Paul Farmer writes often about the commodification of health care, and how commodifying it also leaves the poor, who most need health care, unable to receive it, of being told it isn’t “cost effective” for them to receive it.
My own experiences with “the health care system” are not very positive. I pay a lot for a “health care package” and get it through work, and it is for the most part, not very helpful for me.
I am looking at Medicare because of the possibility I will retire. There are many decisions you have to make and of course Medicare only covers 80%. There is no dental or Eyecare available unless you take Medicare Advantage, but then you are limited to who you can see and deductibles can be high. Regular Medicare allows you to choose who you want to see, but then you are almost obligated have to pick up Supplemental Insurance because Medicare only covers 80% and with the cost of any intervention, paying a deductible and that 20% could bankrupt you quickly if you are on a fixed income. Plus with regular Medicare, there is no dental or Eyecare at all, so if you want it, you have to get a separate Insurance Policy for that.
I think US Healthcare should also be emphasizing wellness as a key policy, and it doesn’t. Let’s face it, medical costs for “Healthcare” as it is now are prohibitive and no policy can keep up with ever escalating costs. Healthcare needs to be changed from a system of commodification to one where those involved in “Healthcare” strive to keep us well. They “accompany” us in our quest for living well. “Accompaniment” is a term Farmers used in his book “To Repair The World” in a chapter called “Accompaniment As Policy”. Accompaniment is a term he said is used in liberation theology which has its roots in Latin America. So what would “Accompaniment” look like? Maybe a health system fir example, that would have more community health workers to help ensure the health of the elderly where they live, or a system that meets people where they work or go to school.
Everything Timothy wrote here was obvious to me. What made the piece so strong was how far away this county is from recognizing health care as a right. The commoditizing of the health care systems separates people from their bodies. It is under the rubric of cruel and unusual punishment.
I would be very curious to know what Timothy thinks of the 'pursuit of happiness' as a right. It is a philosophical matter, perhaps, but I would like to understand it from a historical perspective. Why did Jefferson say that? What did it mean at his time, and what does it mean now?
In the United States we practice “sick care” not “healthcare.”
The ACA ideal was to transition our healthcare system into one that focused on preventative health. Unfortunately, much of the original legislation was watered down to ensure a bill was put forward that would pass.
Healthcare is currently “rationed” by insurance companies who focus on profit. Major insurance companies reported huge profits during the pandemic. Much of which was due to denying (rationing) care to people who needed it most. It’s not just hospitals that are looking at their bottom line. In fact, now a days most of US private insurance healthcare costs go towards administrative costs vs actual healthcare dollars.
If we are to be more free with healthcare, we need to eliminate third party payers and mandate that insurance companies cannot make a profit (as is done in countries like Germany).
Thank you Dr. Snyder for applying your knowledge on freedom to healthcare.
Clearly, not a right in the legal or precatory Declaration of Independence sense. Having said that, health care for all is an ideal supported by the common sense notion of fairness for all the reasons you mention.
Agree about legal but I don't understand precatory. I don't think health care paid for by taxpayers is a right. As a taxpayer, and a liberal, I am okay with my federal taxes going to pay for health care so that is is affordable to all, regardless of their income. What care is covered, like with Medicare, will be debated.
Is there any other right in our society that requires taxpayers' contribution? The 6th Amendment right to counsel comes to mind. The government pays for public defenders and those funds come from taxpayers.
Clearly a human right, both morally, ethically, and should be the law of the land. Economically makes sense too. Longer healthy lives equal more contribution and more consumption over a longer life. Also a healthy population enhances our National Security.
Your sentiments regarding morality and ethics are solid. Unfortunately, these types of intellectual infused discussions are easily derailed without defined terms. I am not sure that we ever have a right to something that requires another person to affirmatively perform. To me, this infringes on the performing person’s right to not perform (e.g, a doctor, nurse, etc.). Can I be society’s only doctor and be forced to provide services for people because healthcare is their right? Also, what exactly is a human right? Are we saying that an individual has a right to “access” a health care system or actual healthcare. There is a meaningful distinction and we should be clear (it will expose difficulties with Tim’s well intentioned arguments (Tim has discussed both)). Of course, moral and ethical arguments do not generate rights but rather purposefully instigate a pursuit of a noble societal ideal. Unfortunately, an agenda, almost always leads to a poorly analyzed well intentioned ideal. We should focus on solutions supporting the ideal of providing healthcare for all instead of manufacturing arguments that are easily dismantled (the fight will be lost). Yes, access to healthcare should be legislated but only because people believe that healthcare is a morally and ethically noble advocacy agenda item and not because we think it is a right (it is not). Also, the arguments become quite complex quickly while pursuing diversions such as adding value to an economy, atrophying technology advancements, and cost restraints. The true argument is whether we have a moral and ethical obligation to help our fellow inhabitants. I believe we do, but Tim’s Human Right HealthCare argument is more poetic in many senses and misses the point (Tim does not miss many). I believe we need honorable advocacy to advance noble ideas. Having said this, I think Tim’s reasons for access to healthcare are strong and comport completely with mine, but I think it is the out front “Human Right” assertion and the “Strengthen Freedoms” arguments which provide unhelpful distractions to what is really being chased.
