F
FireFromHeaven
Guest
Does the Catholic Church support universal health care? If not what does catholic social teaching say on this matter?
- Status
T
triumphguy
Guest
Vatican committed to universal health care coverage
news.va/en/news/the-church-is-committed-to-universal-healthcare-co
Vatican City – Archbishop Zygmunt Zimowski, head of the Holy See delegation to the 65th World Health Assembly, on Wednesday delivered an address before that gathering, which is being held in Geneva, Switzerland, until Saturday. Speaking English, the archbishop reaffirmed the Holy See’s support for Resolution WHA64.9 on “sustainable health financing structures and universal coverage,” which urges member States to aim for affordable universal coverage and access for all citizens on the basis of equity and solidarity.
He also recalled how Benedict XVI has emphasized the importance of establishing “real distributive justice which, on the basis of objective needs, guarantees adequate care to all. Consequently, if it is not to become inhuman, the world of healthcare cannot disregard the moral rules that must govern it.”
news.va/en/news/the-church-is-committed-to-universal-healthcare-co
Vatican City – Archbishop Zygmunt Zimowski, head of the Holy See delegation to the 65th World Health Assembly, on Wednesday delivered an address before that gathering, which is being held in Geneva, Switzerland, until Saturday. Speaking English, the archbishop reaffirmed the Holy See’s support for Resolution WHA64.9 on “sustainable health financing structures and universal coverage,” which urges member States to aim for affordable universal coverage and access for all citizens on the basis of equity and solidarity.
He also recalled how Benedict XVI has emphasized the importance of establishing “real distributive justice which, on the basis of objective needs, guarantees adequate care to all. Consequently, if it is not to become inhuman, the world of healthcare cannot disregard the moral rules that must govern it.”
P
PaulfromIowa
Guest
All human beings should have access to decent health care. How this is best organized and financed is a matter of prudential judgment.
Christians must insist on respect for innocent human life and reject those who advocate abortion, euthanasia, and the like.
Christians must insist on respect for innocent human life and reject those who advocate abortion, euthanasia, and the like.
T
TimothyH
Guest
The Church supports dignity for all people. A dignified life is every single person’s right no matter where they come from or how they got where they live. It is their right because they are made in the image of God and because Christ purchased them with the price of his own infinitely valuable blood.
In the modern, western world, basic healthcare is part of a dignified life. No person should be left sick or dying without basic medical care, especially pain medication.
It is an injustice to deny someone something which is theirs by right. That’s what Mother Theresa did - restored dignity to the sick and dying.
-Tim-
In the modern, western world, basic healthcare is part of a dignified life. No person should be left sick or dying without basic medical care, especially pain medication.
It is an injustice to deny someone something which is theirs by right. That’s what Mother Theresa did - restored dignity to the sick and dying.
-Tim-
P
Phil_Marinus
Guest
I think you asked a very good Question, and yet trying not to be political, because of what is going on over there…
To answer the Question bluntly , the answer would be of course yes…
After that… Look out for the political Quicksand,
To answer the Question bluntly , the answer would be of course yes…
After that… Look out for the political Quicksand,
F
FireFromHeaven
Guest
Thanks everyone for the good answers. I was hoping this wouldn’t lead to a political fight so thanks for just saying that the Church does and leaving it at that.
M
McPraysALot
Guest
agree
M
markomalley
Guest
The Church supports universal access to health care; however, I see no indication that the Church supports universal provision of health care (like a government-run nationalized health system). The following bishops made statements in regards to this (in the context of the debate on a national health system for the US) that clearly outline this discrepancy:
Archbishop Naumann:The right of every individual to access health care does not necessarily suppose an obligation on the part of the government to provide it. Yet in our American culture, Catholic teaching about the “right” to healthcare is sometimes confused with the structures of “entitlement.” The teaching of the Universal Church has never been to suggest a government socialization of medical services. Rather, the Church has asserted the rights of every individual to have access to those things most necessary for sustaining and caring for human life, while at the same time insisting on the personal responsibility of each individual to care properly for his or her own health.
Indeed part of the crisis in today’s system stems from various misappropriations within health care insurance systems of exorbitant elective treatments, or the tendencies to regard health care services paid for by insurance as “free,” and to take advantage of services that happen to be available under the insurance plan. Such practices may arguably cripple the ability of small companies to provide necessary opportunities to their employees and significantly increase the cost of health care for everyone.
Bishop Aquila:As a society seeks to bring about any good such as health care, there are many organic and intermediate groups which cooperate together to reach the desired goal. There is a danger in being persuaded to think that the national government is the sole instrument of the common good. Rather, according to the classic principle of subsidiarity in Catholic social thought, many different communities within society share this responsibility. These various strands of community life within society build up a strong and cohesive social fabric that is the hallmark of a true communion of persons. States, towns, fraternal organizations, businesses, cooperatives, parishes and especially the family have not only legitimate freedom to provide the goods they are rightly capable of supplying, but often times do so with far greater efficiency, less bureaucracy and, most importantly, with personalized care and love.
