Catholic Online Forum

Does it matter at all that what we call health care is a relatively new phenomenon largely created by private interactions? Good health is not a new phenomenon, but modern medicine is.

Brian,
People have always had some kind of health care, be it folk medicine or witch doctors. Medicine has evolved like all fields of knowledge. "Modern" medicine will be quaint and old-fashioned a few years from now.

That a killer disease like malaria is so named - from the Italian mala ‘bad’ and aria ‘air’ - is evidence of its suspected miasmic origins.

In 1940, Dr. Benjamin Sandler published a paper, "The production of neuronal injury and necrosis with the virus of poliomyelitis in rabbits during insulin hypoglycemia," in The American Journal of Pathology. Disregarding all the winter holiday intake of sugary treats, from then on out the anti-polio diet was to cut out ice cream.

Eight Local Health Districts cover the Sydney metropolitan region and seven cover rural and regional New South Wales.

In addition, two specialist networks will focus on Children's and Paediatric Services, and Justice & Forensic Mental Health Network. A third network operates across the public health services provided by three Sydney facilities operated by St Vincent's Health: these include St Vincent's Hospital and the Sacred Heart Hospice at Darlinghurst and St Joseph’s at Auburn.

We have been changing the NSW public health system as we work towards delivering better clinical outcomes, better patient experiences and a health system that people are proud to work in.

Our objectives are to deliver a health system in which more decisions are made locally with increased involvement from clinicians and the community. We are providing the people of NSW a health system where they can clearly see how services are run.

What does guarantee mean to you? And what does the Church say about that? In very recent memory here in the US, we had bishop after bishop reminding of the principle of subsidiarity precisely in this context. Violating subsidiarity is a "grave" offense - not something to take lightly.

Pax et bonum,

Brian,

We are well aware of the importance of subsidiarity.

...right now is setting up clinics in schools that WILL among many things prescribe contraceptives and provide abortion 'services' to children WITHOUT consulting parents....

Daniel,



First I've heard of it. Are you able to cite a reliable source?

Thank You for the welcome.

Sadly, I just read some facts today from Washington State which, in its zeal to 'progress', implemented statewide several years ago the school clinics model --the "Social Justice" & "Economic Justice" model GOV in essence wishes to implement nationwide.

• Mother furious after in-school clinic sets up teen's abortion

-small excerpt:


Social Justice? Economic Justice? Hollow words for the innocent and the innocence that was slaughtered...

The fruit from this tree sure seems rotten to me...

For instance, many aspects of Health are a result of 'good' living. I would suggest that as such, Health Care legitimately must include pointing out clearly those activities that are 'bad'. The Church does this -Obamacare does not.

What does guarantee mean to you? And what does the Church say about that? In very recent memory here in the US, we had bishop after bishop reminding of the principle of subsidiarity precisely in this context. Violating subsidiarity is a "grave" offense - not something to take lightly.

Pax et bonum,

Jeff,

"Universal health care" is the correct term for what you would call "socialised medicine". I'd prefer to avoid the word "socialised" as some will toss it around as a bogey-man word.

Universal health care does not violate the principle of subsidiarity. The funds are distributed by the federal government to "Local Area Health Service" groups who then use the funds as indicated by local needs. One paricular reform some of us would like to see is local community representation as well as health care professionals and administrators.

I don't see the necessity for central funding for all. There are many who are quite capable of funding their own health care privately, through insurance.

I don't see the necessity for central funding for all. There are many who are quite capable of funding their own health care privately, through insurance.

To be clear, in Australia, do the doctors work for private health providers or for the government as employees?

From a discussion over two years ago: Catholic Online Forum • Health Care Bill: Who has the facts?

There are many who are quite capable of funding their own health care privately, through insurance.