No one is saying not paying dr/nurses. But I recognize the use of fear as a defense when I see it. Creating a more equal HC industry is not "taking" something away from Dr. and Nurses, it is actually the opposite, Governments can accept some of that risk by allocating budgets appropriately, so that Dr./PA./Nurses, clinics and hospitals can focus on care and not so much on profit and control as their sole organizing principle.
How does a pure market driven health care system work? Is that what we have in America today? Where in the developed world is that working out well? How would it work when a large percentage of people can not afford it? All people deserve quality Health Care. Access to quality Health Care is a human right. In a market driven HC system, if demand is high, it would create incentives for more people to become doctors and nurses, opening more clinics and Hospitals until the supply of services would be so great that the price of services would go down right? So, why hasn't that happened? Why have prices gone up so much and quality gone down so much, while wages are stagnant or decreasing for the middle class? Why is supply so far behind demand?
How has quality been maintained and for whom? How would for profit hospitals be built, staffed and operated in Rural areas? ( over 500 small hospitals have closed just last year alone). Just a small % of defense spending could have been used to keep these 500+ hospitals operating until the pandemic is under control.
The Free Market works great for a lot of goods and services, but falls short for Health Care, made only worse in a society based on inequality.
Free markets have nothing to do with a right to access health care if it is done by legislation. We (and Timothy) need to define our arguments better to gain success in this perceived community good. While healthcare is not a human right it is a worthwhile ideal. By ill-defining the argument you won’t win the argument. There are so many rabbit holes to explore with easily defeated arguments regarding rights and free markets. Notwithstanding, I think we both agree as to the desired outcome. Should I be granted a $2k+ an hour fee for legal advice supported by an MIT undergraduate and Yale Law School degree? Plenty of people think so, but this does not affect my ethical and moral obligation to help people (and I do). I think we need to better define what we are looking for and how to achieve it. If we can’t argue convincingly about healthcare for all because we use specious arguments (e.g., human rights, more freedoms, more economic and technological growth) then we will not succeed in securing the legislation needed. Why is legislation needed? Because healthcare is not a human right. I know I can’t convince you, but I guarantee that Tim is at least thinking about this which will allow his arguments to be even better than they are. Peace.
We can’t force you to be right... @Tim, this was supposed to be a bit more sophisticated and it is unfortunate that you have mined a oleaginous sycophantic in the early days of this noble endeavor. I know you don’t want people who can’t think and use the word “Dude.”
Paul Farmer writes often about the commodification of health care, and how commodifying it also leaves the poor, who most need health care, unable to receive it, of being told it isn’t “cost effective” for them to receive it.
My own experiences with “the health care system” are not very positive. I pay a lot for a “health care package” and get it through work, and it is for the most part, not very helpful for me.
I am looking at Medicare because of the possibility I will retire. There are many decisions you have to make and of course Medicare only covers 80%. There is no dental or Eyecare available unless you take Medicare Advantage, but then you are limited to who you can see and deductibles can be high. Regular Medicare allows you to choose who you want to see, but then you are almost obligated have to pick up Supplemental Insurance because Medicare only covers 80% and with the cost of any intervention, paying a deductible and that 20% could bankrupt you quickly if you are on a fixed income. Plus with regular Medicare, there is no dental or Eyecare at all, so if you want it, you have to get a separate Insurance Policy for that.
I think US Healthcare should also be emphasizing wellness as a key policy, and it doesn’t. Let’s face it, medical costs for “Healthcare” as it is now are prohibitive and no policy can keep up with ever escalating costs. Healthcare needs to be changed from a system of commodification to one where those involved in “Healthcare” strive to keep us well. They “accompany” us in our quest for living well. “Accompaniment” is a term Farmers used in his book “To Repair The World” in a chapter called “Accompaniment As Policy”. Accompaniment is a term he said is used in liberation theology which has its roots in Latin America. So what would “Accompaniment” look like? Maybe a health system fir example, that would have more community health workers to help ensure the health of the elderly where they live, or a system that meets people where they work or go to school.
Loved your book. Beyond being a much valued historian, you an incredibly wise man.
Everything Timothy wrote here was obvious to me. What made the piece so strong was how far away this county is from recognizing health care as a right. The commoditizing of the health care systems separates people from their bodies. It is under the rubric of cruel and unusual punishment.
I would be very curious to know what Timothy thinks of the 'pursuit of happiness' as a right. It is a philosophical matter, perhaps, but I would like to understand it from a historical perspective. Why did Jefferson say that? What did it mean at his time, and what does it mean now?
In the United States we practice “sick care” not “healthcare.”
The ACA ideal was to transition our healthcare system into one that focused on preventative health. Unfortunately, much of the original legislation was watered down to ensure a bill was put forward that would pass.
Healthcare is currently “rationed” by insurance companies who focus on profit. Major insurance companies reported huge profits during the pandemic. Much of which was due to denying (rationing) care to people who needed it most. It’s not just hospitals that are looking at their bottom line. In fact, now a days most of US private insurance healthcare costs go towards administrative costs vs actual healthcare dollars.
