more and more as time goes on and the population keeps getting older.
hmmm
so you suggest that we should make decisions as a nation to allow folks
to continue to suffer - and only let those with money to pay the few
doctors that already exist have access to health care? Supply and
demand determining who should be healthy. Somehow that does not
jive with the Jesus I know.
When people stopped depending on the church and started putting their faith in the government, that is when everything started to crumble. Pews got emptier, shelters and soup kitchens closed, and love for God and one another grew cold. If we really want to change the world as Mainline Protestants, then we need to get out of politics for good and start showing love by being charitable. We could start by feeding, clothing, sheltering, ministering and evangelizing the poor in the name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
So the UMC will benefit. Large corporations may also benefit but who will pay the bill?
Who will pay the opt out fees for the poor and low income?
Will they be exempt?
If opt out fees are not paid what will be the penalty?
The fees will range up to more than $2000.00 per person. Will families get a break and what does the sliding scale look like?
The church may be happy today because they are saving money but they may see their donations decline.
The
government may have pockets that never end but the public and the
church body in particular know money only goes so far and you can't give
what you do not have.
I don't think John Wesley would be happy the government was taking such a huge part. He thought the church should help the poor. Obamacare does not ensure people will have insurance. It ensures that people must buy insurance. The states will not buy into more medicade. Even the states that supported Obama. Low income families will be taxed just as wealthier families will be taxed. The poor have not won anything but grief over this bill. Businesses will not hire. Our church insurance companies will have to pay taxes to the government which will cause our premiums to go up. This is tax and spend at its best.
I have to agree, If the Church and all followers of Christ cared for one another the way that Jesus taught us, then there really wouldn't be such a huge demand for expensive health care. The question am I my brother's Keeper comes into play....Yes i am, I am tasked to love and help out my brothers and sisters and those in need. but we have now placed all the responsibility (as the church) on a non-believing, non-Christian institution which does not hold up the same values and ethics that Jesus taught...Is the Church not living up to what we are called to do? we would rather give away our responsibility to others and and say...Look what we supported, new Health Care Law - by which will probably contribute to the difficulties of small to medium businesses. I don't think Wesley would want to promote "doing harm" to many while we minister to many. "Do All the Good that you can" and "Do no harm"... and practice grace in our lives responsibly...
Soon,
every American will be funding abortion for women who want it.
Every insurance plan in the US will require that abortion on demand be
covered for 'free' as part of 'health care.' This in spite of the
fact that the Hippocratic oath forbids abortions. The Catholic
Church and her bishops are willing to go to jail rather than go along
with this law. I will stand with them.
As a
UMC pastor, I will see my family insurance premiums go from their
current $25,000 a year, to about $40,000 due to the 'Affordable' Health
Care act. Those who say this law is good for the church or for the
UMC or for Methodist clergy are clearly delusional. Tell me how
can clergy families and our churches afford health insurance premiums
that are higher than the poverty line. Not only that the 23rd
Article of Religion of the UMC states, "The President, the Congress, the
general assemblies, the governors, and
the councils of state, as the delegates of the people, are the rulers of
the United States of America, according to the division of power made
to them by the Constitution of the United States and by the
constitutions
of their respective states." Note that this states that they are
the rulers based on the 'division of power made to them by the
Constitution.' The Constitution does not enumerate the power of
health care to the federal government in any way. So then, should
we follow such a clear violation of the Constitution, and one of our
Articles of Religion?
The bottom line is that if
our clergy insurance is forced to cover elective abortions, than perhaps
we might see us stand together the Catholic Church against the death of
our unborn. We have now slaughtered more American citizens since
Roe v. Wade than the Nazi's killed people in their rule of terror.
May God have mercy on our souls for the flood of innocent blood on our
hands.
Will
someone explain to me why the UMC supports government action that
requires the birth control mandate to be forced on people whose
religious belief is tottaly opposed to this law which requires
virtually all health plans, including those of religious
organizations, to cover birth control drugs and products that could
cause the death of the unborn. The UMC should be opposed to the birth
control mandate because it runs counter to the biblical truth of the
sanctity of human life and creates a conflict of conscience for
religious employers and insurers, who face steep penalties for
non-compliance based upon their religious convictions.
You
are right, Jim Winkler does not speak for you, he speaks for the United
Methodist Book of Resolutions, which clearly states, since 1984 that as
United Methodists we believe that Health Care is a right for all
humanity. And, we advocate for a universal healthcare system, not an
entitlement based system. Yes, we are all going to pay for this, but
that is what one does when you are a part of a society, and when you
enter into a social contract with your fellow humans.
I am amazed at
the vitriol that has come out particularly from those with right
leanings toward this decision. To me, it passed all phases of how a law
gets in place. Congress passed it, the President signed it, the Supreme
Court upheld it. While you do not agree with it is another issue
entirely, but I think the above article articulately shows how it will
benefit the structure of the United Methodist Church, and it will also
benefit millions of people whose lives were once derailed completely by
minor illnesses. It might also bring us "hard-working, decent folk" into
contact with those who need to know the grace and peace of Jesus
Christ, and isn't that where he calls us to go anyway?
