Has the Church always supported universal healthcare?

[Ender]

If someone walked past a person sick on the street, without helping them, I view as a moral issue.

Choosing to ignore someone in need is an immoral act. The fact that someone is sick is not a moral problem it is a medical one.

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.

The choice is not between doing nothing and doing something but deciding which means of helping is better … and that choice is a prudential one, not a moral one.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Choosing to ignore someone in need is an immoral act. The fact that someone is sick is not a moral problem it is a medical one.

The choice is not between doing nothing and doing something but deciding which means of helping is better … and that choice is a prudential one, not a moral one.

Ender

Someone sick is medical. Being able to help them, or not doing anything, is moral.

There comes a point that prolonging aid crosses over from prudential to moral. As the Pope said, ‘priority’.

 

[Trader]

I’ve come to believe that no government is inherently good or even better than any other. In the age of democracy we’ve had some pretty terrible, deadly wars.

Really??? How many wars do you know of where both sides were democracies? Do you count Nazi Germany as a democracy because Hitler won one election and then abolished all further elections? Do you count Communist dictatorships as democracies because they sometimes use the word Democratic in the official name of the nation, ie East Germany(German Democratic Republic)? 20th century communist governments murdered about 100,000,000 of their own citizens. How does that compare with the Western Democracies?

Britain and France were always at war or under threat of war from William the Conquerer until the fall of Napoleon, now not so much.

 

[ChristisRisen32]

I support government universal health care. Is this sinful?

 

[PeterGStanley]

The problem is under the current system universal heath does not work - it is a profit oriented business that has nothing to do with morals - the bottom line is the share holder must be paid and the profits must increase year to year.Profit must be made on medical supplies and equipment - Doctors salaries must increase - this is how the system works - this is the world we live in and people are sacrificed for profit, Its an ugly world , we look out for number one first. How the system can be changed I don’t know - our economic system would have to change away from profit to taking care of the people - which is not going to happen - suitcases of money are being passed off as we speak - profit must be made - it is the American way.Living in Canada the system is starting to fail due to the soar cost of medical supplies and equipment - health workers salaries - and no we don’t get it for free - my health premium is in the tax I pay every paycheck - only the poor who don’t work get free health care - but at least we have it for the poor.I cannot see things changing but actually getting worse as more people will be sacrificed for almighty profit.Right now in the states you people go bankrupt if you get seriously ill and the insurance companies drop you so it does not interfere with profit - How do you fix this? Profit Profit Profit this is how our world runs.Capitalism is evil in certain parts of the economic system - Like it or not greed is alive and an ugly monster in our system and peoples lives are being sacrificed for profit.

 

[puzzleannie]

Then you don’t believe Christ meant ‘care for the sick’ universally?

that does not seem to be the connotation OP assigns to the phrase which is one that springs from 20th century politics, not religion. Where does Christ’s admonition to Christians that they are obliged to feed the hungry, care for the sick etc. translate to governments are obliged to do those things?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

that does not seem to be the connotation OP assigns to the phrase which is one that springs from 20th century politics, not religion. Where does Christ’s admonition to Christians that they are obliged to feed the hungry, care for the sick etc. translate to governments are obliged to do those things?

‘We the people’ are the government. We call America a Christian nation. We should be proud that we live in a democracy where we can vote to accomplish Christ’s works.

I know others from our Church agree…

Pope’s Message to Health Care Conference

**Health justice should be among the priorities of governments and international institutions. **

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Vatican secretary of state

The pope’s message was read by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Vatican secretary of state, to participants at the 25th International Conference of the Pontifical Council for Health Care Ministry at the Vatican Nov. 18-19.
…

Care for human life from conception to its natural end must be a guiding light in determining health care policy, the pope said.

In his own written statement, Bertone had strong words in support of the need for governments to take care of all citizens, especially children, the elderly, the poor and immigrants.

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

Bertone recommended that government leaders in poor countries use their limited resources wisely and for the good of their citizens.

The governments of richer nations with good health care available should practice more solidarity with their own disadvantaged citizens and help developing countries promote health care while trying to avoid a “paternalistic or humiliating” way of assisting, the cardinal said.