If we are to be more free with healthcare, we need to eliminate third party payers and mandate that insurance companies cannot make a profit (as is done in countries like Germany).
Thank you Dr. Snyder for applying your knowledge on freedom to healthcare.
Clearly, not a right in the legal or precatory Declaration of Independence sense. Having said that, health care for all is an ideal supported by the common sense notion of fairness for all the reasons you mention.
Agree about legal but I don't understand precatory. I don't think health care paid for by taxpayers is a right. As a taxpayer, and a liberal, I am okay with my federal taxes going to pay for health care so that is is affordable to all, regardless of their income. What care is covered, like with Medicare, will be debated.
Is there any other right in our society that requires taxpayers' contribution? The 6th Amendment right to counsel comes to mind. The government pays for public defenders and those funds come from taxpayers.
Clearly a human right, both morally, ethically, and should be the law of the land. Economically makes sense too. Longer healthy lives equal more contribution and more consumption over a longer life. Also a healthy population enhances our National Security.
Your sentiments regarding morality and ethics are solid. Unfortunately, these types of intellectual infused discussions are easily derailed without defined terms. I am not sure that we ever have a right to something that requires another person to affirmatively perform. To me, this infringes on the performing person’s right to not perform (e.g, a doctor, nurse, etc.). Can I be society’s only doctor and be forced to provide services for people because healthcare is their right? Also, what exactly is a human right? Are we saying that an individual has a right to “access” a health care system or actual healthcare. There is a meaningful distinction and we should be clear (it will expose difficulties with Tim’s well intentioned arguments (Tim has discussed both)). Of course, moral and ethical arguments do not generate rights but rather purposefully instigate a pursuit of a noble societal ideal. Unfortunately, an agenda, almost always leads to a poorly analyzed well intentioned ideal. We should focus on solutions supporting the ideal of providing healthcare for all instead of manufacturing arguments that are easily dismantled (the fight will be lost). Yes, access to healthcare should be legislated but only because people believe that healthcare is a morally and ethically noble advocacy agenda item and not because we think it is a right (it is not). Also, the arguments become quite complex quickly while pursuing diversions such as adding value to an economy, atrophying technology advancements, and cost restraints. The true argument is whether we have a moral and ethical obligation to help our fellow inhabitants. I believe we do, but Tim’s Human Right HealthCare argument is more poetic in many senses and misses the point (Tim does not miss many). I believe we need honorable advocacy to advance noble ideas. Having said this, I think Tim’s reasons for access to healthcare are strong and comport completely with mine, but I think it is the out front “Human Right” assertion and the “Strengthen Freedoms” arguments which provide unhelpful distractions to what is really being chased.
No one is saying not paying dr/nurses. But I recognize the use of fear as a defense when I see it. Creating a more equal HC industry is not "taking" something away from Dr. and Nurses, it is actually the opposite, Governments can accept some of that risk by allocating budgets appropriately, so that Dr./PA./Nurses, clinics and hospitals can focus on care and not so much on profit and control as their sole organizing principle.
How does a pure market driven health care system work? Is that what we have in America today? Where in the developed world is that working out well? How would it work when a large percentage of people can not afford it? All people deserve quality Health Care. Access to quality Health Care is a human right. In a market driven HC system, if demand is high, it would create incentives for more people to become doctors and nurses, opening more clinics and Hospitals until the supply of services would be so great that the price of services would go down right? So, why hasn't that happened? Why have prices gone up so much and quality gone down so much, while wages are stagnant or decreasing for the middle class? Why is supply so far behind demand?
How has quality been maintained and for whom? How would for profit hospitals be built, staffed and operated in Rural areas? ( over 500 small hospitals have closed just last year alone). Just a small % of defense spending could have been used to keep these 500+ hospitals operating until the pandemic is under control.
The Free Market works great for a lot of goods and services, but falls short for Health Care, made only worse in a society based on inequality.
Free markets have nothing to do with a right to access health care if it is done by legislation. We (and Timothy) need to define our arguments better to gain success in this perceived community good. While healthcare is not a human right it is a worthwhile ideal. By ill-defining the argument you won’t win the argument. There are so many rabbit holes to explore with easily defeated arguments regarding rights and free markets. Notwithstanding, I think we both agree as to the desired outcome. Should I be granted a $2k+ an hour fee for legal advice supported by an MIT undergraduate and Yale Law School degree? Plenty of people think so, but this does not affect my ethical and moral obligation to help people (and I do). I think we need to better define what we are looking for and how to achieve it. If we can’t argue convincingly about healthcare for all because we use specious arguments (e.g., human rights, more freedoms, more economic and technological growth) then we will not succeed in securing the legislation needed. Why is legislation needed? Because healthcare is not a human right. I know I can’t convince you, but I guarantee that Tim is at least thinking about this which will allow his arguments to be even better than they are. Peace.
Dude, you make no sense. But at least we have identified the trolls early on.
We can’t force you to be right... @Tim, this was supposed to be a bit more sophisticated and it is unfortunate that you have mined a oleaginous sycophantic in the early days of this noble endeavor. I know you don’t want people who can’t think and use the word “Dude.”