The United Church of Christ’s General Synod has passed a resolution declaring its support for H.R. 676, a piece of legislation that would mandate a single-payer system of health insurance in the United States. According to UCC News:
Citing both specificity and urgency, General Synod 27 passed without amendment Tuesday a resolution “Calling for the Support of H.R. 676 – Single Payer National Health Care Reform to Advance Health Equity for All and to Eliminate Health Disparities.”
Mary Beth Cross, a delegate from the Nebraska Conference, said after a unanimous vote out of committee Monday that the time to rally is now. “This is a Gospel-mandated mission of faith for everyone to make sure that universal health care becomes a reality.”
The thing is, of course, that as the title of the resolution shows, it isn’t “universal health care” that Ms. Cross and her fellow delegates are interested in. What really floats their boat is the idea of “health equity,” which is to say that people of greater means would be prohibited from getting better care than those of lesser–in effect, mandating that everyone get the same rationed, Canadian-style care that has been driving folks from the Frozen North to seek treatment in the U.S., lest they die while waiting for said care.
“We lift up our (belief) that all persons deserve and must have quality, accessible, affordable health care and related social services – including mental-health service and full accessibility for the disabled,” said Baylor.
H.R. 676 (the U.S. National Health Insurance Act) is a bill introduced by Rep. John Conyers of Michigan to create a single-payer, publicly financed, privately delivered universal health-care program. Its goal is to cover all Americans without charging co-pays or deductibles and guarantees access to the highest quality and most affordable health-care services regardless of employment, ability to pay or pre-existing health conditions.
Well, that’s one description of it. A quick read of the bill (something I doubt most of the delegates did before they voted for a resolution that goes way beyond the competency of a church body) indicates that Conyers’ real aim seems to be to eliminate all profit from the practice of medicine. His bill prohibits private health insurance except for stuff like cosmetic surgery or dentistry, and also declares that the only medical providers that qualify for his government program are those that are “public” or “non-profit.” Given the decay of services in virtually any other industry when the profit motive is eliminated by the force of law, it’s virtually inevitable that the quality of health care in the United State would drop considerably under Conyers’ plan (and of course rationing is a certainty, given that it is the universal result of single-payer systems).
But everyone would be equal. In other news, the UCC recommends that Harrison Bergeron be made America’s patron saint.
The Reformed Pastor 
June 30, 2009 at 9:18 pm
[…] Here is the original: UCC for Equally Bad Health Care « The Reformed Pastor […]
June 30, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Pastor David, that is utter and complete nonsense. I don’t know who you have been reading (maybe those commercials I was talking about earlier?). I live in Canada. Maybe they found fifteen people for those ads who had money who decided to go to the US for care because they wanted to line jump and could afford it. Maybe folks who were sicker than they were really did need to get treatment before them.
Are you seriously saying that rich people deserve better medical care than poor people do? That is is a good thing that the profit system produces good care, but only for those who can afford to pay for it?
Any time I have been seriously ill I have been seen promptly and cared for very well indeed, and my experience is the typical one. I don’t doubt that the rich in the United States get better health care than I do – but the poor (maybe I should say the working poor – the people who make too much to qualify for help, but not enough to pay for decent insurance), get much worse. I don’t think that is something to be proud of, I think it is a disgrace. Heaven forbid I should agree with the UCC (ugh) but this time they are on target. (And maybe you should speak to a few Canadians before you go generalizing about what goes on in my country).
June 30, 2009 at 9:42 pm
One other thing – health care is NOT rationed in my country. My doctor sees me as often as I need to be seen, he orders the tests that he thinks are medically necessary, and I get them in a timely manner. When my mother was diagnosed with cancer, she was seen immediately, and she had a team of doctors looking after her. When she was terminal, she got into a palliative care hospital within a week or two of her doctor setting things in motion. She had excellent care, all the way through.
Contrast that with my father being diagonsed with colitis in the mid 1950’s, before universal health care. His total blood transfusions ammounted to more blood than is in a normal body, and my parents either had to pay for every pint, or have friends and co workers donate blood – two pints for every pint he used. My mother in law had a stillbirth before medicare. It put my husband’s family into a financial hole that they never recovered from. How is this better than the system we have in Canada now?
June 30, 2009 at 10:28 pm
How Steve Jobs managed to get a liver transplant so quickly…He could afford it!
http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/30/steve-jobs-liver-transplant-opinions-contributors-organ-donor.html
My Mother died waiting.
June 30, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Rest eternal grant unto her, oh Lord, and may light perpetual shine upon her. Amen.
