According to MedicalMalpractic.com, less than 0.05% of doctors face serious state sanctions each year. About 1% of patients in New York were casualties of medical malpractice in 1984, and it appears that the numbers haven't changed much. There hasn't been a significant change in the numbers of malpractice suits for a long time. Malpractice is defined as "a breach a standard by a member of a profession". It could be a standard of care or a standard of conduct. Generally the notion references negligence. According to the Free Dictionary, "Negligence is conduct that falls below the legally established standard for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm."
Consider this, then. Few doctors have a problem with malpractice. Few patients suffer from malpractice. Malpractice is hard to define. (From the perspective of the attorney, a medical mistake is equated with malpractice. Apparently the "standard of care" that the medical profession is required to meet is perfection. Accidents are a breach of the standard of the profession.) So ... why is it that medical malpractice costs some doctors more money per year than many doctors make each year? For instance, OB/GYN doctors pay up to $277,000 in insurance premiums each year in Florida. Many will tell you that the cost of malpractice insurance isn't affecting the cost of medical care. It seems impossible to conclude otherwise. Areas of the country have lost doctors who couldn't afford to keep up with the premiums. Maybe it's true that malpractice lawsuits are not driving up the cost, but since doctors can't practice without the insurance, it seems quite obvious that malpractice concerns, either from insurance or lawsuit perspectives, is certainly impacting what we, the patients, have to pay for medical care.
Medical malpractice tort reform is not likely the answer to the problem of America's health care problems. Nor is regulation of the insurance market. I'm not suggesting that. I'm simply pointing out the common problem that all angles of this question suggest: human greed. Right or wrong, doctors want to make more than the average person. To some extent, they have to just to pay for their insurance. Lawyers see opportunities to make money here and capitalize on it. The insurance companies see their opportunity to make money on the fears of doctors and patients and go for their share. And, of course, people who suffer loss because of malpractice, real or imagined, see an opportunity to make money where they never did before.
From the current perspectives of many today, the fix for this problem is to put the government in charge. Maybe they regulate the legal profession better. Maybe they regulate the insurance profession better. Maybe they regulate the cost of medical care better. Maybe they just throw tax money (tax money the government doesn't currently have but will certainly need to take) at the problem. I am firmly convinced, however, that the problem isn't fixed by the government. New laws and regulations and bureaucracy doesn't eliminate medical errors, doesn't assuage the grief and outrage of injured patients and their families, doesn't alleviate human greed. It doesn't make lawyers, insurance, or doctors more moral. It doesn't address the basic problem -- human nature.
Can we fix this problem? Some would like us to think that the government is the fix. Some would like us to believe that it's a problem of money or regulation. Some want us to conclude that it's a Christian issue. I conclude, in the end, that it is indeed a Christian issue, but not one that is passed off onto the government. The fix for this problem is not new bureacracy or changed laws. It's changed hearts ... something that only the Christ of Christianity can offer. Our part in that solution is not to withdraw from the public, but to 1) live godly lives in front of people, 2) love as Christ told us to, and 3) share the unvarnished Gospel. None of that is a government issue.
25 comments:
I agree wholeheartedly. We Christians ought to live godly lives, love as Christ told us to and share the Good news.
In the meantime, many people are experiencing medical need. Millions of people, it sounds like. If we merely say, in the words of James, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet we do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?
James tells us we have missed part of the gospel if that is all we do. On this point, I am sure we agree. James is quite clear, "So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is DEAD." (empahsis, mine) and we all agree with James, I'm sure.
So, we agree, we ought to be living healthy, wholesome lives, we ought to be avoiding the greed that so permeates our world, and we ought to be not merely mouthing good words, but living Good News with our actions. "Good news to the poor, healing to the sick, freedom for the captives" in the words of Jesus.
So, how do we go about that? Tough question, seems to me.
