Did Any Ministers Here Opt Out of Socialized Medicine?

[Bruce Gourley]

Medicare is, of course, socialized health care, while Social Security is socialized retirement. Ordained ministers have (or had) the option of opting out of if the minister opposes socialism on moral, ethical or theological grounds.

So my question is: has any minister who claims to despise socialism, refused to participate in America's long-running socialist programs, Medicare and Social Security? And if not, how do you justify supporting socialism by your actions, while claiming to be opposed to socialism?

[Jim]

[JaneFordA]

[Jim]

[Bruce Gourley]

[Sandy]

The problem with "opting out" of medicare and social security is that there aren't many other options in the private sector that will provide the kind of return or coverage that either of these programs provide, and that's a flat fact. I know many ministers who, following the recession and the drop in the stock market, which permanently cut into their anticipated retirement benefits, now wish they had not opted out of Social Security. For most average wage earners, especially ministers and others who must set up their own accounts, the ups and downs of investment income make depending on social security even more important than it is now for a lot of people. I'm very glad I did not opt out when I had the chance.

All the screaming and screeching that is being done in town hall meetings, prompted largely by the talk radio crowd, is largely the result of massive mis-information, regarding both the Obama administration's proposals, and what is now happening in health care in particular. The fact of the matter is that Americans do not have access to the best health care money can by, they have access to whatever health care their profit-oriented insurance company is willing to pay. Frankly, I see little difference between a government bean counter making some kind of medical decision on behalf of a patient, based on the bottom line dollar amount, and an insurance company case manager in a hospital making the same decision on behalf of the patient, based more on the dollar amount the company is willing to pay than on the decision of the doctors in charge. The fact of the matter is that medicare will provide far more coverage, at far less cost, than any private insurance company would do, and on a limited, fixed income, private insurance is not an option. It costs more than most people would receive in retirement benefits.

I'm not convinced that the Obama administration's plan, which is in essence a virtual takeover of health care by the government, is the way to go. The problem with the debate is that a bunch of loud, rude people, prompted by radio announcers, are making a real discussion impossible. They are paid millions to make sure that the corporate interests, which include pharmaceutical companies and health insurers, don't loose their golden egg, and that is the reason they have engaged in a shouting match, rather than a debate. Of course, they are multi millionaires, their incomes and lifestyles are recession proof, they don't have to worry about unemployment, so they can sit back and tell other people what to do. The GOP used to be really good at being the minority party, and offering up alternative plans that managed to work their way into real solutions to problems. Now, it seems, they are shooting themselves in the foot.

[Ed Edwards]

Socialized Medicine is expressed Christian Compassion at the 'state' (i.e. USofA) level.

[Jim]

[William Thornton]

[Ed Edwards]

[Bruce Gourley]

[Bruce Gourley]

[ET]

[Sandy]

Rush isn't the only talk radio deejay who advocates for right wing extremists. Hannity has encouraged the screeching, as has Glenn Beck, and a lot of local media market wannabees.

But here's the real problem. Health care reform has been near the top of the issue pile since at least 2006, and the Democrats know that a lot of their seats in Congress have come because they've promised to reform the system. People can jiggle with rage all they want to in these town hall meetings, the fact of the matter is that 58% of the voters have cast their ballots for Democrats and a large percentage of those are expecting action on the health care issue. The Republicans had their chances, and preferred to keep the status quo, so the people voted them out of office. They have a chance, if someone in the party will stand up and take the leadership initiative away from the corporate mouthpieces on the radio, and offer a workable, reasonable alternative to what Obama is proposing.

Here's the bottom line. Obama's job approval rating is sagging. CNN's National Report Card saw those involved in the survey give him and his administration a C-. That should be good news for the GOP, and normally they would be able to seize an opportunity to gain some ground. But they've fallen further behind than they already were, and at this point, past the 200 day mark of a new administration, and just a little less than eighteen months until a mid-term election, they are losing ground. As long as the talk radio corporate mouthpieces dictate party policy, and leave the impression that the GOP is doing nothing but complaining and whining, and not offering anything constructive in opposition, they will continue to lose ground, lose seats in Congress, and lose elections. The GOP has dropped, in 100 days, from 58% giving them a D or an F, to 66% giving them a D or an F, 52% an outright F. If this is the way the Republicans are going to conduct themselves in the debate, then we will have a health care system fully operated by the government. No alternative will be offered and the Democrats have the votes to do it.

I thought ET's statement about England and Canada importing doctors from India was interesting. When I was in Houston's Methodist Hospital last August for the better part of the month, only two of the dozen different attending physicians I had were US citizens, and caucasians. The rest of them, including the hospitalist team, were all here on visas from a variety of different countries, mostly India. I think Indians compose the largest number of medical staff in the Texas Medical Center, the world's largest medical complex, composed of two major medical schools, a dozen hospitals, several of which are among the top in the country, and three nursing schools. The last published figure I heard was 70% of the TMC's professional medical staff were non-citizens. Next to the Indians, you'll run into a lot of Europeans, mostly Germans, and lots of Koreans and Vietnamese.

