Is healthcare a right or a responsibility?

[VonDerTann]

Well, he either pays something, or he pays nothing. I’m not playing cute here; those really are the only options.

I would think “pay something,” is better than “get it free,” for many reasons, but it seems - based on the article linked - that the patient with the $837 bill should have paid less or perhaps zero.

 

[Walk-worthy]

That’s not the same thing as government controlled healthcare! why is this so difficult to understand?

 

[VonDerTann]

The minute “healthcare” becomes a “right,” a whole host of problems get created:

1. Does EVERYONE have a right to ALL healthcare they desire? Do my taxes rise to pay for your breast augmentation/gender reassignment/treatment du jour?
2. If no to #1…who decides who gets care and if care is reasonable? Very soon that leads to government death panels/rationing/waits for treatment, etc.
3. There are sadly people who just won’t care for themselves - whether by drug abuse; too many cheap sugary sodas; whatever. Do I now have to provide for their unlimited care, too?
4. Do I have a right to particular treatment by the doctor of my choice? What if he/she won’t agree? Or if the procedure is something the doctor is morally opposed to?
5. How much do taxes have to rise to cover all this healthcare people have a “right” to? If Europe is any indication, “cradle to grave” confiscatory taxes seem to be the answer, and even then Europe’s system is IMHO still inferior to what we have in the US.
6. What if treatment simpy isn’t available? What if 2 people need a ventilator and there’s only 1? Lawsuit! My rights were violated! Is a patient able to compel, say, government-funded transportation to a different or better hospital, 100 miles away? 1000 miles, via air ambulance?

All these questions arise when healthcare is a “right.”

IMHO, Americans already get good-to-great medical care, in a way that usually can be dealt with financially. When people are truly broke - that’s when charity care kicks in. And are the rich always going to get better health care? Of course, but that’s rather the way of the world: The rich always have things the poor don’t have in abundance. However I would postulate that its far more likely as US healthcare now exists that a auto mechanic can get a top neurosurgeon to operate on the mechanic if the need arises, without a 5-year wait, than virtually anywhere else.

 

[blackforest]

I’m curious how other Catholics respond to this question.

If by “other Catholics,” you’d like a magisterial voice, here it is. http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/health-care/

Otherwise, I think the question you’re posing is too black and white. In most cases, a person’s health isn’t their fault, and in some cases, it is. Even when it is, I don’t believe in letting them suffer and/or die just because they regret their choices and can’t afford health care to alleviate the results.

 

[SugarMagnolia]

1. There are sadly people who just won’t care for themselves - whether by drug abuse; too many cheap sugary sodas; whatever. Do I now have to provide for their unlimited care, too?

I hate soda. It has zero nutrition and brings a host of medical problems. But that said, it’s wrong to blame people for consuming products that are aggressively and cleverly marketed to them. No matter how many times I speak to my loved ones about soda, I do not have a marketing team full of psychologists who know exactly how to manipulate people. The soda companies have experts that create ads, jingles, slogans, images, details down to the choice of color and font they use on their packaging - all to manipulate people’s thoughts and feelings. Most people cannot defend themselves against these behavior modification strategies. Most people do not even know they’re are being manipulated. The fact is, I am the weird one for choosing water over soda and juice.

 

[Thom18]

Everyone has the right to access to physical healthcare as much as spiritual. Such saints as doctor Giuseppe Moscati are said to have left money for their patients when they couldn’t afford their medication, presenting a pure model of Christ as Divine Physician.

How do we ensure that everyone has equal access to health service? First, we have to ensure that the system won’t collapse as a result of free or low-cost healthcare being distributed en masse, else no one will be able to use it. If there’s any risk that this will happen, the method of delivering this kind of care needs to be re-evaluated.

Another trouble is that resources are limited (as Coronavirus has proven). Flooding the healthcare system with potential millions of new patients, some with quite aggressive conditions, will put additional strain on the healthcare system. It would seem that we’d need more people working in the pharmaceutical industry to keep up with the new demand, and we’d need to locate new workers before or as we implement the system.

The solution also requires assent on the part of the workers, who very well may see a substantial decrease in wages (on top of whatever taxes they also would have to pay into a system). How do you get that assent when the current system is so drastically different from the one you want to implement?

Unfortunately, the solutions require an abundance of charity, which the world has always lacked- not just on the macro level, where everyone makes significant financial sacrifices to run the system, but also on the micro level, where healthcare providers fill in any gaps that are left, and those others with gifts to give (financial or otherwise) do so.

 

[o_mlly]

Both. Basic healthcare, healthcare necessary to live a decent human life, is a right. The principle of solidarity requires that the obligation falls on someone. The arguable question is on whom does that obligation fall.

The organizing principle of subsidiarity helps us to delegate that responsibility in an orderly manner. Subsidiarity requires that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. The nuclear family is society’s smallest authority. If the nuclear family is not able, then the extended family becomes obligated. If the extended family is unable then the local church as community is obligated, then the local governance of the community, then the broader forms of governance, and last the most centralized governance.