Dan Trabue: "we ought to be living healthy, wholesome lives"
I have to say, Dan, that this concept is one that I disagreed with in the creed. I don't find in Scripture that "healing is a core tenet of the Christian faith". If it was, God apparently didn't get the memo because He uses sickness and pain a lot as a form of punishment or correction throughout the Bible. In the sense of eternal life and ultimate healing when we are finally joined with Him, perhaps I'd buy that line, but not in this life. Nor do I see a command to "be living healthy, wholesome lives". Spiritually healthy and morally wholesome, perhaps, but I don't find anything like it in terms of physical condition in my Bible. I could be wrong ... I just don't see it.
The thing that I protested in the Christian Creed for Health Care Reform was the call for reform on the part of the government. The Bible is pretty clear that God commands individuals, and holds individuals accountable for their obedience. In the Old Testament, for instance, one of God's methods to help the poor was to order farmers with fields to leave behind stuff when they harvested so the less fortunate could get some food there. This was a command to farmers, individuals with fields. In fact, all commands to care for the less fortunate are to individuals, not governments. And nowhere in my Bible do I find a command to a government to perform a certain way.
Historically, welfare, caring for the poor and needy, taking care of the downtrodden has been a function of the Church. Why? Because Christians are commanded to do so, and the Church represents the group of individual believers known as Christians. In the 20th century, however, the Church surrendered this task to governments. Both in Europe and in the United States, the Church was overwhelmed with the need. Why? Was it because the Church lost its resources? Was it that God failed to provide His people with the wherewithal to obey His commands? Or was it that Christians stopped obeying God's commands to care for the poor? I would suggest that God didn't fail, so it must be Christians. My call, then, is for Christians to renounce their self-centered interest and return to obedience. If that comes across as "be warmed and filled", then I didn't express it well enough.
I believe we need to act and act now. We need to obey. We need to love. We need to spread the Gospel that starts with the problem of sin, includes the payment on our behalf from Christ on the Cross, and calls us to a different sort of living. We need to alert people to the truth. We need to let our light shine before others, so that they may see our good works and give glory to our Father who is in heaven. We need to demonstrate love for one another. In Paul's words, we need to "do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith" (Gal 6:10). The answer is not "better government programs". The answer is not taking money from people unwilling to have their money taken. The answer, ultimately, lies in God and in us, His followers.
Stan said...
this concept is one that I disagreed with in the creed. I don't find in Scripture that "healing is a core tenet of the Christian faith"... Nor do I see a command to "be living healthy, wholesome lives"
That's interesting.
I suppose you can agree that there is no proscription AGAINST living healthy, healing lives in the Bible? We are told, of course, that our bodies are the temples of God...
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?
For you have been purchased at a price. Therefore, glorify God in your body.
It's not specifically telling us to live healthily there, but it hints at it to me. We are to live healthy, wholesome lives, I don't think this is an unbiblical principle at all. And it is an exremely logical one. You aren't actually coming out against living healthy lives, are you?
But setting that aside, since we are not told NOT to live healthily, does not your own God-given logic tell you that it's a good idea to advocate healthy living?
Stan said...
The Bible is pretty clear that God commands individuals, and holds individuals accountable for their obedience. In the Old Testament, for instance, one of God's methods to help the poor was to order farmers with fields to leave behind stuff when they harvested so the less fortunate could get some food there. This was a command to farmers, individuals with fields. In fact, all commands to care for the less fortunate are to individuals, not governments. And nowhere in my Bible do I find a command to a government to perform a certain way.
But, I'm sure you agree that no where in the Bible are we commanded to NOT let Gov't provide health care or welfare solutions, right? It's an area of silence in the Bible. The Bible does not command gov'ts to provide welfare or health care for people nor does the Bible condemn such practices, right?
So, is it not possible for people of faith to have legitimate differences of opinion on the matter? IF a people in a community want to provide for roads (which is not covered in the Bible) or a fire department (which is not covered in the Bible) or welfare or health care (which aren't covered in the Bible), is it unreasonable that some people of faith might decide that the best way to do that is through common funds, ie, taxes?
I don't have a problem at all if you think the best way to provide health care for the needy is through church donations. In fact, I support such a solution wholeheartedly. Go for it! Your church could build a hospital in the poor end of your town and no one at all would stop you from doing that and it would be a tremendous blessing and witness. Doing that WOULD be bringing good news to the poor, healing to the sick, as Jesus stated was his reason for being here. Amen and God bless you in your efforts!
