Is healthcare a right or a responsibility?

[ImQuiet]

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.

Why not? Death and debt is a rock and a hard place. There’s nothing good there.
Ok, I’m being a bit dramatic. But I fail to see how telling someone who’s poor that “oh don’t worry, this horrible medical debt isn’t a bad thing, it’s good for you!”
It’s good for you if you make it through to the other side, because you can look back and reflect on how that experience formed you.
For the majority who don’t clear that hurdle, it’s just another financial worry to add to the pile. It doesn’t help with personal growth at all.

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.

If you’ll permit me to be anecdotal here:
I didn’t sleep well as a kid. I still don’t sleep well as an adult, to be frank. Involuntary all-nighters were and are an unfortunate reality of my life.
So I’d be awake at 3am in our house, and every so often I’d get up to grab a water or read a book or something, since I wasn’t gonna be able to sleep anyway.
You know what’d I hear?
Fighting, sobbing, arguments, and very emotional conversations between my parents about money, about how we’re going to afford that EpiPen and maybe we can skip dinner on this day or that day and we’ll make it work somehow, just have faith.
I never saw my parents act like that during normal hours of the day.
I’m willing to bet good money that your Grandparents probably had several gripes about their situation, they just didn’t want to let the kids in on it.

Poverty is not a crime and it does not detract from my value which comes from being a child of God.

It isn’t. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t something we can’t work to prevent or at the very least make more manageable.

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.

Like it or not, the definition of communal level has changed thanks to modern developments. We are now capable of creating change on a global scale.
Maybe the small communities idea worked in the past, but with technology and our increasingly global society, I say that it’s more than charitable to prevent tragedies from happening.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

“Let them eat cake” - Queen Marie Antoinette

There is no evidence that she said that.

 

[Socrates92]

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.

Why would I suggest that? Do you think having a sip of champagne once a year is unhealthy?

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

We weren’t talking about whether people get hit by cars. We were discussing the whether they are more likely to get hit if you pay them to do it.

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’re hilarious.

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.

Nope. Nowhere did I say the correlation was 100%. I specifically stated that I was talking about costs on the level of the overall population. Not costs on the level of every single individual.

 

[Godfollower]

Some on this thread are having a lot of fun saying that they just don’t want to pay for others to have healthcare, and raising straw men (should I have to pay for elective surgery?) to deny any obligation to help at all. But here’s what God says:

What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food:

And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself.

James 2:14-17.

It’s our obligation as Christians to care for the sick and the poor. This includes paying for their healthcare. Now, you might be able to debate the best way to pay for that healthcare (private charity, versus Church-run hospitals, versus government programs, etc.), but the obligation is non-debatable in Catholic theology.

If you don’t like how others are using your health-care dollars, do something about it. But don’t pretend that it’s anything new. People are already using your money to pay for elective surgery and “sin-caused” treatment (smokers getting treatment for lung cancer, or what have you). In a government-run plan, they’re spending your tax dollars. In a private plan, they’re spending your premium dollars. You are already paying for it. So find another reason to object to helping your fellow man.

 

[Freddy]

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.”

1. Elective surgery is out. You want your eyeballs lasered or your stomache stapled then you pay for it.
2. Doctors.
3. Generally yes. But you’ll also be covered if you or yours do something stupid. Having said that, this is a reasonable point you make and it’s worth investigating further. We know that America is one of the most obese countries on the planet so something needs to be done. You also need to consider means of preventing problems occuring that put a strain on the health system. So crank up the tax on soda for example so it doubles in price. People get less fat and there’s more cash in the bank to help fund the system. In other words, if people are voluntarily doing things that damage their health and subsequently prevent you and yours from obtaining the care you need then tax the living daylights out of whatever it is they are doing. Sugar in foods, soda, tobacco, booze…carrot and stick.
4. Generally no, unless you want to wait longer until he/she becomes available. Or you pay extra.
5. In Australia it’s 2% with those under a certain income exempted (around US$17k I think).
6. Lack of medical equipment is a problem whether it’s pay as you go or a tax funded system. Just make sure you elect people who know what they are doing.

 

[VonDerTann]

Look, this is a Catholic forum and yes, we need to help others. But it’s not unreasonable to ask, “to what extent?” In light of the questions I’ve posed. No one who’s advocated that health care is a right has really tried to answer any of them.

 

[Socrates92]

In a private plan, they’re spending your premium dollars. You are already paying for it

In a private plan, their premiums are affected if they become a greater risk. So, not really true.

 

[SugarMagnolia]

You’re freaking out because some people drink soda and you’re going to have to pay for their heart attacks. Am I going to have to pay for yours after all this micromanaging of other people’s diets takes it’s toll on your health?

 

[Socrates92]

You’re freaking out because some people drink soda and you’re going to have to pay for their heart attacks. Am I going to have to pay for yours after all this micromanaging of other people’s diets takes it’s toll on your health?

I haven’t freaked out about anything, so I’m not sure what you’re going on about. Also, I have nowhere advocated micromanagement. Haven’t even brought it up, for, or against, actually.

