Has the Church always supported universal healthcare?

[Ender]

**Individuals **make choices based on their income, or lack of income.

This is partly true but the key point here is that it is the individual, not a government bureaucracy, which makes the decision about what is needed.

I fail to see how healthcare will deteriorate if it is run by the government. Does this mean our military is ‘deteriorated’? It is run by the government.

The government has certain responsibilities, and providing a military is one of them. It does not have the responsibility of providing health care … and it has not done a good job of it when it tries.

Look, we disagree on whether the government can or cannot provide better health care than the private sector can provide, but that is an entirely prudential debate where one of us is correct and the other is incorrect. What it is not is a moral debate, which is why the Church takes no position on the issue, and that is what this thread is about: whether the Church supports universal (viz. government controlled) health care. And the answer to that question is, no, the Church does not call for the provision of universal (government) health care.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is partly true but the key point here is that it is the individual, not a government bureaucracy, which makes the decision about what is needed.

This is incorrect, as you’re presenting it to be. The individuals make decisions based on what they can, or cannot afford, and not by what is needed. It is a very sad thing to see people go without treatments because they cannot afford it, or because it would wreck their families futures by jeopardizing what little they do own.

The government has certain responsibilities, and providing a military is one of them. It does not have the responsibility of providing health care … and it has not done a good job of it when it tries.

It’s a shame, in my opinion, when a government is justified by it’s people for providing a military as a responsibility, but healthcare that can provide a quality of life is viewed as unnecessary.

It seems to go against what Christ taught, by what we consider to be a Christian nation.

Look, we disagree on whether the government can or cannot provide better health care than the private sector can provide, but that is an entirely prudential debate where one of us is correct and the other is incorrect. What it is not is a moral debate, which is why the Church takes no position on the issue, and that is what this thread is about: whether the Church supports universal (viz. government controlled) health care. And the answer to that question is, no, the Church does not call for the provision of universal (government) health care.

Ender

Oh, I was under the impression that the Church teaches for a quality of life from conception to natural death.

Again, in America, WE are the government and we profess ourselves to be believers, thus making us a Christian nation. While ‘we’ may disagree, I find comfort in others who share my view…

Pope Benedict

In fact Pope Benedict joined WHO’s call for universal health coverage just before its report hit the press. He called health care a moral responsibility of government and an “inalienable right,” regardless of social and economic status or ability to pay. He cautioned that the privatization of health care should “not become a threat to the accessibility, availability, and quality of health care.”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What it is not is a moral debate, which is why the Church takes no position on the issue, and that is what this thread is about: whether the Church supports universal (viz. government controlled) health care. And the answer to that question is, no, the Church does not call for the provision of universal (government) health care.

Ender

Pope, church leaders call for guaranteed health care for all people

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – Pope Benedict XVI and other church leaders said it was the moral responsibility of nations to guarantee access to health care for all of their citizens, regardless of social and economic status or their ability to pay.

Access to adequate medical attention, the pope said in a written message Nov. 18, was one of the “inalienable rights” of man.

 

[JimG]

Individuals make choices based, among other things, on cost, but so do governments, if they are exercising good stewardship.

And buyers of government debt make choices based on risk.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Individuals make choices based, among other things, on cost, but so do governments, if they are exercising good stewardship.

And buyers of government debt make choices based on risk.

So the government should be excused from seeking healthcare for all it’s citizens?

Are you speaking about the Chinese?

 

[JimG]

So the government should be excused from seeking healthcare for all it’s citizens?

Are you speaking about the Chinese?

The Chinese, or anyone who buys government debt.

The thing is, unless health care workers work for free, all health care must be paid for, even if it is free to the recipient. If the government pays for it by using borrowed money, then we are at root relying on those creditors to have faith that the debt will be repaid. If the creditors lose faith, that supply of borrowed funds could be cut off, or be obtainable only at a much higher cost.

That’s the situation that is currently looming. I hope it is resolved soon. If it isn’t, health care might be the lesser of our worries.

