I have been thinking about political issues (as opposed to candidates, or races) quite a bit more than I have in other years. I am also (I admit) far more confused than I ever have been about good policy vs. bad policy than ever before.
I was a Ron Paul supporter in the primary. I was primarily and initially attracted to his campaign because of his "social" policies, particularly his strong pro-life stand, and his approach to education, health care, and his vision of reining in the reach of the federal government, per the Constitution. But many of his supporters have as their number one concern this whole financial crisis mess, the Federal Reserve, etc.
To be honest I don't have the most solid grasp on the history of the US economy or on the meaning of what has just happened this week on Wall Street. But it this little snippet does make sense to me. As a family, we discern what is reasonable for us to do, to endeavor, to spend, based on what income and savings we have. As a country, is it not reasonable for us to sometimes say "no" to meeting something someone feels is a need, simply because it is not financially feasible? This is something I have heard Ron Paul say over and over, and I think I finally get it. I see little difference between Democrat and Republican when it comes to the love of spending tax money, which may or may not actually exist.
4 comments:
Hi Marie - While Ron Paul is certainly anti-abortion, I have a hard time calling someone pro-life who is adamant about denying medical care to those in need of it based on their immigration status. :-(
Anyway - I read a good explanation of how this financial debacle began here: http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/09/20/why-our-financial-system-nearly-collapsed/
Ah, but you see, why can't who is provided with health care on a fee-reduced basis be in the hands of doctors themselves?
There are so many layers of inefficiency -- economic and technical -- in the health care system as it stands. Not to mention that it is the third leading cause of death in the US!
"why can't who is provided with health care on a fee-reduced basis be in the hands of doctors themselves?"
Because I'm fairly positive it would be unethical for any doctor to decide "Well, you don't deserve care because you came here illegally" or "you don't deserve care because you can't pay."
I heard Ron Paul on an interview discussing how if we turned "illegals" away from ERs they would quit coming here. I'm sorry but that is appalling.
Yes, our health care system is very flawed but to think it is ever ok to deny medical care based on a doctor's opinion of you is even more flawed. Not to mention, it probably isn't a doctor's decision but hospital administrators. But the fact that Ron Paul is a doctor and is fine with denying medical care, yuck, yuck, yuck. Sorry :-/
We (people like me and you) are in the postion of being able to seek another care provider but people on the fringe of society are not.
Years ago, our family was without insurance when one ds broke an arm. Yes, they saw us in the er, x-rayed and wrapped it up. It was a complete, off-set break about three inches below the shoulder socket. we were told we'd need to see a orthpedic specialist. Have you ever had to call specialist after specialist after specialist to see who will take you on a payment basis? A general practioner won't touch a fracture like that!
So an illegal immigrant kid deserves to be crippled due to that sort of injury because he shouldn't be here in the first place? Really?
Anyway - I just picked up Archbishop Chaput's Render unto Caesar. I hope to gain a more Catholci perspective of activism in the political realm from that.
You are envisioning something I'm not. (Nobody said anything about personal preference tribunal where doctors would only see their friends!) I'm talking about sliding fee scale based on need. Our hospitals here offer this.
My son has government insurance. Do you know what it is like to call doctor after doctor after doctor, only to be told that they don't accept it? What kind of benefit is it to us? Same deal.
Ron Paul is about denying federal payment for health care, not about denying health care. There is a difference. Governments cannot pay for everything for everyone -- it just is not sustainable.
WE can do what WE can do to help others, though. Catholics started hospitals, neh?
Post a Comment