July 1, 2009 at 6:17 am
The main problem is that health care system in any country is more bounded with emotional side of man than anything else (of political issues). So then it’s hard to decide rationally
July 1, 2009 at 6:19 am
Kate –
Something that might help both sides discuss this would be some actual facts. People waiting a year or more for a knee replacement, etc…those are anecdotes. Frankly, so are your good experiences and the ones of your mother. It really doesn’t do anyone any good to say, “Because I’ve seen X I’ve come to Y conclusion.” It could be that Canadian medical care is great…or not. But we really need more evidence than the experiential doctrine we’re being presented. (Experience over Scripture…hmm…sounds vaguely familiar…)
July 1, 2009 at 7:11 am
Careful Kate, I think we’ve stumbled upon another point of agreement. 🙂
July 1, 2009 at 7:25 am
Kate:
From the Fraser Institute in Vancouver:
Number of Canadians on waiting lists for referrals to specialists or for medical services — 875,000.
Average wait from time of referral to treatment by a specialist — 17.8 weeks. Shortest waiting time — oncology, 4.9 weeks. Longest waiting times — orthopedic surgery, 40.3 weeks. Average wait to get an MRI — 10.3 weeks nationally but 28 weeks in Newfoundland.
Average wait time for a surgery considered “elective,” like a hip replacement — four or more months.
Estimated number of Canadians going to US for treatment: over 40,000.
Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not suggesting the Canadian system is all bad. Far from it. There are things the Canadian system does far better than the US. But keep in mind that you have the Canadian government running yours, while we would have Washington running ours. No government is perfect, obviously, but when it comes to delivering services, and overcoming the law of unintended consequences, the US government seems to be almost uniquely cursed.
I’m glad you amended “poor” to “working poor,” because that recognizes a reality here, which is that we’re talking about a much smaller class of people than just “the poor.” But for the sake of a relatively small number of people, the administration is willing to change our health care system from top to bottom for anyone. Why not deal with the actual problem, rather than insist that it cover everyone? After all, being tax-financed, everyone would contribute to the effort to cover those less fortunate. It seems as though it is all in the interest of the talisman of “equality.”
July 1, 2009 at 9:21 am
The Fraser Intstitute is a right wing think tank that is well known here for only presenting one side of the story, just fyi.
Yes, we have wait times. Some of them are too long, and the government is working on solving the problem. Some of the problem has to do with isolation. We are a very large country with a relatively small population. (Have you looked at where Newfoundland is on the map?) What are the wait times for those services in the United States, and how are those wait times affected by how rich you are? Waiting lists here are triaged by how sick you are – the more seriously ill you are, the closer to the top of the line you are placed. In this case, the talisman of equality is a good thing.
Oh, and Alan? Next time I disagree with you, maybe you could control the petulant “you wouldn’t be caught dead agreeing with me” reactions, OK? It makes for a much more pleasant conversation.
July 1, 2009 at 9:23 am
Please add to the end of second to last paragraph above: “It saves lives”.
July 1, 2009 at 9:25 am
Isn’t everyone contributing to cover the less fortunate a very Christian ideal? Why on earth would you think this was a bad thing?
July 1, 2009 at 9:45 am
Sorry for the multiple comments – How many of those 40,000 were actually sent to the US, paid for by our system, because the illness was rare and we don’t have experts on it here (this can often happen because of our comparitvely small population)?
July 1, 2009 at 12:20 pm
I didn’t say it was a bad idea. I said that’s the way it would work if the government covered those who aren’t covered now, rather going to a system that covered everyone whether they wanted to be or not.
July 1, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Sorry, I misread your comment. I read it in a hurry, as I was on my way out the door for Canada day celebrations. I didn’t get a photo, but I saw a very cute pair of five week old identical twins with maple leaves painted on their foreheads…
Anyway, if you don’t make health care universal, you will still have a two tier system, with wealthy or well employed people getting much better care than the working poor. Is that a good thing? It would certainly be an improvement for people who aren’t covered at all at present, but if everyone pays in, and everyone is covered, you elimiate the insurance company middle man, and doctors can do the jobs they are supposed to be doing without having to worry about whether or not they will get paid.
July 1, 2009 at 4:45 pm
40,000 people comeing to the US for care? Wow that’s a wopping 0.1%!
Surely we must base out entire healthcare strategy on 0.1%! Feh. Why even bother quoting numbers you don’t understand? (And how many US patients get their drugs from Canada? Just because they get their Rx from Canada doesn’t mean it’s necessarily better. So drawing conclusions about that 0.1% is also meaningless.)
