Socialism (7) My Experience

On a holiday-weekend last July, I developed severe abdominal pain. I have never had a urinary tract infection, so I wondered if that was the cause. I went to the after-hours health clinic and was examined by a doctor. They did some blood tests, and he prescribed an antibiotic, because the physical examination indicated that could have a bladder infection. Over the next couple of days, the pain went away.

On the following Tuesday, I got a phone call from my own GP (general practitioner doctor) who had received the results of my blood test electronically. He said that the tests indicated something more serious and that he wanted me to have a CT Scan to check it out. Strangely enough, by then, the pain had gone. The same afternoon, I received a phone call from Pacific Radiology with an appointment for a scan later that day.

When the scan was complete, the radiographer suggested that I needed to go back to my GP that night. I phoned his reception and she said that he would see me after his last appointment at 5pm. The radiographer said that he would have the electronic results of my scan would be available for the doctor to see by then.

I called to see my GP on the way home from the radiology service and he explained that my scan showed that I had severe diverticulitis, which is normal for someone my age, but that diverticular on the lower part of the bowel was seriously infected. He said that I needed to be admitted to hospital to receive Intravenous Antibiotics. He told me I should go home and pack a bag and go up to Christchurch Public Hospital and I would be admitted.

I was admitted to hospital at 8pm, was examined by a doctor and received my first antibiotics within about half an hour. This all happened within a half a day of my doctor receiving the results of my blood tests.

I stayed in the hospital for five nights, receiving IV antibiotics three times a day. The hospital staff were great. The meals were basic but good. The nurses were kind and thoughtful. The surgical registrar who visited every morning was very skilled at explaining the nature of my problem and what they were doing to treat it. She said that they would organise a colonoscopy in a few months’ time, when the inflammation in my colon had cleared. After five days my blood test had returned within the normal limit, so I was sent home with oral antibiotics for another week. Six months have passed now and I have no more problems with my bowel.

Two other things happened. The original scan identified two other incidental unrelated problems that needed to be checked out. The first incidental item was a narrowing of the duct coming out of my left kidney. A month later, I received an appointment for a CT Urogram to check this. After injecting a marker, they electronically monitored the impact on my kidney while my bladder was emptying. A week later I saw a urologist. He explained that my case had been discussed at a meeting of specialists. They had reviewed my results and decided that because I was asymptomatic, and an intervention to correct the problem is quite risky, they would take no further action, but continue to monitor how it developed.

The second incidental problem that was identified on the original scan was a cyst on my pancreas. Within about six weeks, I had a received an endoscopic ultrasound scan of my pancreas in which they put a tube down my throat and took a picture and biopsy of the cyst. When I met with a general surgeon a few weeks later, he explained that because the cyst was small and benign, they would prefer not to intervene, but would wait and check it again in six month’s time. His decision had been discussed with other specialists. He explained that it grew larger or became malignant, then it would be relatively easy to remove by surgical intervention.

The outcome was reassuring. Overall, I am really healthy for someone of my age. I am praying for the conditions to be healed.

My main point for recording this here is that I received this medical care from a socialistic health system. The only cost was a payment of $NZ50 for my original consultation at the after-hours medical centre. Everything else was covered by the health system. The urgent medical condition was treated urgently. I received a scan and was put on antibiotics on the day the problem was diagnosed. I received specialised scans and follow-up appointments for the two incidental issues within a couple of months of diagnosis.

All the decisions about my treatment were made by clinicians after discussion with other specialists, not by insurance administrators or blind application of rules. Some of the specialists that looked at my results engaged in ground-breaking research with collaborators in the UK and US.
I realise that the cost of this service was paid for out of my taxes. However, my taxes over the years, and have not been much greater than would have been paid if I lived in the United States.

So, people who say that socialist health care does not work simply do not know what they are talking about. Morality is a different issue.

Healthcare and Insurance (1)

Americans are really stirred up about medical insurance and healthcare.

America began with a charity model of health care. I do not know the history of how it changed, but the charity model turned into an insurance model. All that remains of the charity model is a few hospital names pointing back to a more generous past.

Some Americans are now arguing for a single-payer system.

To understand the problems with the insurance model, we need to understand the nature of risk.

Pooling Risk
Understanding and managing risk has become a bit of science. Risk has two parts.