 

[Godfollower]

There are sadly people who just won’t care for themselves - whether by drug abuse; too many cheap sugary sodas; whatever. Do I now have to provide for their unlimited care, too?

That’s Jesus you’re talking about. Just so we’re clear.

 

[Socrates92]

No, Not one “overwhelming exception.”

Walking into a moving vehicle is pretty exceptional. It doesn’t describe the majority of healthcare patients. Therefore it is a bad analogy.

I could have written a dozen examples, two dozen examples, but I really didn’t feel like writing that much. There are an infinite number of ways people can hurt themselves. I don’t have infinite time to write them all.

That may be so, but the fact that you used an extreme case to prove your point that healthcare provision doesn’t affect behavior makes your argument much less convincing. There is a massive difference between living a slightly less healthy lifestyle (thus burdening the healthcare system more), and walking into a moving vehicle.

 

[Socrates92]

Realistically, many people do take calculated risks that could result is serious injury if they consider the risk small enough for the benefit to outweigh the risk. An example is anyone who has worked on an oil rig - That’s a dangerous job, and people die on it. Those that work there know this, but choose to work there anyway, judging the paycheck to outweigh the risk. Walking into a fast-moving vehicle carries a probability of serious maiming/death of close to 100% and carries very little benefit, so obviously that’s not something you’ll see a lot of, whether you subsidize it or not.

There are, however, countless other examples of unhealthy behavior which doesn’t carry nearly as high a certainty of serious harm, so that one could easily perceive the immediate benefit to outweigh the long-term risk. (unhealthy diet and lack of exercise) If there is no difference in healthcare costs to those that do intentionally engage in unhealthy habits, it is pretty certain that, on a population level, there will be a lot more of the unhealthy behavior. This also makes healthcare, on the whole, much more expensive, and less accessible to everyone, on average (whether this is born out in prices or wait-times).

There is a reason why we mandate catastrophic vehicle insurance to cover things like loss of limb or serious property damage for auto insurance, but not the potential cost of a flat tire. Socialist healthcare (Medicare for all, or whatever you want to call it) is more like mandating everyone carry coverage for a flat tire, including those that don’t drive.

 

[C.Ray]

Unless you believe rights come from the state, which can compel labor by either law or violence. And many people today have this statist conception of rights.

 

[VonDerTann]

Yes, we’re clear. But…so what? How do you propose to answer the question? Am I required to pay for your stomach stapling because you drank too much cheap sugared soda for 20 years? Am i required to pay for you to be transported to the hospital of your choice, to have said surgery? Am I required to attend med school and learn said surgery when no other surgeon is available?

Platitudes break down on the reality of making me bear the cost of your stomach stapling; or transgender reassignment; or whatever other healthcare you want.

 

[VonDerTann]

What? Please cite the case where this was held. I’d love to read it.

 

[VonDerTann]

I don’t know what on earth this decision has to do with health care.

You’ve figured out it’s not a supreme court case.

The decision says the police owe a duty to the public at large - not necessarily to you in particular.

So, to encapsulate: It wasn’t by the court you first said; it doesn’t say what you first claimed it said; and it’s irrelevant to health care.

Next!

 

[VonDerTann]

Uh, NO, it most certainly does NOT apply to the nation; it’s a District of Columbia state appellate-level case, not a federal case, and even if it was the federal DC circuit it still wouldn’t bind the whole nation.

The “public duty” doctrine says the police owe a duty to the public at large – so Sugar is correct – rather than each specific person in it. This precludes lawsuits against well-intentioned police who, in carrying out their duties to the public, accidentally or even negligenty make mistakes resulting individual harm to specific people(and thank God it does; anything else would let every crime victim sue the police for not protecting them).

 

[VonDerTann]

Jimmy’s post is a classic case of how misinformation spreads: A miscellaneous case by a District of Columbia local appellate court becomes an alleged “US Supreme Court case.” When called on it, and on his interpretation of the holding, Jim makes a claim that the holding is “the law of the land” (which it isn’t) that “applies to the entire nation” (which it doesn’t).

Court structure; competing reach of state v. federal cases; the jurisdictions of each, etc., are complex, and not to be thrown around lightly.

 

[ImQuiet]

/quote]

What one person sees as a “safety net” for the vulnerable another person sees as an exploitation of the vulnerable by trapping them in a system of dependence. Trapped people are not free people even if they prefer the trap to freedom. It is hard to see people suffer but sometimes a little suffering is what is needed to grow.

You are the type of person who gets me irrationally angry about this debate. I suffered plenty in poverty without the existential threat of potentially going homeless if my sister ever had a serious emergency. I can only imagine how stressful it was for my parents.
Waiting for lightning to strike is not growth, that’s fear. A safety net is not a trap, it’s insurance that an already bad situation doesn’t take a dramatic turn for the worse.
@jeannetherese

I do not see poverty as demeaning, whether is stems from choices or from location of birth or health crisis. I do agree that we have an obligation to care. How to express that care becomes a question.

Poverty is absolutely demeaning. It’s a formative experience, especially if you’re lucky enough to get out of it, but I wouldn’t wish being poor on anybody. Expressing that care in the form of standardized health care would be a huge pressure off of a lot of family’s shoulders.