As for the waitlists, I don’t know anyone who can get in to see a specialist here at UM Hospital (one of the best in the world) in shorter than a month (or more). So 4.9 weeks to get in to see an oncologist doesn’t seem much different than here.
Yet somehow the “horrible” healthcare in Canada results in a longer life expectancy than the US.
I can throw out all sorts of meaningless numbers too, David. You know what they say about lies, damn lies, and statistics, right?
Yet in the meantime millions of Americans have no health insurance and millions more don’t have adequate insurance, while every driver on the road is *required* by law to carry auto insurance. We insure our cars, but can’t be bothered to insure our citizens.
Because obviously requiring insurance would be socialist. 😉
July 1, 2009 at 4:58 pm
To be fair, it is 0.1% of our population, not 0.1% of our seriously ill population. Still a small number.
July 1, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Thanks, Kate. It is a small number, but it’s been growing steadily over the last several years, as has the number of Canadians going to private clinics in their own country.
Alan: Agreed, five weeks to see an oncologist isn’t bad at all. Ten months for orthopedic surgery, not so much. In any case, I noticed that you didn’t take up my primary point: that there are ways that those who are not now provided for can be, while not forcing millions who don’t want to be part of a government system into one.
Oh, and I’ve never used the word “socialist” with regard to this subject. Please don’t put words in my keyboard.
July 1, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Everyone is going to have to be a part of paying for that government system, whether they want to take part in it or not. Seems to me to be more efficient to make everyone a part of it. It is more just as well. Consider – middle class person, twenty five grand in a savings account. Thinks he doesn’t need insurance, he can pay for what he needs. Then his kid gets diagnosed with cancer. How long would that money last? Then what? There is a reason that politicians in Canada don’t dare mess with our health care system. It works, and we know it. Any politician who would suggest moving to an American style system would lose his or her seat in the house.
We went through all this when medicare was first established in Canada. The predictions of catastrophe were unfounded.
July 2, 2009 at 7:35 am
“I noticed that you didn’t take up my primary point: that there are ways that those who are not now provided for can be, while not forcing millions who don’t want to be part of a government system into one.”
Because I don’t disagree. I get great health care as a grad student at UM, and I’m happy to continue. My brother, however, isn’t so lucky and has to pay gajillions out-of-pocket to insure his two kids, while not being able to afford care for himself. A government safety net that isn’t required, but is offered is a good solution, and is pretty much what most folks are talking about.
BTW, I didn’t say you used the word “socialist” but anyone paying attention has heard that common bit of rhetoric these days in the whole discussion.
July 2, 2009 at 10:36 am
If the safety net is offered, but not required, where is the incentive to keep it a good safety net? Won’t the “I’m all right, Jack, too bad for you” attitude prevail?
Anyway, good luck with that. I hope Obama manages to do something about getting some sort of a universally available safety net up.
July 2, 2009 at 10:53 am
I think that’s a good question, Kate. I’m just not sure we have a good answer for it. But it seems to me that starting out with an option is better than doing nothing, and if we tried to put something required on the table, we’d likely get nothing at all (though it would likely save money in the long run and would be no different than government required car insurance.)
Getting at least a minimal program going, seeing how things work, and tweaking as necessary may be the best we can hope for at this point given the political realities.
July 2, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Kate and other Canadians,
I’d be curious to know what your tax rates are to pay for that system. I completely agree that the US system needs some serious reform. I live (and work at a hospital) in Miami, FL- home to the highest health care rates in the country. But, I’m also not confident in the government to provide an efficient and effective health insurance. Furthermore, a state health system would give the government immense power over biomedical ethical decision making, an issue that could have profound ramifications.
Let’s be careful in comparing the US and Canada. For all of its landmass, Canada has about 1/9 of the US population (33 mill vs 304mill). That translates to signficantly bigger and more complex problems in this country. I think the bottom line is that many Americans tend to be suspicious of the federal government, perhaps more so than Canadians.
And btw, who even listens to the UCC…is political babbling all that denomination can do?
July 2, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Health care is a provincial responsibility here. The federal government gives the provinces money from federal taxes, but it is up to the provincial governments how they spend it (although they are of course bound by federal law).
I’ll ask my husband to come round and answer the tax rates question. Since I married an accountant, he takes care of doing the taxes, so I don’t pay all that much attention to rates, etc. I do know that there are some states that have higher tax rates than my family pays (but again, that differs from province to province).
July 2, 2009 at 8:56 pm
This is an exceptionally complex question, given the sheer number of jurisdictions in North America that can levy income taxes and user fees.
