Is healthcare a right or a responsibility?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Walk-worthy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My understanding, which is open to correction, is that emergency services tend to be available in both Europe and the United States.
I wonder if this availability might fall under the right to life though, as we are noting limits to availability of other procedures?
I’m still pondering the notion of rights and responsibilities pointed to in the thread title.
 
Of course if you are dying in the street they will treat you also in US even if you are uninsured, the problem is that you will find yourself with tons of bills to pay for thousands of dollars once you get better.
In fact something that I discovered here in US, some people get very sick but refuse to take an ambulance because they don’t have insurance and are worried about the expenses.
In Europe even if you are a homeless and get cancer or survive a serious accident, you will receive the same medical care in a public hospital as anybody else, almost free of charge (obviously taxes are paying for it, nothing is free).
 
Actually the foregoing is largely incorrect due to the presence of “charity care” at US hospitals. Charity care is basically free care. Hospitals can’t not treat you if you’re dying and are on their doorstep. They may not like it (no one likes working for free) but they cannot treat you then garnish your wages for the next 50 years. They also won’t give you elective treatment for free, but they will save your life.

Many hospitals don’t tell people when charity care is available, but that’s another issue.
 
Last edited:
IMHO health care is not a “right” the way life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness are, in part because one doesn’t have the right to force someone else to become a doctor, let alone provide them treatment.
 
Last edited:
I am familiar with several private and public hospitals in my area and all offer charity care programs.
This subsidizes care for the poor in a different way from the taxation policies in some other countries.
Emergency/lifesaving services will be delivered.
I think, sometimes, that when some people are discussing healthcare as a right, what they really mean is subsidization as a right.
How one provides services to the poor may vary.
Charity care and taxation are two different ways of subsidizing services.
 
ImQuiet said:
40.png
jeannetherese:
I’m not sure it is viewed as a right, so much as as a social good. Access to various health care services does vary in European countries, and, of course, it also varies in the United States.
Right now, many services are not being made available in Europe as health care delivery is focused especially upon Covid-19, but prior to the awareness of the virus, one might also be in line for many months for certain procedures.
Health care is rationed across countries in different ways. the fact that it is rationed, I would suggest, might indicate that it is not viewed as an absolute right.
Click to expand...
You’re thinking of non-urgent appointments, in which case the wait time can be (but isn’t always) rather long. However, if you’re, say, in need of a critical surgery or some form of urgent care, you’re given priority attention.
At least to my understanding. I’ve never actually gotten medical care in Europe, so I wouldn’t know exactly how the system works from a patient’s perspective, I’m just basing this off of what I’ve read.
Click to expand...
You’re exactly right. At least as far as the UK is concerned (where I was born) and also in Australia (where I live).

I had a minor motorbike accident some time ago, shortly before I was due to fly to the UK. I was treated in Australia free of charge and again treated free of charge in the UK when I got there as I still needed it checked out.

In Australia, if that accident had required an operation then I would be put on a waiting list to have it done free. Or I could have had it done under my private insurance immediately. Which costs an arm and a leg and doesn’t cover all associated costs.

Paying for private insurance is up to the individual. If you want immediate treatment for relatively minor problems then you pay it. Otherwise a small part of your taxes go to pay for public health. If I hear someone classing it as ‘socialist medicine’ then I think - hello, there goes an American.

The cost is somewhere in the region of 2% of income. Low income earners (under $20k) pay nothing. And I have literally never heard or read anyone who complains about this.
 
So we are up to post 67 in this thread and no one has mentioned relevant teaching of the Church. I won’t say what I think because the OP restricted it to Catholics but so far with all the personal interpretation of Bible verses and references to the US health system I’m not sure the restriction is working as planned!
 
RolandThompsonGunner said:
but it’s pretty universally agreed that delivering mail is a function the state should perform.
Click to expand...
Really? Everyone I talk to in my country (Canada) agrees that Canada Post is absolute trash, because it is. I’ve never heard a single rational argument for why mail delivery should be socialized. UPS and Amazon are vastly superior and could easily take over overnight if Canada Post ceased to exist. I’m sure the same is the case for the United States Postal Service.
 
The government forces you to pay the wages of police officers, firemen, and soldiers… and it’s universally accepted that they will assist you. The government forces you to pay for roads. The government forces you to pay for many things. Why do you draw the line at health care? It’s very peculiar. Your position has nothing to do with Catholicism and everything to do with American conservative politics. The Pope has explicitly referred to health care as a right… and outside of the US, Catholics generally would agree with our Holy Father.
 
VonDerTann said:
Actually the foregoing is largely incorrect due to the presence of “charity care” at US hospitals. Charity care is basically free care. Hospitals can’t not treat you if you’re dying and are on their doorstep. They may not like it (no one likes working for free) but they cannot treat you then garnish your wages for the next 50 years. They also won’t give you elective treatment for free, but they will save your life.

Many hospitals don’t tell people when charity care is available, but that’s another issue.
Click to expand...
Yes, there are charity programs in hospitals but to access them you need to qualify (there are usually certain strict limit of income, residency, max amount of covered expenses etc). The guidelines about who is eligible to charity care are not standardized and are set by the hospital (so some hospitals could be more ‘generous’ than others). It is also not a mystery that often even patients that would qualify are not made aware of the option to apply for charity care (see link below). If you have a crappy insurance, an income that is not close to the poverty line, a lack of knowledge about bureaucracy or a condition requiring extended expensive care, you very likely will end up in debt. In Europe there is no need for these kind of programs because healthcare access is basically always subsidized by the government.