 

[JimG]

Living in Canada the system is starting to fail due to the soar cost of medical supplies and equipment - health workers salaries - and no we don’t get it for free - my health premium is in the tax I pay every paycheck - only the poor who don’t work get free health care - but at least we have it for the poor.I cannot see things changing but actually getting worse as more people will be sacrificed for almighty profit.Right now in the states you people go bankrupt if you get seriously ill and the insurance companies drop you so it does not interfere with profit - How do you fix this? Profit Profit Profit this is how our world runs.Capitalism is evil in certain parts of the economic system - Like it or not greed is alive and an ugly monster in our system and peoples lives are being sacrificed for profit.

You seem to blame “profit” for all the woes of health care, even including the Canadian health care system.

Under “profit” do you include salaries of doctors, nurses, EMT’s, pharmacists, everybody involved in providing health care services? There are a lot of them. Must they work for free or be denied a living wage? Would that be just? Do you include the wages of construction workers who build hospitals and clinics? Do you include the wages paid to the janitorial staff who clean these hospitals and clinics? Do you include the salaries paid to researchers who develop new drugs? (New drugs are hardly developed anywhere but in the U.S., because the cost is excessive and corporate profits pay for that.) Do you include the cost of development and production of new medical technologies? The salaries of those who manufacture CT scanners, MRI’s, and numerous other machines?

Are these people to sacrifice their own income for the sake of the health care system? Or are the only people who should not be paid the investors who put up the funds to accomplish all this?

And if taxes are increased sufficiently to solve the cost problem, might that cause a reduction in economic activity–i.e. a recession or depression which would then further shut off the flow of tax money to provide for health care–would that then have been a moral action?

 

[PeterGStanley]

You seem to blame “profit” for all the woes of health care, even including the Canadian health care system.

Under “profit” do you include salaries of doctors, nurses, EMT’s, pharmacists, everybody involved in providing health care services? There are a lot of them. Must they work for free or be denied a living wage? Would that be just? Do you include the wages of construction workers who build hospitals and clinics? Do you include the wages paid to the janitorial staff who clean these hospitals and clinics? Do you include the salaries paid to researchers who develop new drugs? (New drugs are hardly developed anywhere but in the U.S., because the cost is excessive and corporate profits pay for that.) Do you include the cost of development and production of new medical technologies? The salaries of those who manufacture CT scanners, MRI’s, and numerous other machines?

Are these people to sacrifice their own income for the sake of the health care system? Or are the only people who should not be paid the investors who put up the funds to accomplish all this?

And if taxes are increased sufficiently to solve the cost problem, might that cause a reduction in economic activity–i.e. a recession or depression which would then further shut off the flow of tax money to provide for health care–would that then have been a moral action?

I said under our current system peoples lives must be sacrificed in order to continue to make profit - tell me I’m wrong - I said its not repairable due to this reason - I simply stated facts - I’m not pointing my finger at anyone but at how the current system leaves certain people out of reach of the system which in my opinion is wrong - there is nothing to argue because nothing can be changed - but I don’t have to like it.It is out of reach for the poor in the states and in years to come will be out of reach for the lower middle class

 

[St_Francis]

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

It is better to do nothing than to act indiscriminately and possibly jeopardize health care for all, yes.

Right now in the US, almost everyone is sufficiently cared for. There are those who fall through the cracks and do suffer; however, we have programs in place for children, for the elderly, for people who suffer from specific diseases… so most people can get the care they need.

If we were to make some major changes, it could be that we worsen our economic situation to the point that we would not be able to help the people whom we are helping now.

So we must be wise about how we handle changes, and we have not been. We came up with a plan that takes up 2000 pages, that have to pass to find out what’s in it, that we have to put money into for a few years before getting any benefits…

What we should be doing is examining why costs are so high and rising at such a rate. We should be examining what works in other nations and how that will work with rising percentages of elderly people, which seems to be beginning to put a strain on other sytems. We need to consider what the differences are between what they are doing and we are doing and figure out what would work best for us.

A “universal” system may not be able to handle the costs of the research and development that we do which benefits the whole world. Maybe if we made changes in some areas we’d be able to cover more people more fully. Maybe we’d be able to lower costs to allow more people to be able to afford care or insurance.