 

[ActuallyAquinas]

What about Distributism?

 

[St_Francis]

They tend to use money to pay for it. Student loans which they pay back once they’ve finished their studies, it comes straight out of their salary. Why?

The reason I ask is that when I as in Belgium many years ago, I gathered that university and beyknd education was free (altho continuance was based on difficult tests). I may have been wrong as my French is not superb and I sometimes miss nuances.

It just seemed that a system in which new doctors are carrying a lot of debt, su h as most of those in the US are causes a problem with universal health care, but it seems you all have worked that out.

 

[Ender]

The individuals make decisions based on what they can, or cannot afford, and not by what is needed.

Not exactly. There surely are people who do not receive the care they need but this is an unfortunate but unavoidable fact of every health care system. Most people are involved in their own medical decisions, deciding for themselves by balancing what they think they need with what they are willing - and can afford - to pay. In government systems it is the bureaucracy that makes the decisions based on what they decide they can afford. The same decisions are being made, just by different people and I don’t want to cede my decision making rights to a panel of bureaucrats.

It’s a shame, in my opinion, when a government is justified by it’s people for providing a military as a responsibility, but healthcare that can provide a quality of life is viewed as unnecessary.

This is a distortion of my comments. If you had better arguments you wouldn’t find it necessary to take this approach.

It seems to go against what Christ taught, by what we consider to be a Christian nation.

I would say you don’t understand the distinction between the guidelines the Church teaches and the implementation of procedures to accomplish those goals, which is the province of the laity and involves prudential choices, not moral ones.

I find comfort in others who share my view…

Pope Benedict

Again, not exactly. *"He called health care a moral responsibility of government and an “inalienable right,” *What he did not say, and what is being debated, is how that care is to be provided. There is nothing in his position that says care must be provided by government run programs. Medicaid and Medicare are insurance programs paid for by the government but are not NHS-like government controlled systems.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Pope, church leaders call for guaranteed health care for all people

From the link you provided:*

“Justice requires guaranteed universal access to health care,” [the Pope] said, adding that the provision of minimal levels of medical attention to all is “commonly accepted as a fundamental human right.”*

And what part of that statement suggests that medical attention must be provided by a government run system? Nothing. I think he makes this perfectly clear later in the article with this comment:

"Private health insurance companies, he said, should conform to human rights legislation and see to it that “privatization not become a threat to the accessibility, availability and quality of health care goods and services.”

Given that he talks about the responsibilities of private health insurance companies it would seem pretty clear that he is not calling for their elimination … and specifically that he is not demanding that government run health care systems a la Britain’s NHS be instituted. Again, there is nothing in his comments to support your position, rather, with his comment about private health insurance companies, he clearly accepts that approach as valid - and if it is valid for him to hold that opinion then surely it should be valid for me to hold it as well.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And what part of that statement suggests that medical attention must be provided by a government run system? Nothing. I think he makes this perfectly clear later in the article with this comment:

Ender

Pope Benedict XVI and other church leaders said it was the moral responsibility of nations to guarantee access to health care for all of their citizens, regardless of social and economic status or their ability to pay…

“Justice in health care should be a priority of governments and international institutions,” he said, cautioning that protecting human health does not include euthanasia or promoting artificial reproductive techniques that include the destruction of embryos.

His message was delivered by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Vatican secretary of state, who also added some of his own comments.

Governments are obligated, therefore, to adopt the proper legislative, administrative and financial measures to provide such care along with other basic conditions that promote good health, such as food security, water and housing, the cardinal said.

I think it’s safe to say that our Church teaches ‘universal health care’ through all available resources, including governments which are ‘obligated’, even if one feels at liberty to disagree with the Holy Father’s, and other men of the Church’s, opinion.