I applaud the
step and the decision as a step toward everyone knowing health and
wholeness, a main tenant of our founder John Wesley. While I do not
believe it is perfect, it is a step. And that is what our country is
founded on, the adaptability and availability to constantly and
consistently improve.
How is support or opposition to this law a moral issue? To say that everyone should have access to adequate medical care is a moral proposition. To say that this law is an appropriate way of attaining that objective is purely political. I happen to believe that this law is a very poor attempt to obtain a worthy objective and, in fact, will frustrate achievement of that objective. I believe that more people have more access to adequate medical care under the current arrangements, even though they certainly need improvement. I recognize that mine is a political view. But, so is yours.
Jordan,
IF the Affordable Care Act did indeed increase health care for people
in America that would indeed be something worth celebrating. It,
however does not. In fact, instead of increase access to
healthcare, it likely has reduced it, all the while introducing mandates
that run opposite UMC teaching. Health care access for all
Americans is a worthy goal, and should be the pursuit of us all.
This is not what this law does.
What does the law
do? It essentially mandates that all Americans purchase private
health insurance. This means that no matter your income you must
purchase a private good from a private company in the United States,
whether you want it or not, or can afford it or not. This does NOT
promise access to healthcare, but rather just forces all Americans to
buy an insurance policy, which may or may not increase access to health
care. Most studies I have seen suggest that the actual ability to
see a doctor and get needed care will be reduced because demand for
healthcare services will far outstrip current supply. Not only
that, the new law is believed to accelerate the retirement of millions
of doctors, which will further reduce supply. There is no increase
in medical school slots in this bill, which would be a major avenue of
actually increasing supply.
So far we have learned that more people will NOT have access to healthcare, but just to insurance.
Next, we find that all Americans will be forced, when they purchase a
health care plan (any healthcare plan) to also pay an 'abortion premium
mandate.' That means that whether the plan you purchase or not
contains explicit coverage for on demand abortions, you will still be
charged to pay for them. Free contraceptives, and abortion
inducing pills will be free to any minor who requests them with no
parental consent required. That means that due to this act, ALL
American teenagers are now able to get an abortion on demand with no
parental requirement, and you and I, and ALL Americans will be paying
for this. That is clearly in opposition to the official UMC stance
on abortion. We do NOT believe that all Americans should be
compelled to pay for abortions on demand. By any study ever done
in the United States on abortion, even the most liberal says that over
90% of abortions in the US are a means of birth control. This new
'abortion premium mandate' will have enough money paid into it to fund
over 2,000,000 abortions annually.
Sound ready to defend the Affordable Care Act still?
You've done a wonderful job of pulling invented facts out of thin air. If you want to persuade someone of the veracity of your perspective, citing the sources for your claims would help your cause. Otherwise, such an avalanche of wild allegations just makes me laugh.
Mark,
Here are a few sources for you. 'What will ObamaCare do to
the supply of doctors? For the answer, we turn to aHeritage
Foundation report on a new survey of the medical profession, which
confirms the results of a previous survey from 2010. Doctors hate
ObamaCare even more than the general public does, with 60 percent of
respondents saying it will “have a negative impact on overall patient
care,” but that’s not the worst of it:
The Doctors Company, which is
the largest insurer of physician and surgeon medical liability in the
nation, received more than 5,000 surveys, including all specialties and
every region in the country. The results weren’t good for the
President’s signature piece of legislation.
Not only do doctors
believe that Obamacare will not improve the health care system, they
also anticipate that it will worsen the current
condition. According to the survey, nine out of 10 physicians are
unwilling to recommend health care as a profession to a family member,
and one primary care physician even commented, “I would not recommend
becoming an M.D. to anyone.”
Obamacare doesn’t just discourage
entrance into the medical profession; it encourages those who are
already practicing to leave it. The survey states that “health care
reform is motivating doctors to change their retirement
timeline.” In fact, 43 percent of respondents said they are
considering retiring within the next five years as a result of the law. A
surgeon from Michigan wrote that under Obamacare, “We will be moving
further away from humanity-based health care and more towards the
patient as a commodity. This was not the way my father practiced—nor
will I. Winding down to retire early.”
Do you think that this will improve supply of healthcare or reduce it?
This is from the actual individual mandate.
Nestled
within the “individual mandate” in the Obamacare act — that portion of
the Act requiring every American to purchase government — approved
insurance or pay a penalty — is an “abortion premium mandate.” This
mandate requires all persons enrolled in insurance plans that include
elective abortion coverage to pay a separate premium from their own
pockets to fund abortion. As a result, many pro-life Americans
will have to decide between a plan that violates their consciences by
funding abortion, or a plan that may not meet their health needs.
Here is a chart form of how it will actually work in practice.
http://www.aul.org/2012/06/gra...
Mark,
I hope that this helps clear up some of the facts that I didn't
cite before. If you want to disagree with the studies and sources I
have cited, then please feel free to show others that contradict the
ones I have produced.
