Is healthcare a right or a responsibility?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Walk-worthy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
aroosi said:
Most controversial cases about forced treatment In US are usually about severe mental illness. In the case of infectious diseases I could imagine reasonable forced treatment when there is an emergency situation and other people lives are in danger but can you explain what are you referring to?
Click to expand...
There is previous of some people who had vaccinated against their wishes…

I think we can also include children who were transfused for emergencies reasons against their parents’s consent (Jehovah witnesses).
 
Last edited:
StudentMI said:
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.
Click to expand...
Catholic social teaching is the best subject to study regarding these matters.

I would be very interested in reading something along the lines of “rights — what are they, which ones do we have, which ones do we not have?”. It is not enough to say “this is something that it would be desirable for people to have, it meets at least a basic human need, therefore man has a ‘right’ to it”. Yet that is pretty much what you hear nowadays.

I have always found it very cheeky and even arrogant for groups of men to get together and assert what rights people have, least of all when they are uninformed by divine grace. The founding fathers may have had some Christian sensibility; the French and Russian revolutionaries had none.
HomeschoolDad said:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
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.
Click to expand...
That’s from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
Click to expand...
As long as CAF exists, and these archives exist, I will always have it noted to my shame that I did not know which one was which 😳

In all seriousness, of course I knew, I was just thinking one and wrote the other. I have edited my original post to make the correction.
 
Last edited:
The OP raises the responsibility of a healthcare system NOT our liberty or pursuit of happiness. Healthcare is provided by either private enterprise or elected governments & in both cases they are additional to our GOD given rights.

Our right as TAX payers should be open and unhindered access to a system that you pay to provide for you.
 
Last edited:
I agree with dscath, how comes you have the right to call the police if a crime has been committed on your own property? Why in that case you have rights on another man’s labor? And you don’t pay anything more than your taxes?
 
VonDerTann said:
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.
Click to expand...
It’s actually more straightforward than most people like to claim (note that I am not claiming that “simple” and “easy” are the same thing).

If the doctor needs to repair something that went wrong (stop the bleeding, cut out the cancer, supply insulin, retrain your muscles, pull an abcessed tooth, etc), it’s paid for.

If the doctor needs to prevent something from going wrong (give an annual physical, take a mammogram, perform a prenatal checkup, prescribe a prophylactic medicine, etc.), it’s paid for.

If the doctor needs to do something truly elective (several examples were given earlier in this thread, but basically it’s neither curative nor preventive), it isn’t paid for unless the organization — the private health insurance company, the government plan, whichever — so chooses. Which means it isn’t a right.

So: Plastic surgery: paid for or not? If it’s because you just want a more prominent chin, no. If it’s to remove the scars left from the car accident, yes.
 
Socrates92 said:
In a private plan, their premiums are affected if they become a greater risk. So, not really true.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but you’re completely mistaken. Smokers pay a bit more in premiums, yes; but their premiums don’t cover the cost of lung cancer treatments. The premiums of all the other policyholders do. So, yes: you’re paying for it.
 
Is it possible to have a basic coverage, provided by insurance companies and subsidized by the government for those below a certain yearly salary/wage? This would cover hospitals, office visits, drugs, basic labs and diagnostics. There could be higher priced plans with costs above the basic that covers non referral specialists, Private rooms, experimental drugs, chiropractic, massage therapy, even plastic surgery if desired…these plans would be variably priced depending on the perks. Finally, disaster type coverage from the government for cancers and other diagnosis that will cost an amount that any average citizen would go into financial distress in order to cover it. There could even be insurance plans that counter the government one for those opposed to government making any of their healthcare decisions.

The basic plan that everyone gets will cover over 90% of anyone’s average use. It should be mandated to cover these basics with any add ones paid solely by the patient. Because everyone will have this basic coverage, competition should keep the prices reasonable…especially if the government will be paying for the low or no wage citizens. Insurance can also compete for the add on insurance that covers perks.

I’m trying to keep the government out as much as is reasonable but they should set the standards working with the healthcare professionals that know this stuff. No middle class worker in America should have to go bankrupt do to medical care yet 66.5% of bankruptcies are directly or indirectly due to medical costs! Those that don’t file for bankruptcy spend years paying the bills off to the detriment of college funds, retirement and their middle class life. So many people seem to want to keep insurance companies in the loop but in my opinion, they need to be reigned in a bit, standardized and offering insurance that actually covers all the basics. Something that is workable, reasonable and allows them to remain solvent. Some of their excesses definitely need to be ended.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
In all seriousness, of course I knew, I was just thinking one and wrote the other.
Click to expand...
Don’t be too hard on yourself. Those two documents are so hammered into our heads that sometimes we all mix up them up.
Click to expand...
I am my own worst critic. Always have been, always will be.
Click to expand...
Easy mistake to make. I’ll bet you know a lot more about both than most people.
 
Godfollower said:
I’m sorry, but you’re completely mistaken. Smokers pay a bit more in premiums, yes; but their premiums don’t cover the cost of lung cancer treatments. The premiums of all the other policyholders do. So, yes: you’re paying for it.
Click to expand...
If you’re referring to what you have in the U.S., I don’t know if I would call that a private plan.
 
ImQuiet said:
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!”
Click to expand...
Death, is what we all go through but we know that this world is a brief part of our individual salvation history. Easter is all about overcoming death.
[5] And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. John: 1: 5
Suffering can be redemptive and also does not necessarily need to be viewed in a negative light.
 
Emeraldlady said:
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.
Click to expand...
On the one hand, I’m not sure if we can conflate all cases of segregation with greed, but you have given me something to think about.
On the other hand, if we do conflate this way, then the child in the womb is certainly marginalized in state healthcare which provides abortion of unwanted children.
It seems to me that every form of health care provision which I have experienced or read about tends to be exclusive on some level.
 
I’m not convinced taxes would go up. Currently in the US most people get insurance from their employer, it’s a benefit instead of a monetary salary. Employers pay for the policies.

They could pass the savings onto their employees as salaries, take home salaries I think would remain similar.

People frequently face bankruptcy in the US for medical debts, and one doesn’t need to be very sick either. 1 preemie birth or a head injury can cost 10’s of thousands of dollars.

I don’t understand really why it would be a bad thing in the US. Especially small businesses who would save money by not having to buy policies for their employees.
 
Freddy said:
Elective surgery is out. You want your eyeballs lasered or your stomache stapled then you pay for it.
Click to expand...
Same with private insurance here in the US. Laser eye surgery isn’t normally covered just to improve near sightedness. It is covered for cataract surgery. Cosmetic surgery isn’t covered unless it’s for a repair after an injury or burn.
 
F_Marturana said:
I’m not convinced taxes would go up.
Click to expand...
I think they would. But being in the States your mileage may vary compared to Australia. And having the benefit of an economy of scale it would probably be cheaper. But I don’t know enough about the economy of the States to make a comparison.

Notwithstanding that it appears to me to be an ideological argument rather than a fiscal one.
 
Last edited:
Does the increase in their premiums cover their risk as a group? Note that not all smokers get lung cancer and not all lung cancers are smoking related.
 
F_Marturana said:
They could pass the savings onto their employees as salaries, take home salaries I think would remain similar.
Click to expand...
Well, health benefits aren’t taxed, whereas salaries are, so that would be an increase in taxes.
 
If you want universal health care you must be ok with paying taxes. Do you want to pay taxes like a Swede?
I think a lot of the discussion have to be about taxes.
I guess Americans hate taxes.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top