Is healthcare a right or a responsibility?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Walk-worthy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There are few things finer on a hot summer day than an ice cold coca-cola. Adding a scoop of chocolate ice cream to it? Heaven.
 
Chocolate ice cream in coca cola? Is that a regional thing? I’ve heard of vanilla ice cream in ginger ale, specifically Vernor’s.
 
Last edited:
I mean no disrespect to our neighbors in the UK. My aunt Gert was a WWII bride from somewhere near Bristol. I’m only repeating what many in the UK say about that system and it’s failures over the decades.
 
Last edited:
Hodos said:
Therefore healthcare is not a right, it is a commodity that is consumed with the expectation of providing an equal exchange of goods or labor.
Click to expand...
Hodos, I’m on your side of this issue! I completely agree! I appreciate your post!
 
According to the Compendium of the Social Teaching of the Church health care is a right.
The demands of the common good are dependent on the social conditions of each historical period and are strictly connected to respect for and the integral promotion of the person and his fundamental rights. These demands concern above all the commitment to peace, the organization of the State’s powers, a sound juridical system, the protection of the environment, and the provision of essential services to all, some of which are at the same time human rights: food, housing, work, education and access to culture, transportation, basic health care, the freedom of communication and expression, and the protection of religious freedom.
Click to expand...
From #166 of this

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...peace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
 
Walk-worthy said:
I’m only repeating what many in the UK say about that system and it’s failures over the decades.
Click to expand...
You actually said that you’d bet there were people in the UK who couldn’t access health care. Not that it has problems. That comment was completely wrong. Everyone has access.

If you want to state that there are problems within the system, then be my guest. I could probably give you a lot more than you could find. But the health system in the UK is monstrously large. And with any large organisation you’ll find some problems if you look hard enough. Does that mean you should scrap it or look to solve those problems?

Similarly, should the US just complain about the problems associated with universal health care and throw up their collective hands or should it try to solve them? If the posts in this thread are any guide then it seems the former option is the preferred one.
 
jeannetherese said:
40.png
jesusmademe:
I think a lot of the discussion have to be about taxes.
Click to expand...
I think taxes might be an issue for some, but it’s not the basis for my concern. I wonder about the different ways in which healthcare is rationed in each system.
I worry that one way to limit health care costs (which are a problem in countries with a greater emphasis upon state supplied health care as well as in countries with a more mixed economy style health care system) might involve care for the elderly, particularly as I watch some of the euthenasia issues arising in Europe (and, increasingly, in the United States).
Click to expand...
This isn’t an either/solution. What other countries do is get everyone to chip in a small amount so that there is health care for all. It helps those who wouldn’t be able to afford it otherwise. If you can afford to pay for better care and your own doctor and an operation when it’s convenient and a private room, then do so.
 
According to the Compendium it seems to be a human right. How it is to be implemented is another matter.
 
My worry, Freddie, is that one way countries that do this keep payments down is through getting rid of some of the expensive people.
As I noted, health care is rationed in every system.
One thing that the coronavirus has brought to light is a problem with the quality of eldercare in Canada and the U.K. which is being noted in the national news in both countries.
I don’t mind sharing my money for good causes and i do donate, generally through my church but also individually to help the poor. some of this goes to maternity care, some to women who are struggling to support their children, some to food banks there are several places I support.
All of this contributes to the health of the impoverished with almost zero overhead as the groups I fund are run by volunteers. My would be tax dollars stretch farther than they might because of this. I also volunteer myself and have provide free elder assistance. It’s a small ‘d’ democracy approach and again is linked to subsidiarity.
 
EssentialBeing said:
If a government provides a health care system payed by taxes then it is your RIGHT to access and be treated by that system
Click to expand...
I’m not so sure about this. i think it needs a qualifier or two. You might be able to access a system but you may find it is unwilling to provide certain services or that it puts you into a system where, by the time you’ve seen the doctor who can order the doctor to order the tester to give you the test, you’re in pretty bad shape.
Rationing in state health care systems in state healthcare systems, can involve a process in which one waits in line to be worked though protocols before receiving treatment. The waits can be extensive, depending on the procedures involved.
And of course, the less expensive treatment may be pushed. Here’s one example of a less expensive treatment advocated by a state health care program.


 
Because everything else you mentioned is by and large a choice. Healthcare isn’t a choice, you either treat a disease/injury, or you die.
 
Some health care is a choice-in fact there are people who come onto CAF arguing that aborting thier children is both a choice and healthcare.
you have raised a point, however which has not been fully explored on this thread. Some people have spoken about state health care programs as providing very basic care (without going into any detail about what this might involve) and others, such as yourself, have spoken to state health care programs as providing catastrophic care.
Given that all forms of health care are rationed, where would you set the limits on your proposed program and what is your justification for excluding the items you would ration out of the system?

But my point was, we incur debt and we pay it off. Or we choose not to pay it off and declare bankrupcy.
What makes this form of incurred debt different?
 
KMC said:
I’m not for socialized medicine / single payer in the US because the US government has proven time and again, that it does nothing cost effectively. Nothing. If someone wants to look at the quality of government run healthcare, then look at the VA system, which I haven’t found many people willing to vouch for its quality.
Click to expand...
The US government runs a better military than the states could. It runs better and more efficient law enforcement than the states. The federal court system is far better than most states’ court systems, and more efficient to boot. And the single most efficient health insurance program in the United States is Medicare, whose administrative costs run at about two percent of operating expenditures, versus private health insurance plans, which run at about 17 percent of expenditures.