Bishop Nickless:Third, in that category of prudential judgment, the Catholic Church does not teach that government should directly provide health care. Unlike a prudential concern like national defense, for which government monopolization is objectively good – it both limits violence overall and prevents the obvious abuses to which private armies are susceptible – health care should not be subject to federal monopolization. Preserving patient choice (through a flourishing private sector) is the only way to prevent a health care monopoly from denying care arbitrarily, as we learned from HMOs in the recent past. While a government monopoly would not be motivated by profit, it would be motivated by such bureaucratic standards as quotas and defined “best procedures,” which are equally beyond the influence of most citizens. The proper role of the government is to regulate the private sector, in order to foster healthy competition and to curtail abuses. Therefore any legislation that undermines the viability of the private sector is suspect. Private, religious hospitals and nursing homes, in particular, should be protected, because these are the ones most vigorously offering actual health care to the poorest of the poor.
Also, on a more generalized basis, consider the words of Pope Benedict XVI:
Love—caritas—will always prove necessary, even in the most just society. There is no ordering of the State so just that it can eliminate the need for a service of love. Whoever wants to eliminate love is preparing to eliminate man as such. There will always be suffering which cries out for consolation and help. There will always be loneliness. There will always be situations of material need where help in the form of concrete love of neighbour is indispensable.[20] **The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person—every person—needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. **
L
Lapey
Guest
As has been illustrated here and with a simple google search you can see that the Universal Church most definitely insist on universal health care access. The political debate comes in where we insist on universal health care insurance coverage, and/or whether the government should do this for us.
Health care = a Natural Law right
health Care insurance coverage = not a Natural Law right
No one can be turned away from the care they need no matter what their status in society nor their ability to pay, this is the moral decision. Also throw in immigrants, whether they are “legal or illegal” must be given the same respect for their dignity. We must care for all, not just the ones we like. This is the teaching of Jesus; health care insurance coverage is not.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Health care access and health care insurance are in many cases tied together so that it is impossible to have one without the other. Unlike commodities like food, which have a fairly stable and known cost, the cost of health care is highly variable, depending on what health problems you have, most of which are totally random (although some are attributable to personal choice of lifestyle). Without insurance many cannot afford treatments for cancer or long-term care. Of course one could argue that the person with the medical need should have purchased health insurance before he got sick. But then what of children with congenital health problems? These children started out in life with a pre-existing condition that would make purchasing insurance for that condition out of reach for any market-based insurance coverage. What insurance company would willingly sell insurance against something that is already known to have occurred for anything less than the expected cost of treatment? We could force the insurance companies to accept pre-existing conditions without a penalty in the premium, but then that would no longer be a market-based insurance business. The known loss on that policy would have to be offset by higher than normal gains on other policies. In other words, the effect of a mandate to ignore pre-existing conditions would be to force all other policy holders to subsidize those with pre-existing conditions. Since it is mandated by government, it would be no different from a tax to support a single payer health insurance system, except that the insurance companies would be handling the tax instead of the government. But if the insurance companies are forced by law to handle that money in a certain way, they might as well be considered agents of the government.
So for at least some people, access = government guaranteed health insurance.
Similarly, the law that no one can be turned away from the emergency room for lack of means to pay is also contrary to a market-based health care business. The hospital loses money on such patients, which it must make up for by charging more from everyone else. This also is effectively a tax to support universal health care. And since you cited it as an example of a Natural Law right, it appears that some form of health insurance is a Natural Law right, or else we have to classify the practice of medicine as a charity instead of a market-based business.
M
manualman
Guest
I actually think the church is pursuing the correct moral reasoning, but is using the wrong language to convey it in recent years.
I’m unclear on how every human being has a “right” to housing, food and medical care. These things cannot exist apart from serious labor and skill that goes into providing them. To declare them to be “rights” asserts that they spring magically from the ether, which they demonstrably do not.
In my opinion, what the church should be doing is urging the faithful to recognize that society has an obligation of solidarity and charity to provide the basic necessities for all. This obligation arises from the innate dignity of the human person. I believe it is harmful to suggest that the recipient has the “right” to demand these things. On the contrary, it is when those in a position to provide it do so voluntarily that the threefold goods of charity occur:
I’m unclear on how every human being has a “right” to housing, food and medical care. These things cannot exist apart from serious labor and skill that goes into providing them. To declare them to be “rights” asserts that they spring magically from the ether, which they demonstrably do not.