Saying nothing is made ‘perfectly clear’ reminds me of the last presidential election when conservatives stated Catholics had to vote republican, and others argued the Holy Father’s words made it sound as if one could vote for another as long as they didn’t vote for them precisely for their position on abortion in light of proportionate reasons. Maybe it comes from ‘politicizing’ our Church, which is not secular, but God’s voice on earth? Our Church is neither conservative or liberal. We, Catholics, need to quit dissecting the message of the Church and start reading it through the spiritual eye.

 

[LemonAndLime]

If the “professionals” do not have to think about money it is only because non-professional bureaucrats have already made the decision about what treatment to allow. Someone is assuredly thinking about cost … but you’re probably right: it won’t be the doctors and it isn’t the patient - who is prevented by law from procuring his own treatment. So explain why it is preferable to have someone completely disconnected from the situation, who is neither providing nor receiving treatment, make the decision about what treatment is allowed.

Ender

The NHS provides treatment and medication on an evidence-based basis. For example, lets say a cancer medication came out, and it only worked 5% of the time, and was extremely expensive as the makers still had the patent. The NHS will not pay for it, so doctors won’t be able to order it for their patients although people are always allowed to pay for it themselves and go private. I think some people forget that in the UK, we have private hospitals/doctors and health insurance for such situations.

Same for scans. If theres only a slim chance that a scan might aid diagnosis, then doctors will be advised to only carry one out if they’ve tried less expensive diagnostic tests first.

 

[St_Francis]

The NHS provides treatment and medication on an evidence-based basis. For example, lets say a cancer medication came out, and it only worked 5% of the time, and was extremely expensive as the makers still had the patent. The NHS will not pay for it, so doctors won’t be able to order it for their patients although people are always allowed to pay for it themselves and go private. I think some people forget that in the UK, we have private hospitals/doctors and health insurance for such situations.

Same for scans. If theres only a slim chance that a scan might aid diagnosis, then doctors will be advised to only carry one out if they’ve tried less expensive diagnostic tests first.

Ahhhh, there’s a point. Here the doctor would need to order it for fear of a malpractice suit.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Ahhhh, there’s a point. Here the doctor would need to order it for fear of a malpractice suit.

It’s not so much about the doctor ordering it though… in the UK, there is a prescription charge which is a single amount for any medication, no matter what that is. So you could be paying more than the actual drug is worth, or less. Contraception is always free, and if you’re over-60, under 16 etc it’s also free.

Many doctors will tell their patient that there are drugs available which may help, but they’re not available on the NHS, and they will advise why they’re not available - e.g, not good enough evidence that they work.

Our doctors aren’t so much individual practioners either. You cannot sue an individual doctor or nurse in the UK, you sue the “Trust” of that local area instead.

 

[Ender]

I think it’s safe to say that our Church teaches ‘universal health care’ through all available resources, including governments which are ‘obligated’, …

No, that is not what the Church teaches. She says that countries must provide for their citizens as best they can but she has specified nothing at all about how that is to be done.

Saying nothing is made ‘perfectly clear’ reminds me of the last presidential election…

What I actually said was *“he makes this perfectly clear …” *What you are reading appears not to be what I’ve written.

We, Catholics, need to quit dissecting the message of the Church and start reading it through the spiritual eye.

It is useful to understand what has been said in order to know how to respond. You have yet to show that I have misunderstood what the Church has written.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No, that is not what the Church teaches. She says that countries must provide for their citizens as best they can but she has specified nothing at all about how that is to be done.
What I actually said was *“he makes this perfectly clear …” *What you are reading appears not to be what I’ve written.
It is useful to understand what has been said in order to know how to respond. You have yet to show that I have misunderstood what the Church has written.

Ender

Please state the objection to a Christian community, which our nation identifies itself as for the most part by a majority, providing health care to all it’s citizens?

 

[Ender]

Please state the objection to a Christian community, which our nation identifies itself as for the most part by a majority, providing health care to all it’s citizens?

The vague and imprecise nature of the question makes it impossible to answer; you need to be more specific. We have (some) health care for all today but what we have is not as good as what you want, nor is it merely a question of making health care available as you have a particular manner in which you think it should be provided. Mostly, however, I just don’t think you’ve understood my arguments at all.