Lastly, when you write that the US has “the only system where getting what have become fairly routine treatments for what have become common diseases like cancer can destroy the patient’s life almost as much as the disease,” I can only say: Prove it.

My family would have been homeless if we made a trip to the ER. We’re lucky that never happened.

 

[VonDerTann]

Poverty is absolutely demeaning.

I’ve been there. I am never, EVER going back.

 

[SugarMagnolia]

Walking into a moving vehicle is pretty exceptional. It doesn’t describe the majority of healthcare patients. Therefore it is a bad analogy.

SugarMagnolia:

I could have written a dozen examples, two dozen examples, but I really didn’t feel like writing that much. There are an infinite number of ways people can hurt themselves. I don’t have infinite time to write them all.

That may be so, but the fact that you used an extreme case to prove your point that healthcare provision doesn’t affect behavior makes your argument much less convincing. There is a massive difference between living a slightly less healthy lifestyle (thus burdening the healthcare system more), and walking into a moving vehicle.

You are making an extreme statement of your own: that living a “slightly” less healthy lifestyle burdens the health care system. I think it’s pretty extreme to suggest that if, on my birthday, I imbibe one sip of champagne in my otherwise teetotaler life I will burden the health care system. (After all, one sip of alcohol or one cookie or one m & m is “slightly” less healthy than a diet with none)

My example is actually much less extreme than yours because people get hit by cars every single day.

Realistically, many people do take calculated risks that could result is serious injury if they consider the risk small enough for the benefit to outweigh the risk. An example is anyone who has worked on an oil rig - That’s a dangerous job, and people die on it. Those that work there know this, but choose to work there anyway, judging the paycheck to outweigh the risk. Walking into a fast-moving vehicle carries a probability of serious maiming/death of close to 100% and carries very little benefit, so obviously that’s not something you’ll see a lot of, whether you subsidize it or not.

There are, however, countless other examples of unhealthy behavior which doesn’t carry nearly as high a certainty of serious harm, so that one could easily perceive the immediate benefit to outweigh the long-term risk. (unhealthy diet and lack of exercise) If there is no difference in healthcare costs to those that do intentionally engage in unhealthy habits, it is pretty certain that, on a population level, there will be a lot more of the unhealthy behavior. This also makes healthcare, on the whole, much more expensive, and less accessible to everyone, on average (whether this is born out in prices or wait-times).

Admit it, you’re just obsessed with what other people eat. You can’t fool me. I used to be like that too so I can spot it a mile away.

You will be defensive no matter what anyone says because you want to believe that as long as you exercise and eat healthy, you will never get a disease. You’re like Job’s friends who keep insisting that Job must have sinned because if they acknowledge that Job did nothing to deserve his sufferings it means that bad things can happen to good people and they can no longer feel confident that nothing bad will ever happen to them.

 

[jeannetherese]

So losing your retirement savings and your children’s education fund and possibly your home and not being able to afford what we would consider to be the basics for a reasonable standard of living because your kid gets sick doesn’t need to be looked at ‘as a bad thing’.

How then would you describe it?

Hi Freddie,
Hospitals will work with you on creating payment schedules and may even forgive your debt. I have helped someone in this circumstance and watched 10s of thousands of dollars being forgiven.
If you choose bankruptcy (and that is a choice, not a requirement) keeping a home and car can be done.
I’m not sure what you consider to be a reasonable standard of living and I am guessing that that would vary pretty widely from country to country and among different communities within a given country.
I’ve been very poor myself (much poorer that that which you describe) and no that what I have is a blessing and not at all guaranteed for any amount of time.
I’ve also experienced healthcare emergencies without insurance.
And I continue to say, this does not have to be looked at as a bad thing.
My grandparents spent over a decade paying off medical bills, one payment at a time, after my grandmother suffered a severe fall and a very high risk pregnancy. I grew up on the stories and never heard a word of complaint. As you might imagine, home ownership was not in the cards, let alone a retirement account and our family never heard of education funds…those notions didn’t apply to our circumstance.
We help each other and we help others. i never heard the word subsidiarity until I was well into adulthood, but we were raised on it and continue to practice it. It’s a Catholic approach to some of these challenges and one that I think can both help those who have fallen on hard times and recognize and respond to individuals at a very personal level.
I don’t have a lot of money to share with others, but I do share, and i have a gift for being able to help people sort through some of the bureaucratic entanglements associated with these issues in my area. We give according to our gifts and build a stronger community through doing so. I think that it is quite likely that I will be poor at the time of my death. Poverty is not a crime and it does not detract from my value which comes from being a child of God.
I think sometimes that we have become so concerned about material things that we have lost sight of the source of our true value. I also think that we are, at times, afraid to acknowledge that life on this earth has tragic aspects and that none of us are immune to this. How we honor God and each other as his creations can include acknowledging this and reaching out at the individual level or the communal level. Giving money to the state to take over this role can decrease our connection to each other and shift the focus in ways that I think are less likely to uphold our value as coming from God.