Medibank was the name given to Australia's system of universal health insurance when it was first created by Gough Whitlam's Australian Labor Party government in 1975.[3] Despite a rise in the number of Australians covered by health insurance plans following the end of the Second World War, a large proportion of the Australian population continued to lack coverage for health risks by the early Seventies. In 1972, it was found that 17% of Australians outside of Queensland (which had a free public health care system[4]) were uninsured, most of whom were on low incomes. The Labor government elected that year sought to put an end to this two-tier system and extend healthcare coverage to the entire population.[5]

Medibank commenced on 1 July 1975 after the passing of the Medibank legislation by a joint sitting of Parliament on 6 and 7 August 1974. According to the Second Reading Speech of the Health Insurance Bill 1973 delivered by the Hon. Bill Hayden on 29 November 1973, the purpose of Medibank was to provide the 'most equitable and efficient means of providing health insurance coverage for all Australians'. The Health Insurance Bill 1973 and the accompanying bills were rejected by the Senate on three occasions (12 December 1973, 2 April 1974 and 18 July 1974) but were subsequently passed at a joint sitting of both Houses (7 August 1974) following a double dissolution election.

Medibank started on schedule, on 1 July 1975.[3] In nine months, the Health Insurance Commission had increased its staff from 22 to 3500, opened 81 offices, installed 31 minicomputers, 633 terminals and 10 medium-sized computers linked by land-lines to the central computer, and issued registered health insurance cards to 90% of the Australian population.

Jeff,



I believe the vast majority are self-employed.

It seems to me that locally administered but centrally funded (e.g. the Canadian and Australian systems seem to run along these lines) systems would respect subsidiarity but also satisfy the solidarity that charity also requires of us.

The problem remains, as Daniel pointed out, that our governments keep wanting to fund ABORTIONS

Debates regarding Medicare focus on the two-tier system and the role of private health insurance. Controversial issues include:

Whether people with means should take up private health insurance
Whether rebates/incentives should be given in terms of private health insurance
People with health insurance still accessing the tax-payer funded public system rather than relying on their insurance.
People with private health insurance are still required to pay a 1.5% levy on their taxes regardless of their income and usage of the system.

People who take up private health insurance are currently rewarded in a number of ways. They receive a Private Health Insurance Rebate that subsidises 30% of their insurance premiums, increasing to 35% or 40% for people over 65. Critics say that the rebate is an unfair subsidy to those who can afford health insurance, claiming the money would be better spent on public hospitals where it would benefit everyone. Supporters say people must be encouraged into the private health care system, claiming the public system is not universally sustainable for the future. Similarly, even after the introduction of the rebate, some private health insurance organisations have raised their premiums most years,[14] somewhat negating the benefit of the rebate.

As at March 2010 approximately 44.5%[15] of Australians also retain private health insurance, even though they are already entitled to free treatment in public hospitals.

Health workers on the New South Wales north coast are being told they cannot call colleagues or patients "mate".

A memo was sent out by the Northern NSW Local Health District last week, reminding community and allied health workers in the region about the need for professional language within the workplace at all times.

Good point. Perhaps central funding is only necessary for those who have no ability to fund their own health care privately? Or perhaps central funding is available only for basic services (obviously not to include morally objectionable services) and not for other services?

The primary reason to avoid central funding is to avoid central control and central planning that necessarily always follows.

turn into or treat as a mere commodity

Good health is a benefit that needs to be defended and guaranteed for all people, not just for those who can afford it, Pope Benedict XVI told hundreds of health care workers...

Hospitals and other facilities "must rethink their particular role in order to avoid having health become a simple 'commodity,' subordinate to the laws of the market, and, therefore, a good reserved to a few, rather than a universal good to be guaranteed and defended," he said.

Daniel,

The definition of "commoditized" you've provided clearly differs considerably from our Holy Father's intended meaning. He means to view something as a mere commodity when it is not; to subject it to market forces when it is something which should not be subject to market forces.

But why let details get in the way of a good centrally planned and administered universal health care plan which ALWAYS translates into good health for all?