Universal Healthcare: A Response

My last post calling out Christians for not supporting Universal Healthcare when it seems like such a “Christ-like” action generated some comments that I’d like to more fully respond to because they are interesting and I hear a couple of them a lot, though I don’t agree with them, and so a new more Universal Healthcare oriented post is warranted.

Ovi writes:

I understand your point, but I would think the Christ-like decision would in fact be to support the church helping people in their own way, not by order of the King/State.

I don’t think Universal Healthcare in general works… There are people in Canada who have it and cross the border to the US because they have to wait to get treatment in their country… Countries in Europe who have similar systems get most of their medicine from the US because the best medicine and technology comes from the efficient competition-based free market of the US.

When you see stats about people who don’t have healthcare, keep in mind that some people don’t want it and others can in fact afford it, but just don’t get it for whatever reason. So the people who really need it and don’t have family and friends to help them and don’t go to current free clinics that are available, there are a very few of.

Lets take these one by one. First off, the bible is pretty clear that Jesus supports paying taxes (though certainly more vague about voting for legislation that will create taxes). We can extrapolate from this that either Jesus is in favor of bowing to power when taxes are concerned, or in general not opposed to taxation. So I stand by my statement that Jesus would vote for Universal Healthcare, and so supporting it would be a very Christ-like thing to do even if it increased taxes.

Secondly, I think before we can decide whether Universal Healthcare works, we need to define what “works” means. It is my belief that the goal of health care is to provide medical services that extend life, and that the best solution will extend life the most with the least cost. Literally every other industrialized country in the world has some form of Universal Healthcare so we should be able to compare our situation to theirs and determine at least if what we have works better than what they have.

Canadians do see a wait time for elective procedure (emergency procedures are of course handled immediately) but not all of the countries that have single-payer systems like Canada’s have the same problems, and the elderly in the US who use our single-payer system, Medicare (named after Canada’s) certainly don’t see any longer wait times than then non-elderly in the US. The proposals on hand don’t mirror the Canadian system very much, so this isn’t really on the table as an option anyways. I’d be willing to more thoroughly cover this if there is interest.

I haven’t run into any references to new medical technology production in Europe vs. the US but I have done some review of the production of new pharmaceuticals, often referred to as New Chemical Entities or NCEs. This study for example shows that the US dominance in the pharmaceutical industry is a myth and is in fact continuing to wain. Some argue that this isn’t because of the US’s high priced free-market so much as Europe’s ability to run more efficiently, though no one is positing why that is yet. Also we shouldn’t discount that most discovery research in the US is done largely with the $28 billion dollars in research funds provided by the NIH every year, the pharmaceutical companies tend to pick up drugs only after they’re ready for clinical trials. The NIH is a tax funded institute of the US government.

So lets compare the metrics of other countries with the US for health/cost to determine which system works better by my definition of works. The US spends per capita more money on health care than any of its industrialized counterparts, in fact nearly twice as much. The US also sees 60% of its bankruptcies related to medical bills, something that simply doesn’t happen in other developed countries. The argument here goes that we see better outcomes, that is, you get what you pay for. But this simply isn’t true either. The US has the lowest life expectancy and highest infant mortality rates of any of its industrialized contemporaries. We spend more on health care as a percentage of GDP than any other country in the world yet the WHO ranks us as 37th out of 191, just above Slovenia.

The waiting lists in Canada are used as form of rationing health care usage over time, and is rightly pointed out as such, but arguing against rationing is not arguing against Universal Healthcare. The US has rationing too, but it’s done more amorally: we let poor people die. Other systems spend less, get better outcomes, and quite frankly evince more compassion than our system.

Finally, making the statement that a significant number of the 35+ million Americans who don’t have health insurance, or even more so the roughly 45,000 Americans who die every year due to it’s lack, don’t want health insurance seems seriously absurd, but may be worth investigating. I couldn’t find any research addressing the question and I don’t think it’s overstepping to speculate that its because everyone thinks it’s obvious, but I would support research into the issue.

I invite Ovi to contradict anything I’ve said here and to more thoroughly support his points as well. Also I’d be interested in his thoughts on taxation in general so that I could more thoroughly understand them. For example, “Do you seek to remove all taxes?” Also if anyone has more questions or wants sources for the things I didn’t provide (which are plenty) I’ll gladly dig em’ up again (this is a standing invitation for anything I write).