In my opinion, what the church should be doing is urging the faithful to recognize that society has an obligation of solidarity and charity to provide the basic necessities for all. This obligation arises from the innate dignity of the human person. I believe it is harmful to suggest that the recipient has the “right” to demand these things. On the contrary, it is when those in a position to provide it do so voluntarily that the threefold goods of charity occur:
- The physical needs of the poor are met.
- The giver encounters Christ in the poor.
- The poor encounter Christ in the giver.
N
Newbie2
Guest
I agree, in terms that the terminology of “rights” is muddied, mostly by its usage in secular social and media discussion. “Basic human rights”, as defined by the CC, does not necessarily equal “Basic human rights”, as defined by secular society.
F
FireFromHeaven
Guest
What do you think is the best way to achieve all three of these goals?
S
St_Francis
Guest
Precisely. We used not to speak in terms of rights but in terms of duties or obligations. It was not that someone had a right to life but that others had the duty to refrain from killing them.
In the current issue of health care, we once would have said that people, *individual people, *were obliged to look after those around them who were in need.
Now we say everyone has a “right” to this and that and squabble over how that will occur with the least pain of any sort to our individual selves.
M
manualman
Guest
I think a wide variety of ideas bear scrutiny and discussion, but I don’t think any particular approach can lay claim to being THE Christian solution.
Personally, I think the health insurance system in the USA is so bloated and screwed up that it needs a major shakeup. At risk of tangenting the thread, my idea is this:
Personally, I think the health insurance system in the USA is so bloated and screwed up that it needs a major shakeup. At risk of tangenting the thread, my idea is this:
- National single payer health coverage for basic care. Covers preventive care, triage care and hospital treatments that existed prior to 1980. No drugs younger than 10 years old covered. Reimbursement rates to doctors are low, but patients using the system would have to consent to limited liability on the provider’s part (liability limited to quantifiable damages only, no punitive, pain/suffering, etc. Also, failed plaintiffs pay defendant’s lawyer fees). Funding to come from total overhaul of Medicare system and taxation.
- Those wanting access to advanced treatments, drugs, specialists, etc must purchase insurance or pay cash.
M
manualman
Guest
No, that’s different. Life really is a fundamental right that springs directly from our nature as human beings created by God. Same thing with freedom to worship, freedom to learn, express opinions (political, religious, etc) and choose associations.
Where I object to the language of rights is when the word is used without consideration of the dignity of those who produce the goods in question (like housing, food and medicine). If these things are rights, then all who work at growing food, building housing or providing health care are reduced to the slaves of everybody else. It sounds silly, but that’s the implication of the principle.
Instead, use the language of duty, responsibility, charity and solidarity when referring to the provision of goods to those in need. Rights are attributes innate to the person.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Well, yes, if you are using rights language. What I’m saying is that In the past, Catholic teaching did not use rights language. They used obligations language. The obligations stem from the same place as our rights.
Exactly, this is one area in which things are muddied by rights language.
If we say, each person is obliged to help those in need of shelter, it is different than saying each person has a right to shelter. First, each (or most or some) will pitch in what they can in the way of help. Second, the recipient will be gra teful rather than feeling like they have only received what they are owed. Thirdly, a right seems to go on forever (remember the family in the UK for whom a large house was built?), whereas what people can do has certain limits.
And finally, when we talked about the obligations individuals have, more seems to have gotten done. When we talk about rights, it seems like only the government does anything other than work for the money. And the more we have to work to cover taxes plus our living expenses, the less time we seem to have to go out and fulfill our obligations
I’m not precisely sure what you mean here; would you say, killing is wrong because people have a right to life; but we are obligated to help people who are ill?
M
manualman
Guest
You got it. The only innate rights we have are those things not dependent on the labor of others to provide. Liberty, life, learning, expression of opinion, art, music. If you take away my books, you violate my rights. If you forbid me to read poetry, you violate my rights. If you kill or rape, you violate rights. If you imprison those who irritate you, but have harmed no one else, you violate rights. If you steal the property of another, you violate his rights.
But if a man is hungry and has no food, it does not necessarily follow that the society he lives in has violated his rights. Rather, that society has neglected it’s duty to care for the poor. There is a real difference between recipient being entitled to something and a giver being obligated to give it. As an analogy, a rope is highly useful for pulling things. It’s nearly useless for pushing them.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Thanks for clarifying that, Manualman. I have not heard it put that way and now have something to ruminate on
E
Ender
Guest
Very well said. I think this is a valuable distinction to make, highlighting the difference between the rights of the poor on one hand with the obligations of society on the other. A right to food and housing (and healthcare) does not justify a demand that someone else provide it.
The distinction is important to both sides in that it focuses on the morality of how people ought to behave rather than devolving into a political battle of force. You are a better person if you help me because you believe it is the right thing to do rather than because the government threatens you if you don’t, and I am a better person if I accept assistance as an act of generosity rather than believing that I have a right to the wealth others have created.
Ender
- Status