The average tax rate for a family that makes $50k per year in Canada is somewhere around 37%. It seems that it is about 33% in the US, but the net amount paid is different because of different adjustments that are allowed to taxable income. For instance, tuition costs are deductible in Canada but mortgage interest is not. There are a few other differences.
The taxes are used differently as well. Canada spends a very large proportion of its revenues on tranportation infrastructure and health care and as little as practical on our military. Some of the differential is economy of scale issues – eg. to keep a presence in rural communities.
The US also spends a great deal on health care for certain entitled groups like veterans and impoverished pensioners. There are gaps in both systems.
It should be remembered that our system began as a municipal government sponsored coop effort to hire doctors for rural areas. The underpinning around universal access in Canada was that in the 1940s, over half of the people in the country had to travel more than two hours each way to visit a GP. This is still true for more than 5% of the population. Affordability was a part of the equation, but it was not the initial concern. Later, when the Saskatchewan experiment proved to work reasonably well, the federal government put the Canada Health Act in place to provide about half of the cost of the system as long as there was equal access in all provinces for all Canadians.
The one part that rankles the libertarians is that doctors, who are independent businessmen, must agree to an either/or agreement. If they wish to be reimbursed for listed services by Medicare, they cannot bill the patient anything extra. Services not listed, such as cosmetic surgery or laser eye surgery, or listed services provided to uninsured patients are between the doctor and patient. The related issue is that doctors who do not sign up with Medicare may not use public hospitals.
There are some private hospitals left in Canada, but not many. Because the US is so close, most patients who can afford to pay for their own care (which is tax deductible) will head south.
July 3, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Having recently visited Canada I remember paying 14% sales tax and gasoline was about $1.00 or so per gallon higher in Canada than in the USA because of higher taxes.
Compared to Europe, Canada is a cheap place to visit. In Europe I pay around 20% or so sales tax and gasoline taxes are $3.00 per gallon higher than in the USA.
Free Health Care sounds great until you have to pay for it.
July 3, 2009 at 1:40 pm
The gas taxes go to road upkeep, they have nothing to do with health care.
In other words, “I’m all right Jack, too bad for you?”. Not the kind of society I want to live in. There isn’t a single person in my country who has to go without health care because he or she can’t pay for it.
Can you say the same?
July 3, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Kate, unfortunately these are the inconsistencies in these debates in the US. Our per capita GDP is sufficiently higher than Canada’s that it is ridiculous to suggest that Canada can afford healthcare while we can’t. It isn’t about can’t, it’s about won’t.
On the one hand we have Republicans who passionately fight for the unborn, but abandon that passion once the child gets born. On the other hand we have the Democrats who passionately fight for good healthcare for every child, every child lucky enough to get born, that is.
Obviously both are inconsistent and both claim that they’re not. It’s never made much sense to me, but then I’m not sure it’s supposed to.
July 3, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Lord, have mercy.
July 3, 2009 at 6:46 pm
[…] care reform legislation this year”; Big Surprise From RCRC on National Health Plan (Not); UCC for Equally Bad Health Care …. (ird, […]
July 4, 2009 at 4:59 am
“we have the Democrats who passionately fight for good health care for every child,”
oh come on, you are discussing politics. do you really believe they “passionately fight” ?? don’t be naive, its all about who will control the interesting amount of national GDP and who is able to cloak his strategy as acceptable for voters…
July 4, 2009 at 6:35 am
Larry
We know that it isn’t free health care. It was, in my parent’s generation, a conscious choice to increase taxes to fund this system. A proper tax _then_ spend decision, unlike the habits of current politicians on both sides of the border who spend then tax. Employers supported, and still support, the system because they have a generally healthier workforce than if the system didn’t exist – and at a lower net cost to them for medical benefits.
Unfortunately, the current set of politicians speak of the system in “rights” language, when it is in fact a political choice, albeit one that would be very difficult to reverse. Canadians regard our system as good public policy – your mileage may vary – and we are willing to pay the taxes to support it.
If you are unfortunate enough to be seriously ill or injured here, you will be treated first and we’ll figure out payment later. This was not the case when my wife was injured in the US.
July 4, 2009 at 8:25 am
Don’t remind me. Dislocated kneecaps are not fun.
July 4, 2009 at 9:19 am
Joe Six Pack is not going to be a happy camper next July 4th when the taxes on his beer go up to pay for his free health care ala Canadian Style—
Canadian taxes account for 53 percent of the average retail price of beer, compared to 18 percent in the United States.
July 4, 2009 at 11:39 am
He will be if his kid gets cancer.