Christians and Universal Health Care

When Otto von Bismark proposed universal health care for all the citizens of Germany in 1881 he described it using the term “applied Christianity.” If you think about what the most moral goal of this health care debate is — creating a system to ensure access to health care for those of use that cannot afford it — it seems completely in line with what Christianity is supposed to be all about . Its a debate about how best to provide charity to those in this country with the most need. It’s a debate about how to achieve something that has so far been patently unachievable in America, even with the great charitable works this country does. This seems like something that would be representative of the kinds of Christian ideals that Christians insist are the reason that Christianity is so important and still relevant.

Why, then, do I not see a huge uprising of support for this from the Christian right? Why are Christians not mobilized to encourage our nation to help those of us in most need? Why do they seem to only get riled up with controlling people’s lives, and not riled up when they have an opportunity to influence something that will save people’s lives.

Do they honestly think that Jesus would vote no on universal health care?

Sarah Palin and Evolution

Apparently Sarah Palin, the ex-governor of Alaska, previous vice presidential candidate, and future presidential hopeful doesn’t believe in evolution. She thinks that creationism should be taught along side evolution in science classes. Here’s the thing about creationism for those of you who don’t follow it: it’s faith, not science. The strongest forms 0f creationists believe that evolution is false, basically because it doesn’t fit in with their world view which was indoctrinated into most of them in childhood. The weakest forms accept evolution by pulling the standard “god of the gaps” routine by stating that while god didn’t create us as we are, He create the initial forms of life and guided the process of evolution. How and why? Who knows, god works in sometimes mysterious ways.

Why isn’t creationism/intelligent design (which are the same thing) science? The key attribute here is that creationism isn’t falsifiable. There is no experiment that can be performed, ever, that would falsify creationism. Evolution, on the other hand, has made hundreds and hundreds of predictions that have all been tested and verified. Those with repeatable results that didn’t fit the current theory were used to change the current theory. This is impossible with creationism, hence creationism is not science.

I’ve gotten sidetracked, but thought it was important to at least get any readers who don’t know about the creationism debate the rough brief, which can easily be verified. The point of this post is Sarah Palin’s belief in creationism, not creationism.

It’s quite clear by Palin’s statements that she doesn’t understand the process of evolution. She says that she, “didn’t believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving beings — originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees.” Well Sarah, neither do people who believe in evolution. The large changes are actually the result of millions of years of small incremental changes. This points out the fundamental problem, evolution literacy, and science literacy in general, is too poor in this country.

We need a public education system that does a better job of teaching science, or even more so of teaching critical thinking. A better system of expounding the value of reason and skepticism. That imbues our children with pride in the idea that their minds can be changed with scientific evidence. This is important because the more accurately we base our decisions on reality the more likely those decisions will be fruitful. This is as true at an individual level as it is at a public policy level.

This post is very rant-like, but I get going on these things.

The Questionable Moral Superiority of God

Let suppose for the sake of this argument that God exists. Any god would suit the purposes of this argument, but in this case we’ll select the Christian god as he is the most prevalent in American culture, in my culture. Supposing he exists and has attributed to him all the powers of omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence, accepting even his paradoxical ability to both know and change his “future mind”. Accepting that he is the creator of the universe, known and unknown, and of utmost importance to us, creator of humanity. God exists and in my hypothetical has provided such evidence that non-belief crosses the border into denialism (which I must state is not currently the case and I would posit the opposite). The question I find myself asking, especially in this hypothetical, is why exactly, other than surface reasons (survival, etc.) should I defer moral superiority to this being?

Why should I accept that just because a being is powerful, and knowledgeable, that moral superiority should be deferred to it. Why should I not demand as much of it, more even, than I do of my fellow man?  Why should I not deny this superiority of morality until it has been proven? It seems to me that even God must be held to the evidence. That even God, must be held to the science. Why is God not held to the moral ambiguity that is so plain in the Universe? Why should I not require more than authority?

Another train of thought grasps me, and I wonder, if God did make itself known to us and stood before us and the sum of its powers became knowable to us, is there a power by which its presence amongst that sum convinces me of its holders moral superiority? I am unable to imagine such a power.

I am remain utterly incapable of understanding the mindset of one who despite no evidence, even celebrating the lack of it, attributes existance, power, and moral superiority to God.

The Nature of the World

When are people going to understand that the world isn’t strangely well suited for us, we are explicitly well suited for it? That if the world were different, we would be different?

To think otherwise is to assume an astonishing hubris, and displays a conviction to ignore demonstrable facts for unfalsifiable faith. To think otherwise is to purposefully set aside reason for irrationality.

Childhood indoctrination is to blame. More on this later.