It’s fun to jump on the “The government isn’t the solution, it’s the problem” bandwagon, but that wasn’t true when Reagan said it, and it isn’t true now.

I agree that there are problems in the government. And the VA hasn’t done itself or its patients any favors. But the solution isn’t to throw out the government; it’s to fix what’s wrong.

Arguing that the Balkanized health insurance system we have now is more efficient than a properly designed single-payer system would be, completely ignores the concept of economies of scale and, yes, the efficiency that comes with cutting out all the middlemen taking their cut in the current system.

There are plenty of legitimate arguments to make if you want to oppose a single-payer system. But “It wouldn’t be as efficient as what we have now“ isn’t one of them.
 
marie3 said:
You dont Say that when your country pays trillions of your money to make War to poor people who did nothing against you ! But to save lives by healthcare that you doesn’t want ! Egoism is a sin. Only in USA people criticize free healthcare. In France we have it since a Long Time and everybody love it its wonderfull you dont have to be anxious for people you Care if they are ill. Now Only countries of the third World doesn’t have free healthcare. Its wonderfull and I hope you Will benefit of it soon.
Click to expand...
Marie,
You obviously have a lot of opinions of America, but fail to understand the American people & historically reasons why somethings are the way they are.

Nations like France and even the United Kingdom are “unitary states.” Meaning the central government contains all the power and the power any regional govts have are given to them from the national government.

The United States is a federation, and not just any federation, a nation that was first founded as a confederation. During the first few years of the United States, when we were still a confederation, each state had its own currency. The central govt was really just for national defense.

Then, when our new Constitution was created, we were changed into a federation. HOWEVER, the all unspecified powers were defaulted to the state governments, not the federal govt.

Many conservative Americans (esp many conservative Catholics) believe that IF we need to have “free healthcare” then it should be state financed and state run.

Furthermore, MOST Americans have pretty good healthcare already thought private insurance which is predominantly paid for by our employers. Honestly, our system was pretty good until more & more doctors & hospitals were getting sued for frivolous malpractice suits.

Now, are system wasn’t perfect, there are things we need to fix. I’m not going to lie. HOWEVER, most Americans have better coverage (even though we have to pay for it out of our paychecks) than most people in Europe (not all).

Additionally, the United States is over 300,000,000 people spread out over a nation roughly the size of Europe.

France is about the same size as Texas. Imagine for a moment that your healthcare was being paid for by the EU and not the French govt. And let’s imagine that all decisions regarding the healthcare in your region was being made by people in Germany & Brussels. Let’s also imaging that the way your healthcare starts to be negatively impacted by the need to move doctors out of France to other parts of the EU?

Would that trouble / concern you at all?

Because the truth is, that while the United States is a nation like France, domestically, our Federal Govt is more akin to the European Union, which our 50 states are more akin to the individual European nations. People in New York are culturally very different from people in Salt Lake City.

(cont)
 
(cont)
So changing our system is frankly not as simply as you would think, no to mention France adopted national healthcare a long time ago, when costs were much cheaper and were able to build the modern healthcare industry of France under that system. We didn’t.

And finally, because of our founding, Americans are naturally very distrusting of government. Now, many young people are liberals are less so; but historically at least 1/2 of Americans have always been distrusting of the government.

Remember, we are a two party system. So if roughly half the country mistrusts the govt in power at any given time, why are we going to agree to give that other party more power?

Finally, you have understand that the American Federal Govt was DESIGNED to be slow and inefficient, in order to prevent one side from becoming too powerful AND to prevent the Federal govt from taking too much power away from the States.

God Bless.
 
Last edited:
Godfollower said:
It runs better and more efficient law enforcement than the states. The federal court system is far better than most states’ court systems, and more efficient to boot
Click to expand...
Honestly, you are comparing apples and oranges.

The FBI has 35,104 employees (as of 2014) with a $9.6 BILLION budget (FYI 2019)

The NYPD (New York City Police Department) ALONE has approx 55,000 employees, with a budget of $5.6 Billion.

In other words, the Feds have a lot of people & budget for a much small jurisdiction, as most jurisdiction falls to the local police.

While there are some criminal cases in the federal courts, the vast majority of Criminal cases are in State and County Courts. The case types are just not the same.


Furthermore, Federal jobs in these sectors are often looked as promotions, and they pay more.

But if you think for one moment we would be better served if the FBI took over all state and local police departments, you would be very poorly mistaken.

Ask almost any police department in the country, the FBI is good at what they are good at and terrible at what they THINK they are good at.
 
Because in many cases this isn’t a discretionary debt like most other debts. Hell its often not even our own choice if care is initiated during an emergency. Yet for some reason we’re the only western country where you’re left holding the bill where all the others have recognized healthcare is a fundamental right. And as Catholics are pro-life I’d find it oxymoronic to think otherwise. Having to chose death over debt burdening yourself or your family is not a life affirming position to place people in when there is a tried and tested alternative that for some reason only America refuses to embrace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top