Caring for the sick is one of the corporal works of mercy.
Hospitals permit the Church to care for the sick in more than a trivial way.
Unfortunately, something 40% of the health care economy is controlled by government at various levels. What is naive is to think that one can participate in this industry, give care to the entire range of the population, and avoid government money.
What do you do for a senior citizen who shows up at the door with Medicare? A poor person with Medicaid?
“What did charitable entities ever do before they hooked up to federal and state money?”
They didn’t provide heart bypass surgery. Or transplants. Or high-tech cancer treatments. Or use MRIs and CT-Scans for diagnostics.
There are two sides to this sword. Fifty years ago, health care spending amounted to a few percent of GDP. Today, it’s 14% or 16% and still growing. Even if we were to streamline administrative costs, squeeze out costs through tort reform, etc., it's still be at around 10% - 12% of a 14 trillion dollar economy. That's still well over a trillion dollars.
Also, in absolute terms, our per capita GDP has grown significantly in the last half-century. Thus, we’re not only spending a greater percentage of our GDP on health care, but that percentage is from a much, much bigger pie.
That growth in the health care sector has enabled doctors and hospitals to care for the sick - a basic corporal work of mercy - far more efficaciously than ever before.
But it has also created an industry that’s one-seventh or one-sixth of our entire economy. And the society at large has voted for politicians who have deeply enmeshed government in the provision of the funding for these services. And that government involvement has helped drive those costs.
I have always had a prejudice on this issue. I like that hospitals and doctors can cure more folks, help them live better, longer, healthier (or at least better at ameliorating the effects of illness) than ever before.
This past year, my own prejudices deepened as my younger son was diagnosed with a serious illness. The medicine of 50 years ago likely would not have been sufficient to save his life and/or his long-term health.
sitetest
In addition, someone very close to me has a heart problem that requires long-term, high-tech monitoring and care that was not possible 30 years ago but is commonplace today. I have seen modern medicine at it's finest.
And I am a Catholic who loves the Church.
But we should never pretend that there is not a downside to partnering with tax dollars to do that good work. Under the current system, there is always a catch.
I recognize that the flip side is that the public should show gratitude and should never forget that a lot of their care comes from religious hospitals and comes because of the goodness of others.
Yes, the government controls health care in a major way. And I don't have the answers except that perhaps it will take a hospital or two closing to get people thinking about this and demanding change. Something has to give, but I'm not sure it will until people are affected directly, because the Church has to stand on principle. The Church can't buckle under and provide services that go against it's greater mission to be faithful to the Word.
For what it is worth, I am angry that once again we are about to have a presidential election, and that once again, we are letting every one of the candidates slide in regards to health care. We are not demanding that they offer solutions to the issues mentioned in your post to our own detriment.
Prayers for your son.
Thanks for posting a well detailed description of the situation.