First, as I mentioned earlier, we have no definition of “universal health care” so that alone pretty much guarantees that we’ll be talking about different things. Second, we disagree on what the Church teaches. As I’ve said, whatever might have been written about whether health care should be made available there is nothing whatever written about *how *it is to be provided.

It should be obvious that I support the objective of providing the best health care possible to as many people as possible. What we disagree on is what is possible and what approaches will work and which will not. Again, those are not moral issues.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The vague and imprecise nature of the question makes it impossible to answer; you need to be more specific. We have (some) health care for all today but what we have is not as good as what you want, nor is it merely a question of making health care available as you have a particular manner in which you think it should be provided. Mostly, however, I just don’t think you’ve understood my arguments at all.

First, as I mentioned earlier, we have no definition of “universal health care” so that alone pretty much guarantees that we’ll be talking about different things. Second, we disagree on what the Church teaches. As I’ve said, whatever might have been written about whether health care should be made available there is nothing whatever written about *how *it is to be provided.

It should be obvious that I support the objective of providing the best health care possible to as many people as possible. What we disagree on is what is possible and what approaches will work and which will not. Again, those are not moral issues.

Ender

Since we don’t know what will work or not, do you feel it’s better to not do anything at all?

We know what universal health care is. It’s a quality medical attention to all that need it, no matter what they can, or cannot, afford.

So, every sick person that goes with being cared for properly with the correct medical attention is not a moral issue? I disagree.

 

[Ender]

Since we don’t know what will work or not, do you feel it’s better to not do anything at all?

Of course not, but a disagreement over what approach is best is entirely prudential; there are no moral questions involved.

We know what universal health care is. It’s a quality medical attention to all that need it, no matter what they can, or cannot, afford.

It is quite literally absurd to say that countries must provide a service they cannot afford. Can Somalia provide “quality medical attention to all that need it”? No, they cannot afford to. The level of what we can afford is starkly different but the principle is the same: if you can’t afford it you can’t provide it.

So, every sick person that goes with being cared for properly with the correct medical attention is not a moral issue? I disagree.

No, it is not a moral issue; it is a humanitarian problem and those are not at all the same thing. First of all, only human acts can be considered moral; problems don’t have a moral nature. Our reactions to problems may be moral or immoral but the problems themselves may not. Second, the morality of an act is determined by only three things: the nature of the act, the intent behind it, and the circumstances surrounding it (and the circumstances affect only culpability; they don’t change the moral nature of the act.)

The net of all this is that, unless the act involves an intrinsic evil (e.g. an abortion) then the only thing that can make that act immoral is the intent behind it. What you are judging is not the effectiveness of various proposals but the (imagined) reasons they are made.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Of course not, but a disagreement over what approach is best is entirely prudential; there are no moral questions involved.
It is quite literally absurd to say that countries must provide a service they cannot afford. Can Somalia provide “quality medical attention to all that need it”? No, they cannot afford to. The level of what we can afford is starkly different but the principle is the same: if you can’t afford it you can’t provide it.
No, it is not a moral issue; it is a humanitarian problem and those are not at all the same thing. First of all, only human acts can be considered moral; problems don’t have a moral nature. Our reactions to problems may be moral or immoral but the problems themselves may not. Second, the morality of an act is determined by only three things: the nature of the act, the intent behind it, and the circumstances surrounding it (and the circumstances affect only culpability; they don’t change the moral nature of the act.)

The net of all this is that, unless the act involves an intrinsic evil (e.g. an abortion) then the only thing that can make that act immoral is the intent behind it. What you are judging is not the effectiveness of various proposals but the (imagined) reasons they are made.

Ender

If someone walked past a person sick on the street, without helping them, I view as a moral issue. The same applies to us living in a country where we realize people are without proper health care and the population does nothing, or objects to helping through anyway possible.