 

[StudentMI]

Why can’t it be both a right and a responsibility? We can disagree about the policies that best achieve the maximum benefit for the common good.

 

[VonDerTann]

Actually, Freddy, you were writing as
I was saying no one had answered my questions. Clearly i stand corrected.

You raise some interesting points.
I think you kind of oversimplify (i.e. Doctors decide who gets care, with nothing more) some points, but we can debate the merits of things like tax on soda. Anyway, you at least made an honest effort to answer.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Look, this is a Catholic forum and yes, we need to help others. But it’s not unreasonable to ask, “to what extent?” In light of the questions I’ve posed. No one who’s advocated that health care is a right has really tried to answer any of them.

The nitty gritty about making a principle work is up to the government and the experts to work out. As Christians we promote Christians principles in public life. That’s our obligation. We start from the fundamental position that all lives are equal and valuable and deserving of dignified treatment. We walk in anothers shoes in forming our consciences about what public policies we need to be supporting. We most importantly do not endorse greed which is idolatry and a deadly sin in forming our social conscience. That is policies that by their nature, create segregation of classes and marginalising whole groups of people.

Taking part in a public discussion about how affordable health care should look means not being politically partisan first and foremost but being Christian.

 

[StudentMI]

The nitty gritty about making a principle work is up to the government and the experts to work out.

According to the principle of subsidiarity it is also up to those who can make it work at the smallest level possible. Intermediate institutions are the lifeblood of a free society. Absorb it all in the State and what’s left?

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

The nitty gritty about making a principle work is up to the government and the experts to work out.

According to the principle of subsidiarity it is also up to those who can make it work at the smallest level possible. Intermediate institutions are the lifeblood of a free society. Absorb it all in the State and what’s left?

You are jumping to a conclusion I certainly didn’t make. My mother at this very time is a resident in a partially public funded Catholic Aged Care Home. I would hate to see aged care handed exclusively to State institutions.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Just asserting that we have “rights” to this or that, doesn’t make it so.

There is really very little in life to which we have “rights”. We do have the right to life (and not even that, if Almighty God chooses to take our life from us). We have no “right” to liberty or the pursuit of happiness — as I understand it, the latter was included in the Declaration of Independence so that the words would flow pleasantly. In other words, it sounds nice. Wives and children do have the “right” to ask for support from the father, and they have a claim upon their basic needs being provided for by the father. Children have the right to be educated, either directly by their parents, or by others with whom their parents have made arrangements (teachers in schools). Wives and husbands have conjugal rights over each other’s bodies. We have a right to be taught truth by the Church and to receive her sacraments if we are in the state of grace and worthy to receive them. Man has a natural-law right to marry. But that’s about it.

Just because the world gets together and says, in so many words, “because we have reached this stage of social development, we have a “right” to this, and a “right” to that — food, clean water, health care, and so on”, doesn’t make these universal, mandated, God-given “rights”. People generally don’t understand this.

 

[StudentMI]

I would be careful proclaiming what are rights and what aren’t. Catholic social teaching is a good subject to study as far as that stuff goes. I’m currently reading The Compendium of the Social Teaching of the Church and it’s pretty eye opening.

What should and shouldn’t be enforceable by civil law is another matter.

 

[Freddy]

Actually, Freddy, you were writing as
I was saying no one had answered my questions. Clearly i stand corrected.

You raise some interesting points.
I think you kind of oversimplify (i.e. Doctors decide who gets care, with nothing more) some points, but we can debate the merits of things like tax on soda. Anyway, you at least made an honest effort to answer.

I appreciate that this is a large and complex matter. And a few bullet point questions by you aren’t enough to raise all the genuine concerns that people have. And a few bullet point answers by me are obviously not going to come anywhere near to answering even your questions.

But it’s obvious that other countries manage it quite well. Do they have problems? Of course they do. Are they insurmountable? Of course not. Can any one country do better? You bet.

I think if everyone stepped back from the rhetoric just a little and asked genuine questions about what they are personally concerned about rather than using those problems to score a few points then we might make some progress and have a genuine debate.

There are some of us here who either have lived, or do live, in countries where there is public health care (and trust me, nobody calls it ‘socialist medicine’ or anything remotely similar. That’s just a dog whistle to signal a call to arms). You can find out about how the UK and Australian systems work on line but I can give you my personal experiences of both systems to give you an idea of how it works in practice.

And anyone who thinks it’s an answer to all problems is an idiot. Likewise you are not going to keep all the people happy all the time about all the various aspects of public health. But can’t we all take the heat out of the discussion and try to find genuine answers to genuine problems so we can all make an informed decision?

 

[Freddy]

We have no “right” to liberty or the pursuit of happiness — as I understand it, the latter was included in the Constitution so that the words would flow pleasantly. In other words, it sounds nice.

That’s from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

 

[VonDerTann]

Noteworthy that it’s an Aussie who knows this!

 

[steph03]

it depends on the democratic government chosen to rule the country. if a majority voted against it, then no … but if a majority voted yes, then of course.

Personally I would not live in a country that doesn’t provide healthcare.