But no, we should do this willy-nilly; we need to think about what to do so that we do not inadvertantly create a worse situation.

 

[exnihilo]

Really??? How many wars do you know of where both sides were democracies? Do you count Nazi Germany as a democracy because Hitler won one election and then abolished all further elections? Do you count Communist dictatorships as democracies because they sometimes use the word Democratic in the official name of the nation, ie East Germany(German Democratic Republic)? 20th century communist governments murdered about 100,000,000 of their own citizens. How does that compare with the Western Democracies?

Yes, really. All the great wars of the last 100 years were between democracies. The greatest proportionate slaughter and destruction of property happened under democracy.And the world’s ‘greatest’ democracy is always busy these days spreading democracy by killing eligible voters in foreign lands.

Yes I count the Germans and the Commies. You cant say they are not democracies when their governments are not fundamentally different from any other democracy. Democracy, as used by the US, is just allowing the people to vote. The choice can be as meaningless as between two commies or the two parties of the US.

The Weimar Constitution was drawn up by academics who proclaimed it the best democracy conceived of by men. That it led where it did is exactly the point. Read Samuel and see how the people demanded a king and were warned of what the king would demand. The people still demand a king but call him president.

 

[Ender]

And if taxes are increased sufficiently to solve the cost problem, might that cause a reduction in economic activity–i.e. a recession or depression which would then further shut off the flow of tax money to provide for health care–would that then have been a moral action?

It would have been a harmful - perhaps even ridiculous - action, but it would not have been an immoral one. This is the point about this argument: we may legitimately disagree about the best way to provide health coverage because those disagreements are prudential and not moral. Health coverage is surely the more complicated problem but it has no more moral content than coming to a fork in the road and being unsure about which way to go. The fact that the right choice leads to the hospital and life saving care and the wrong choice leads to a slow death lost in the desert doesn’t change the nature of the decision.

We may argue how we will about providing health care and may take whatever position we feel is best. That position, whatever it is, may be wrong but (within reason) it cannot be immoral.

Ender

 

[Vouthon]

All I can say from reading this thread is that I am glad, so very glad, to live in the United Kingdom of Great Britain with the NHS - the “National Health Service”, which ensures that if I come down with some sudden illness or medical need, I am guranteed health care free of charge, which means that even if I am homeless joe with not a bean in my pocket, I will still receive medical care if I’m in need. We Britons have had it since the late 1940s, and America still lets its poorer people suffer from lack of affordable health care? The UK provides public healthcare to all UK permanent residents that is free at the point of need, being paid for from general taxation. Thats a FAR more Christian system than the self-serving one currently in place in the US. I recognize that because of the sheer size of the US it is perhaps more difficult to provide free and universal healthcare but that does not change the fact that in principle, in theory it is the JUST thing to implement.

I think it is a disgrace that the United States, to this day, has not brought in a universal, government-run, national health care service.

The Church supports universal health care, readily made available by governments to all their citizens irrespective of income/monetary means.

There is nothing more noble than being taxed so that your fellow human being can be cared for as is fitting for any human being made in the image of God.

Lack of wealth should not be a barrier to the health care which every human being is entitled too.

How on earth is America a “Christian” society? A nation that still has capital punishment and doesn’t provide universal health care to them regardless of economic means?

I am sorry to be striking the “anti-American” drum, as I have a lot of respect for the USA, particularly its strong Christian faith as opposed to the relative rampant secularism in much of Europe, but there is much to be found wanting in the so-called “American Dream”.

Even the poorest person in the UK lives an extremely high quality of life compared with the poor American.

Not to mention that in Scotland, we also have free higher education- that is, Scottish students don’t have to pay tuition fees to get into university. Tuition fees where abolished here in 1999, which has greatly allowed many bright young people from impoverished backgrounds to attend university. Universal education.

Everybody can go to University without paying tuition fees, as I have done

 

[LemonAndLime]

All I can say from reading this thread is that I am glad, so very glad, to live in the United Kingdom of Great Britain with the NHS - the “National Health Service”, which ensures that if I come down with some sudden illness or medical need, I am guranteed health care. We Britons have had it since the late 1940s, and America still lets its poorer people suffer from lack of affordable health care?