July 4, 2009 at 11:51 am
Something else just occured to me – are you trying to tell me that the majority of Americans are so selfish that they would rather have cheap beer than universal access to decent health care? My family and I travelled across the US last year, and we met a lot of folks, and frankly, I find that very hard to believe.
July 4, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Why is it that we only read anecdotal stories about Canadians coming to the United States for immediate medical care?
Since the Canadian system is supposedly so good that the United States should emulate it, it seems Americans would be standing in line to get into a Canadian hospital for some medical procedure.
July 4, 2009 at 12:34 pm
I will fully admit that the top hospitals worldwide have people lining up for treatment. The US, because of demographics and other factors such as research grants for university hospitals, leads the high end of medical practice. There are a couple of Canadian centres of excellence like Sick Kids in Toronto and the Penfield Institute in Montreal that have wait lists.
You also hear about the anecdotal cases because critics of our system make sure they get publicized. I would not recommend a Canadian style system for the US. It requires a certain coop, yea dare I say socialist, philosophy that does not seem to work in most communities in the US. Is there a made in the USA solution? Probably. It may be that the original municipally sponsored HMO model from Saskatchewan, with some subsidy from the US Fed to pay for the local VA, Medicaid and Medicare patients would work. Or maybe not.
As an aside, the liquor taxes were imposed here at the same time as the US imposed Prohibition. The point of both regimes was to reduce consumption of alcohol. Neither worked the way they were intended, but we haven’t gotten annoyed enough at our governments to lobby hard for change, although the net rates have been reduced so that the differential between the two countries prices does not encourage massive smuggling northward.
July 4, 2009 at 12:39 pm
I will also say that many US citizens obtained Ontario Medicare cards under false pretenses because they owned land here. A significant number of those cases were by people who bought land here in order to obtain that medical coverage. There was a crackdown on this practice a few years ago when the Ontario government changed the health cards to have a picture and an expiry date. As far as I know, the government chose to forgive all of that debt rather than go to the expense of investigating and trying to collect. By some estimates, there were close to 1 million valid health cards issued to non-residents, most of whom were US citizens.
July 4, 2009 at 12:41 pm
If the critics of the Canadian system make sure anecdotal stories of Canadians coming to America for medical treatment get published, then why are not the proponents of the Canadian system making sure anecdotal stories of Americans going to Canadian hospitals for medical treatment get published?
It works both ways. And if there are no anecdotal stories of Americans going to Canada to get treatment that says a lot about the situation.
One way trafficking reminds of the days when the East Germans were walled in. The Soviets kept telling the world how great their system was, but it seemed the traffic was one way. Namely, how do I get across the wall to freedom in West Germany.
July 4, 2009 at 1:18 pm
All it means is that the proponents of universal health care are using different strategies to get their point across. It says absolutely nothing about the general situation.
July 4, 2009 at 1:19 pm
… and what about all those US citizens who were coming to Ontario?
July 4, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Here’s an interesting link:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/07/09/health-card.html
300,000 more Ontario health cards than there should be. No doubt some of those are illegal immigrants, but where do you think the others are coming from? We only have a land border with one country…. If our health care is so horrid, why do people commit fraud to get access to it?
July 4, 2009 at 1:44 pm
And incidently, that 300,000 was after we started cleaning the problem up.
July 6, 2009 at 8:36 am
Torontoinsurance wrote, “oh come on, you are discussing politics. do you really believe they “passionately fight” ?? ”
Perhaps I was overgeneralizing, but then, so are you. Yes, I’m sure it is true that there’s a lot of lobbying on both sides (which you fail to acknowledge.) And as I believe some Republican politicians simply use abortion as a money raising issue, it’s only fair that I acknowledge that some Democratic politicians do the same with health care.
However, some of folks actually do passionately fight for what they believe is right.
So we should all remember not to tar everyone with the same brush, eh?
July 6, 2009 at 1:08 pm
After reading the original article a little more carefully, the propose bill goes well beyond the Canadian model. Doctors in Canada are independent businessmen who do make a profit. Our hospitals are mostly non-profit or goverment run, but the doctors bill fees for the actual services provided according to a payment schedule negotiated between the medical association and the government.
There is still scope for private health insurance to provide better quality accommodations at hospitals, higher quality or frequency of nursing care and so on. Health care here is rationed more by the medical associations who are limiting the number of practicioners than by the government.
Supply and demand is at work here, but the supply of doctors is smaller than the demand. The universities have not expanded their programs to keep up with the demand for physicians and the medical associations act like a guild and don’t accept foreign credentials all that readily.