BTW, the top ER trauma center in Houston, and one of the best in the country, is at Ben Taub Hospital, our not-for-profit county-funded hospital in the medical center. If you're in Houston, it's the ER you hope is not on drive-by status if you need it. Some of the top medical research in the country is done there, in a completely non-profit environment in which about 95% of its patients are indigent. Some of the best cancer research results have come from M.D. Anderson, operated by the University of Texas Medical School, a not-for-profit, state-funded hospital. One of the country's top AIDS research and treatment centers is Thomas Avenue Clinic in Houston, connected to Lyndon B. Johnson Hospital, also a county-funded, not for profit hospital. So profit doesn't have to be part of the equation for good treatment or solid medical research.

[William Thornton]

Bruce's question is the wrong question. Clergy may opt out of Social Security and Medicare for a very narrow reason, that reason being that they have a religiously based objection to receiving government benefits. While I know of a few of the brethren who have opted out, my assessment of them is that they have done so by lying about their reasons.

With respect to medicare, I will use it when I am old enough. I will also have to go into the private insurance market to buy a medicare supplement to make it work. By doing that, I can choose physicians and make my own healthcare decisions. If you have no supplement, you are at the mercy of the bureaucrats and doctors. Most of us pastors have heard old folks say they can no longer visit their doctor because the doctor no longer accepts medicare assignment.

But the point that no one who accepts medicare may argue against obamacare is a red herring.

Timothy wrongly believes that we have poor health care in America because of capitalism. That is silly and innacurate. We have very good health care in America because of innovation, competition, and the motive for profit. I can only throw up my hands in disgust when my religioulsy liberal friends start down their anti-capitalist road.

Many conservative commentators decry the coupling of job and health insurance, Timothy, and that should be fixed. Just this year I reached the age where I no longer am at risk of losing health insurance if I lost my job. There are various proposals around that would fix this. I don't know which would be best.

Obama's problem is that he (and Pelosi and Reid) are trying to shove this stuff, unseen and undebated, down the country's throat (the 1k page bill no one seems to have read, nor understood), covering additional millions of uninsured while promising that costs will go down and taxes will only go up on the very wealthy. LIes, lies, and more lies. I expected better from the man who declare dhe was a devout Christian.

[KeithE]

[Haruo]

[Bruce Gourley]

[Jim]

Those who receive Medicare find two columns of costs on the billing. One is what the doctor charges; the other is what he has agreed to accept from Medicare. All of my doctors for many years have agreed to accept the Medicare payment. Private insurers and co-payers pay the difference. I carry Part B, private supplemental insurance, and prescription-medicine insurance. None of this covers dental. Part of my premium-payments is used to take care of people who can pay nothing. I have no objection to this.

The single-pay system is designed to deep-six insurance companies, thus making the government sole provider. Army officers are paid what the government allows. An army major with ten years service will make about $75,000 a year in salary. There are some good perks, but his total income is nowhere near what a civilian doctor makes. Even a Lt. Col. will not make much more than a major. These are the ranks most army doctors hold. When the government takes over the health industry, it will set the salaries of doctors, just as it sets the salaries of army-officer doctors. In a town of 15,000 in the 1990s, I worked for a computer outfit that set up and operated networks in MD offices. One such doctor in a small practice paid himself $30,000 a month. This was far more than an army general makes with 32 years of service, about $16,400 a month. The upshot: There will be little incentive for people to go into medicine. Lowly Congress-people make something like $14,000 a month, and they can be as dumb as a gourd, while a doctor not only needs to be smart but must invest years of expensive training in his profession to get to where he can get some payback.

There are doctors who charge way too much – hospitals, too, although both, in the final analysis, take care of people who can’t pay, never mind the sensational cases that make it into TV. The fertility rate of white people in this country (most doctors are white) is right at the stable rate and going down, the same as in Europe, which is rapidly becoming Muslim. Already, this country is filled with doctors from other countries (some almost un-understandable). Under the government, the incentive to train for the medical profession will disappear, since skilled craftsmen can do about as well and may need only a GED. This means a pronounced shortage of doctors, thus the long lines constantly shown in countries like Canada and England, not to mention the inevitable rationing of care.

The current system needs to be tweaked such as reforming tort law with respect to pain and suffering and thus driving down liability insurance-costs for doctors. Allow citizens to pick insurers anywhere, not just in their states, as with auto and home insurance. Competition beats anything with regard to costs and services. Pass legislation something similar to Medicare for the people with catastrophic illnesses. Those needing kidney-dialysis, for instance, are already covered. Revamping the entire system is a recipe for disaster, and people have a right to be alarmed and outspoken.

[Jonathan]

[Jim]

The thing that grates is the supercilious preachment that no profit should be earned in the business of healing people. Jesus said that the servant is worthy of his hire. The doctor (servant) is worthy of his hire. The liberals who poke fun at the phrase “What would Jesus do” nevertheless express outrage at a doctor’s making a fine living at what he does (saving lives), implying that Jesus would not approve of that…in other words, “What would Jesus do, you squirrelly, greedy doctors?” The irony is obvious and damning. Should the question ever be directed toward ministers who do quite well, thank you? Should they accept only enough to keep body and soul together (no profit, in other words)? Egad! The profit motive drives the machine of industry that in turn makes jobs that keep people alive and happy. The profit motive has made the medical departments in this country the envy of the world. It has made this country the hallmark of the “good life.” The government is killing the system that has made it great – taking over the banks, the car industry, the lending agencies, and now 17% of the GDP, the health industry. It is heading south…and fast!

[William Thornton]

[Chris]

[KeithE]

[ET]