 
Last edited:
I believe affordable health care is a right, but i am hesitant to support universal health care. I’m for government subsidies and such, but i think universal healthcare can actually prevent people from accessing affordable health care if managed poorly. I prefer Singapore’s system which is both privately and publicly funded, though I might be biased.

I think the poor not being able to afford health care is an injustice that cries out to God. How we go about solving this is another matter though.
 
Socrates92 said:
Really? Everyone I talk to in my country (Canada) agrees that Canada Post is absolute trash, because it is. I’ve never heard a single rational argument for why mail delivery should be socialized. UPS and Amazon are vastly superior and could easily take over overnight if Canada Post ceased to exist. I’m sure the same is the case for the United States Postal Service.
Click to expand...
I meant that in the US at least, the Postal Service is pretty legally uncontroversial. No one really bangs on about it being socialism or government overreach or whatever.

Maybe a better example is the military. The state forces you to contribute to the maintenance of an army through taxes, which then protects the country from external threats. No one really argues that this is an inappropriate service for the government to provide.

Anyway, I don’t think a state must guarantee health care. It’s a prudential decision. I just think a state can have a role in the health care system without turning into North Korea.
 
Last edited:
ImQuiet said:
The age-old response to this problem I’ve heard is “get a job, pull yourself up by your bootstraps”, and it frankly makes my blood boil.
Click to expand...
People can’t pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they don’t have boots. This saying angers me too.
ImQuiet said:
the wait time can be (but isn’t always) rather long.
Click to expand...
When I talk to people from the UK they complain all the time about the ridiculous wait times to get a doctor’s appointment. Then sometimes after waiting for months, something comes up and they are unable to go at their appointed day and time and they have to go back on a months-long waiting list. It’s terrible. Socialized medicine is seriously flawed. The American system is also seriously flawed. We need a third solution.

I like the American system where I choose my doctor and I can make an appointment for a day and time that fits my schedule. But the payment should be made by the government that I pay taxes to
 
Last edited:
I don’t believe I’m twisting your words. You’re saying that people will choose to harm themselves if their medical treatment is paid for, but if their medical treatment is not paid for, then they will choose to not harm themselves. That’s what you’re saying, right? That without medical treatment being paid for, they will look before crossing the street, but they will not look before crossing the street if they know they will receive a lifetime of medical treatment if they get hit by a car and become paralyzed. I think the overwhelming majority of people would prefer to not spend a lifetime being paralyzed even with free health care workers to spoon feed them and wipe their behinds.
 
Freddy said:
If you want immediate treatment for relatively minor problems then you pay it.
Click to expand...
This is something I have a big problem with. Minor problems + time = major problems. People have to wait until their problems become more serious before receiving treatment. I think it’s better to treat minor problems right away so that they don’t become serious. I also have a problem with people not being able to choose their doctors. When a patient and doctor have a long term relationship, the doctor gets to know the patient well and can give better more personalized care. When doctors do not develop a relationship with patients, it’s one-size-fits-all treatment as patients come through on the assembly line.
 
It depends how you define a right.
A policeman or fireman won’t refuse to serve you (in a first world country relatively free from corruption).
I believe healthcare is a right. People don’t usually choose to get sick. Cosmetic surgery etc should be paid for by person.
In my country there is Medicare.
Realistically, healthcare is never really 100 % free anyway if you are working because taxes are used for public hospitals.
I don’t think “free” healthcare causes people to be less incentivised to seek good health.
In many countries like Australia and European countries there is free healthcare but people in America are usually just as unhealthy or even more unhealthy than people from these countries.
Also, presuming people would become more lazy with health makes the assumption that doctors always have a cure.
Many times people go to doctors and receive no cure or health improvement so no one would just be more lax about their health when they may not be cured anyway.
 
Last edited:
SugarMagnolia said:
40.png
Freddy:
If you want immediate treatment for relatively minor problems then you pay it.
Click to expand...
This is something I have a big problem with. Minor problems + time = major problems. People have to wait until their problems become more serious before receiving treatment. I think it’s better to treat minor problems right away so that they don’t become serious. I also have a problem with people not being able to choose their doctors. When a patient and doctor have a long term relationship, the doctor gets to know the patient well and can give better more personalized care. When doctors do not develop a relationship with patients, it’s one-size-fits-all treatment as patients come through on the assembly line.
Click to expand...
Well, may I qualify what I said? A minor problem means you go on a waiting list. But if it is likely to lead to a greater problem then that would be taken into account. But you can’t treat everyone immediately.

And if you want your own doctor? You pay hefty insurance premiums. If you can’t afford that then you still get a well qualifed doctor who will give you excellent care.
 
That is not socialism. Socialism is a government control, not a group of people engaged in private charity.
 
I believe in preventative healthcare (weight, blood sugar, diet, etc) but at same time, I think sometimes patients are encouraged to be “dumb” and not be able to do anything themselves.
For example an ingrown toenail is something a person can fix at home but doctors and nurse will complain that only they know how to do it but then they will whine they are overworked!
I can’t help but feeling sometimes patient dependency is encouraged to boost egos?

Thank God we can choose our doctors in the country that I live.
If you can choose your plumber, even more so should be able to choose your doctor when it’s your health at stake.
It’s nonsense to presume that all doctors can provide the same level of care.
Just like you wouldn’t trust some plumbers to do a good job the first time, same story with doctors.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top