1. Likelihood
2. Impact

Likelihood tells us the probability of an event happening. Impact tells us how much harm the event will do. The two factors are combined for an assessment of risk. An event that is highly likely is not a problem if it has no impact.

Insurance is a method of pooling risk to minimise the cost of rare events to any one person.

Insurance works well for situations where the risk has low likelihood, but high impact. For example, the likelihood of a person’s house burning down is quite low. However, the impact is enormous, if it does happen. House insurance is a method for pooling the risk and the costs.

In a city with a thousand homes, only one homeowner might experience a catastrophic fire in their house in any year. If everyone who lives in the city pays into an insurance fund, each homeowner will only have to pay one thousandth of the cost of rebuilding a home to give the insurance fund enough money to pay for the cost of replacing the one house that is burnt down. Homeowners have several good reasons for paying into an insurance fund.

• No one knows in advance who will have a fire. It might be me.
• The cost of a fire would be devastating for the family whose house burns.
• The cost of the insurance is relatively cheap.
• The probability of a house going on fire can be estimated by looking at the history of house fires.

Insurance deals effectively with risk like a house fire, because it is relatively rare. The insurance company is able to estimate the probability of fires occurring and calculate an appropriate level for premiums. Everyone benefits from sharing the costs of the fire, because they know that next time they could be the one facing a tragedy.

When the cost of a claim is extremely high, but relatively rare, and there is a significant uncertainty about when and where the risk will strike, it makes sense to spread the risk. Insurance is a method for pooling risk.

Insurance works well for house fires, because the likelihood of a house going on fire is the same for everyone. Therefore, pooling the risk makes sense provided your insurance company does not cover too many people who smoke in bed or keep a can of gasoline in their cupboard for huffing.

I will apply these principles to health insurance in my next post.

Universal Health Care

Universal health care has become a big issue in the United States and Christians are getting really stirred about it.

The lost and hurting people living in America are entitled to universal health care. What many Christians seem to have forgotten is that Jesus has already paid for a comprehensive universal health care package that is far better than Obama’s. He died on the cross to purchase healing for all those who have faith in him.

But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed (Is 53:5).

For the fine print on this health care package see Healing for Christians.

Jesus also delivered health care to unbelievers as a sign of God grace. The early church healed unbeliever’s as confirmation of the effectiveness of the gospel they preached (Mark 16:20; Acts 3:3-10). Jesus told us to go the lost, to heal the sick and then preach the gospel.

When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is set before you. Heal the sick who are there and tell them, 'The kingdom of God is near you (Luke 10:8,9).

Note the order. More of the policy details are in Healing Evangelism.

Jesus health care is comprehensive, even in Syria.Jesus went throughout Galilee… healing every disease and sickness among the people.

News about him spread all over Syria, and people brought to him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering severe pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures, and the paralyzed, and he healed them. (Matt4:23-24).

I wish that Christians were as passionate about Jesus universal comprehensive health care as they are about Obama’s unfunded, specified-conditions, palliative health care scheme.

If Christians will not provide Jesus universe health care to the lost people of this world, they are entitled to look to the state for universal health care. If we do not have enough faith to deliver Jesus health care to the world, we are being churlish not to let the state have a go. We should not object to paying taxes to provide health care for the less fortunate, if we unwilling to bless them with health care that Jesus has already paid for.

DANG (3) - For Health Care

People all over the world expect their governments to save them from sickness by spending more and more and more on health care. The problem is that sickness came into the world through sin, so dealing with the cause of sin is the key to healing sickness. Turning back the curse of sin is an impossible task for the state. When one sickness or disease is cured, another that is worse pops up in its place. Governments will always fail to deal with sickness, because they are unwilling to deal with sin, the cause of sickness.

Modern health technology is so incredibly expensive that health budgets are “blowing out”. As aging populations make this problem worse, rationing will be needed. Governments will be unable afford every treatment that is available for its citizens.

Compulsory funding of health care is morally wrong. If I choose to pay for the healthcare of another person, that is fine. However, the government does not have authority to make one person pay for another person’s healthcare. Taking money without consent is theft.

The only effective solution to sickness is the cross of Jesus, because it dealt with sin and removed the cause of sickness. The gift of healing is God’s solution to sickness. It works, because it rolls back the curse.