I think it is a disgrace that the United States, to this day, has not brought in a universal, government-run, national health care service.

The Church supports universal health care, readily made available by governments to all their citizens irrespective of income/monetary means.

There is nothing more noble than being taxed so that your fellow human being can be cared for as is fitting for any human being made in the image of God.

Lack of wealth should not be a barrier to the health care which every human being is entitled too.

How on earth is America a “Christian” society? A nation that still has capital punishment and doesn’t provide universal health care to them regardless of economic means?

I am sorry to be striking the “anti-American” drum, as I have a lot of respct for the USA, particularly its strong Christian faith as opposed to the relative rampant secularism in much of Europe, but there is much to be found wanting in the so-called “American Dream”.

The number 1 reason people file for bankrupcy and lose their homes in the US is healthcare fees.

The US government also spends more on healthcare in $ per person than the UK does on the NHS, so which is the most efficient with tax dollars?

 

[RCIA4]

Why are we bringing up an old thread? If you want to talk about healthcare start a new one instead

 

[tbcrawford]

All I can say from reading this thread is that I am glad, so very glad, to live in the United Kingdom of Great Britain with the NHS - the “National Health Service”, which ensures that if I come down with some sudden illness or medical need, I am guranteed health care free of charge, which means that even if I am homeless joe with not a bean in my pocket, I will still receive medical care if I’m in need. We Britons have had it since the late 1940s, and America still lets its poorer people suffer from lack of affordable health care? The UK provides public healthcare to all UK permanent residents that is free at the point of need, being paid for from general taxation. Thats a FAR more Christian system than the self-serving one currently in place in the US. I recognize that because of the sheer size of the US it is perhaps more difficult to provide free and universal healthcare but that does not change the fact that in principle, in theory it is the JUST thing to implement.

I think it is a disgrace that the United States, to this day, has not brought in a universal, government-run, national health care service.

The Church supports universal health care, readily made available by governments to all their citizens irrespective of income/monetary means.

There is nothing more noble than being taxed so that your fellow human being can be cared for as is fitting for any human being made in the image of God.

Lack of wealth should not be a barrier to the health care which every human being is entitled too.

How on earth is America a “Christian” society? A nation that still has capital punishment and doesn’t provide universal health care to them regardless of economic means?

I am sorry to be striking the “anti-American” drum, as I have a lot of respect for the USA, particularly its strong Christian faith as opposed to the relative rampant secularism in much of Europe, but there is much to be found wanting in the so-called “American Dream”.

Even the poorest person in the UK lives an extremely high quality of life compared with the poor American.

Not to mention that in Scotland, we also have free higher education- that is, Scottish students don’t have to pay tuition fees to get into university. Tuition fees where abolished here in 1999, which has greatly allowed many bright young people from impoverished backgrounds to attend university. Universal education.

Everybody can go to University without paying tuition fees, as I have done

 

[Monte_RCMS]

finance.townhall.com/columnists/danieljmitchell/2012/01/01/another_horror_story_about_governmentrun_healthcare_that_cant_possibly_be_true_according_to_paul_krugman

Whatever you do, don’t look at the horror stories.

Ignore that man behind the curtain.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I would think the Church has always supported the idea of everyone receiving healthcare. It’s a RIGHT to be able to receive healthcare. But ideally, the Church would be providing the healthcare, not the government (or I suppose the government could as well, for non-believers, but ideally there wouldn’t be non-believers…)

 

[Nate13]

It’s a RIGHT to be able to receive healthcare.

Please explain your reasoning behind this statement and clarify whether you believe its a right that everyone has access to purchasing some kind of healthcare, or that everyone has a right to receive healthcare whether they can purchase it or not? Would you consider this right to be unalienable?

 

[LemonAndLime]

Please explain your reasoning behind this statement and clarify whether you believe its a right that everyone has access to purchasing some kind of healthcare, or that everyone has a right to receive healthcare whether they can purchase it or not? Would you consider this right to be unalienable?

It’s very clear what they mean. Everyone has the right to receive healthcare - regardless of financial status.