But that does not preclude me from agreeing with other solutions if I think they, too, are reasonable and moral and good, does it?
Stan said...
New laws and regulations and bureaucracy doesn't eliminate medical errors, doesn't assuage the grief and outrage of injured patients and their families, doesn't alleviate human greed.
Absolutely true. Laws don't fully stop greed. They don't put an end to murder. They don't stop theft forever. Regulations doesn't stop pollution from happening, nor do they always stop someone from dumping toxic waste in your yard.
But the reality that law does not put an end to wrong actions, that is not an argument that we ought to have no laws or regulations, is it? You probably agree that even though laws wouldn't put an end to abortion, you still want to see the law in place to try to slow its occurrence, don't you? And to put to death the ones who violate that law, perhaps?
I imagine you and I agree that we don't believe in anarchy and laws and regulations can be good things, even if they're not wholly effective. Then, the question becomes, is THIS particular law/regulation effective and good?
IF, for instance, there are 1 million homeless veterans and IF private social service agencies only meet the needs of 100,000 of those veterans and IF a gov't agency could help 300,000 of those veterans get off the streets and into jobs and, as a result, those veterans are all paying taxes and contributing to society, then we might agree that the private agencies and gov't assistance have been effective and good, perhaps?
Dan Trabue: "We are told, of course, that our bodies are the temples of God."
Been there ... answered that ... in more than one place. The text is not about "healthy living" ... or all Christians would be obligated to cease driving cars, eating processed food, and living in cities. Let's not go there.
Dan Trabue: "does not your own God-given logic tell you that it's a good idea to advocate healthy living?"
And now you've moved off topic. This move continues with "I'm sure you agree that no where in the Bible are we commanded to NOT let Gov't provide health care or welfare solutions, right?" You remain off topic all the way through "I imagine you and I agree that we don't believe in anarchy and laws and regulations can be good things." In other words, everything you wrote was off topic.
The topic: What does Christianity require of Christians in regards to health care reform? What is the "Christian solution"? I did not say "It is wrong to allow the government to have a part." I simply suggest that this isn't the question. People, Christians and non-Christians, are certainly free to debate the merits and demerits of the current Obama health care reform plan. I haven't suggested otherwise. I'm not favoring anarchy (and you agreed) nor am I opposing any sort of government intervention. (After all, I'd have to already be up in arms over all the Medicare stuff and a whole lot more, wouldn't I?) No, none of this is relevant. The question over the last several days has been Christians and health care reform. What does the Bible command regarding Christian action and health care reform? The sole answer that is being offered to the entire question is "Give it to the government." Fine ... but don't call that a "Christian solution". It has nothing to do with Christianity (my primary point). And when people ask, "Is that really the wisest approach?" please, please, please don't assume (as one commenter did) that they "hate the poor and want them to die".
Do you want to argue the merits of the President's health care reform plan (or other governmental fixes? By all means, go right ahead. It's good. It's wise. We (Americans) ought to do it. But that's not at issue here. Argue it somewhere else. My point is that it's not a Christian issue.
But that's not at issue here. Argue it somewhere else. My point is that it's not a Christian issue.
Well, IF we agree that Christians ought to be concerned about the well-being of others - especially the poor - and healing the sick, then it IS a Christian point to discuss how we go about doing that, isn't it?
Are you merely saying it's not a BIBLICAL topic (ie, not discussed in the Bible)? Then we can agree. Providing health care through capitalism, through doctors, through gov't supported programs or regulations, these are ALL non-biblical topics (ie, not covered in the Bible).
But that does not mean that Christians can't hold Christian positions on how to do health care, does it? That is to say, what is and isn't Christian goes beyond just what is and isn't covered in the bible, don't you think?
Dan Traube: "Well, IF we agree that Christians ought to be concerned about the well-being of others - especially the poor - and healing the sick, then it IS a Christian point to discuss how we go about doing that, isn't it?"
The suggestion is that people who are not Christian have no need to discuss it because they just don't care ... right?