The problem with advocacy surveys like this is that they're not scientific, and thus easily reflect the prejudice of the sponsoring organization, in this case Heritage--the organization that hatched the concept of the individual mandate! But if it's a Democratic president who tried to make it law then they were against it. The survey issue is not unrelated to surveys about general attitudes toward the ACA. If you add together those who oppose it because it didn't do enough along with those who oppose it because it does too much, then you have a majority. Yet the fact remains that only a minority surveyed believe the ACA represents governmental overreach. The bill was passed by Congress, signed by the president, and found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court. If you don't like it, move to Costa Rica with Rush Limbaugh, where you can spend your days bitching about their universal health care, and let the rest of us get on with our lives.
So Mark,
First you ask for sources, of which I provide just a few.
Any survey can be biased, and I readily acknowledged that in my
post. You go on to say that the survey is done by an organisation
that 'hatched the concept of the individual mandate', but that they are
now very obviously against an individual mandate. Which is it?
If the Heritage group's survey isn't at least a hint of
how healthcare provision might be impacted, then I can cite this
article with quotes from the Association of American Medical Schools
chief public policy officer. http://www.cleveland.com/healt...
Health care supply is a major issue in our nation and will continue to be under Obamacare. Even the Obama administration has talked about this problem.
http://www.healthreform.gov/ne...
Do you believe the Obama administration that health care providing is
in shortage, and is predicted to be in even shorter supply?
You act as if I am somehow in line with thinking of Rush
Limbaugh, someone whose name (to my knowledge) has not been mentioned in
any comments here. Then you suggest that I might consider a move
to Costa Rica? Why? I am here making comments about how
sorely needed health care reforms can benefit the most possible people
here in the United States. I can be for health care reform, for
the delivery of health care to the poor in our nation, and still be
opposed to the Affordable Care Act. I am opposed to it, because I
don't think it meets goals and objectives for providing healthcare to
the most in our country. The ACA does NOT provide 'universal
healthcare', but rather mandates universal purchase of insurance.
That is precisely my problem with it. I truly believe that
the ACA hurts the poor in our nation, it doesn't help them. It
does NOT give them access to healthcare, but rather just takes money out
of their pockets by forcing them to purchase health insurance.
Mark, I know we do not agree, but I am not attempting to
belittle you or your positions, but rather to have an honest
conversation about how our country maximises health care access to the
greatest amount of people in our nation. Can we put vitriol beside
and agree to converse civilly, rather than using curse words, and
putting up Rush Limbaugh as a straw man? You clearly care for the
poor and their well being. I just hope you realise that while we
may disagree on policy perhaps you would concede that maybe I (and other
'conservatives' here) do as well.
Remember what Thomas Jefferson said: "A government big enough to give you everything you want,
is strong enough to take everything you have."
That includes religious liberties. Ironically enough, this health care bill has already shown this erosion by forcing Catholic institutions to fund abortion and birth control. Worst of all, Winkler and the GBCS approves of this!
Sorry, Donnie T, but Jefferson didn't say that. It was Gerald Ford. If you're going to disagree with people who support the Affordable Care Act, you better come up with better arguments.
It is a sensitive conversation because the majority of folks don't agree with the way the Social Principles and Resolutions are given the status of our General Rules. The SP and Resolutions are the opinion of the elected representatives, they never speak from everyone and there is always room for the wrong positions to be legitimized by the vote of the representatives. That is what so many are upset about what Government is, and has been doing. As a clergy I agreed to keep the rules but am thankful the resolutions and SP are up for debate every four years. Hopefully we can find a way for the church to be a part of the solution and not simply as user of the system. That's the blasphemous risk of having the look and feel of an institution so great in volume that it takes on the power of Government when it is to be Christ's body for the world. Grrr. I am tired of UMC and CandS articles boasting such pride in their perceived political victories. Don't label me anything but a frustrated United Methodist who is recognizing less of my church and my country.
I'm trying to imagine Jesus suggesting the sick turn to the Romans for their healthcare.
Nope... just doesn't compute for me.
Here is a recent AP article about the real world effects of health care access to the poor in Texas. This is just one article about an existing goverment program running health care, and how it is NOT helping the poor.
AP NewsBreak: Texas docs cut back on poor patientsPosted: Jul 08, 2012 1:20 PM CDT Updated: Jul 08, 2012 1:20 PM CDT
By
CHRIS TOMLINSONAssociated Press AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - A Texas Medical
Association study shows the number of Texas doctors willing to accept
government-funded health insurance plans for the poor and elderly is
dropping dramatically. Doctors are complaining about low payment and red
tape.Only 31% of Texas doctors said they were accepting all new
patients who rely on Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor
and disabled. In 2010, the last time the survey was taken, that number
was 42%.The doctor's reluctance to take on new Medicaid patients comes
as the new health care law proposes adding 6 million new people to the
Medicaid rolls. The association, which has 46,000 members, conducts the
survey of 1,000 doctors every two years. The association says greater
efficiency and a fair payment system are needed.Copyright 2012 The
Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be
published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.