It is not a biblical issue. When we move from "biblical" to "Christian", it is a free-for-all. Should Christians care if their local grocery store carries their favorite hair spray? Well, sure! Or not. But it's not an issue that Christianity affects.
It is a subject that all citizens should discuss. "All citizens" includes "Christians" (and non-Christians). So Christians should discuss it ... but not here on my blog because the government health care reform plan is not the topic at hand.
Stan said...
No, none of this is relevant. The question over the last several days has been Christians and health care reform. What does the Bible command regarding Christian action and health care reform? The sole answer that is being offered to the entire question is "Give it to the government." Fine ... but don't call that a "Christian solution". It has nothing to do with Christianity (my primary point).
I'm trying to wrap my mind around what your point is, here. Are you saying that any topics NOT covered in the Bible, if Christians hold positions on those topics, that's fine, but we can't presume to call it a "Christian position?"
If so, does that mean that there are no "Christian positions" we can reach on gay marriage, nuclear weaponry, capitalism, socialism, democracy or abortion, then?
I think you've answered my last question. You say...
It is a subject that all citizens should discuss. "All citizens" includes "Christians" (and non-Christians). So Christians should discuss it ... but not here on my blog because the government health care reform plan is not the topic at hand.
So, topics not discussed in the Bible like abortion, health care, gay marriage, etc, on THESE topics, we can't hold "Christian positions," since the bible has not told us what that position would be, is that your position?
If so, I'd disagree, but not so much as long as we were consistent about it. That is, perhaps we would all be better off if we didn't presume to say that WE hold the "christian position" on non-biblical issues?
You see, Dan, when you do this there is a sense that you just intend to be contrary. It's as if "Stan disagreed with me so I'll have to disagree with him" or something. I don't know. I can't really say. But that's what it feels like.
Please, if you will, tell me what the Bible has to say, in any way whatsoever, to Christians about what their government needs to do about health care.
Does the Bible talk about gay marriage? Of course not. No such thing exists. But it does talk about marriage (always between a man and a woman) and it does talk about the morality of sexual relations and it does talk about the immorality of homosexual relationships ... so it is a Christian issue.
Does the Bible talk about abortion? No, nowhere in the Bible is that word found. So ... we can ignore it, right? Not me. My Bible talks plainly about murder and makes it clear that children in the womb are children not mere tissue. So it is a Christian issue.
So ... where do I go to find anything at all in the Bible that hints at what the government is supposed to do about providing health care for all? And, when you find it, perhaps you can fill me in on why it is that no Christian prior to today's Christians ever saw "health care" as a right that all citizens ought to, by virtue of Christian values, be provided by the government. If you can provide me that sort of information, it might be enlightening to me.
Please, if you will, tell me what the Bible has to say, in any way whatsoever, to Christians about what their government needs to do about health care.
Does the Bible talk about gay marriage? Of course not. No such thing exists. But it does talk about marriage (always between a man and a woman) and it does talk about the morality of sexual relations and it does talk about the immorality of homosexual relationships ... so it is a Christian issue.
The Bible does not talk about gov't involvement in health care, but it DOES talk about healing. Jesus said he had come to heal the sick and WE are to follow in Jesus' steps, so WE ought to be concerned about healing the sick.
It does not talk about health care or abortion or gay marriage, but we all have reasons why we think our position is borne out as a Christian position. My reasoning for the possibility comes from Jesus' direct words, WE are to walk in the steps of He who came to heal the sick and bring good news to the poor. Now, does that mean we ought to use gov't solutions or regulations to help deliver that healing? Well, the Bible does not say if the gov't should be involved in helping with regulations about healing or with gay marriage, but it's something we can consider as we strive to live out our Christian calling.
It appears that YOU think the gov't is the appropriate agency to implement rules about who can and can't be married, even though the bible does not tell you so. Is that the case? Does that mean that you are getting the gov't to do (what is, in your mind) Christianity's work?
So, if you could provide for me your reasoning why the gov't ought to be in the business of telling people how to live within (some) Christian's view of what is right and wrong, that would be enlightening, as well.
My position remains as it has been: We all have the freedom to express our opinion about policy - even if that reasoning is just based on Christianity and nothing else (ie, "I think the Bible says... and therefore, you ought not have this policy..."), but you can also expect that such a position will not hold as much water with the public at large as a position that is also based upon civic reasoning (ie, "As a Christian, I think the Bible says..., but I also think that this policy is right because...")
The end.
What? You start a topic called Health Care Reform and posit that there is no Christian position on the topic. I ask, then how can you have a "Christian position" on any topic that's not in the Bible?
You respond by saying, "just because..." or "Cause I think so," and "the end."? Your blog, brother, but these seem like reasonable questions to me.
From where I sit, it sounds like you have no sound, logical or biblical answers and, therefore, you quit in a snit, but maybe that's just me.
I leave it to my readers (excluding, of course, Dan Trabue who has already expressed his opinion). Have I been unclear? Have I simply offered "just because", or have I offered reasons for what I believe? Is it a "snit" to finally feel like there's nothing more to be said, that I've already said it as many ways as I can? Please let me know, readers. If I'm unclear, unkind, or unwise, I want to know. Because from my perspective I've been kind, clear, and complete. No "snit". Just tired of the repetition. So tell me if it's repetition or if there is still room for explanation.
Oh, and Dan ... it was my mistake to let you start commenting again. I've offered nothing but logical, biblical answers. "It sounds like you have no sound, logical or biblical answers and, therefore, you quit in a snit, but maybe that's just me" does not qualify as "keep it friendly" and, again, I'm through. If others come in and say, "No, Stan, you weren't clear," then I'll reconsider.
Dan T.,
I'm not coming from the "amen corner", but from the edge somewhere. Surely there must be SOMETHING you like about this particular blog of the thousands that address life from a Christian's perspective or you'd not continue to visit it. So, at least in that sense, you're right in there with the rest of us readers, Bud.
I think part of the reason you like it is BECAUSE Stan has been so very willing to engage in long discussions with you, whereas I really doubt most other bloggers would take the time or have the patience to address your many questions and comments.
I sure can't see how you can possibly say Stan has a "problem" with questions and discussion.
My gosh, he has spent hours and hours, day after day, addressing your questions (often over and over again) and discussing things with you. He has spent a LOT of his time with you. A lot.
And you know this, Dan.
Amen!
Hey, maybe I DO have an "amen corner". Is there such a thing as a corner of one?
I would like to throw a question into the mix for all to answer. The question is this: "Is there ever a time that Scripture commands us not to help the poor?"
Actually, there is an interesting command that might be appropriate. "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat" (2 Thess 3:10). Is that an answer?
Of course, Ryan, that would be a very limited (and, I suspect, never practiced) condition, wouldn't it? (Only Christians, this person is poor because he's unwilling to work as opposed to unable to find work, that sort of thing.)
I might submit that it's difficult to find work, but the lazy man, in this economy, would use it as an excuse to be lazy. In addition, how many do have a job, but only one that gets them enough money to buy booze and cigarettes, and covers their satalite and cell phone bills, but not enough to disqualify them from government aid? I would suggest that a mooch is also lazy.
The problem with Christians suggesting that we can pass off health care to the goverment is that it enables man to be lazy. The government can't do what the individual can, and that's see people's condition on an individual basis and assist them appropriately. How many more people could have health coverage if they gave up their beer, cigs, dish, and cell? Couple hundred dollars a month right there. If we, as the church, suggest that since the government is the people and therefore should provide health care, it sounds like Christians being lazy, to me.
Also, may I point out that to suggest that health care is a right is to suggest that you have a right to someone else's life, unless, of course, you can treat yourself. Even our constitution says that the government is only there to "provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare." Somehow, we've gotten that backwards.
My point is simply this: God gave the church the responsibility to care for those in need because 1. they know the Great Physician, 2. they know the individuals and their unique situations better than a beauracricy can, and therefore, 3. treat the real health issue, and that's the state of a lost, dead soul.
Your point is ... exactly my point.
Which is why I thought I'd jump in and make your point in different words...who knows...maybe it will sink in that way.
Post a Comment