Is there a "right" to healthcare?

[sinner]

RyanBlack,
Thank you for your thoughtful insights. However, the Compendium reference applies to those who are workers. What about non-workers:children,the handicapped,the infirm?
The *Compendium *to my reading seems to couch these rights in terms of utility to the employer or government i.e. IF an employer provides health insurance, THEN workers have a right to receive it. How many small businesses that do not provide health insurance at all would be in violation of this teaching? Are we really saying that workers have a right to something that is unavailable to them?

I do thank everyone here for maintaining the elevated level of discourse.

 

[Newbie2]

Can you be more specific as to location? I’m of course open to learning, but it’ll take me forever to respond to this post if I need to read the whole thing first!

Kudos if you can read through the whole thing. Dry reading. Very dry. But important, nontheless.

 

[STANMOL]

depends on how you define “right.” there is also no indication that a “right” is free. Currently in the USA there is no right to healthcare, even with the passage of Obamacare. There would have to be an amendment of the Constitution. I think in general our socirty provides this. Hospitals are not allowed to turn people away who need treatment, and the poor, children, disabled, and elderly all receive basic health care, which in fact is “free” for most of them. However, as able-bodied citizens while we do have guaranteed access to healthcare, we also have an obligation to make a reasonable effort to pay for any services we receive, health care or otherwise. St. Paul makes a strong point about not excersizing his rights as an apostle and receiving “free” support, but rather states he prefered to work to support himself. This is an important biblical principle which is often overlooked.

I see, as in the discussions above, that there is a kind of give and take. We all have a resonsibility to contribute, not just receive.

 

[JackQ]

Does the Church teach that mankind has a right to health care? If so, why not dental care? Or legal care? How about plumbing care or electrical care! I would just like to know whether it is within the competence of the USCCB to endorse health care initiatives based on documented church teaching. What separates health care from other types of care issues?

To me, the real question is whether there is a good reason why we, as a society, should tolerate a situation where those who need medical care don’t get it because they don’t have enough money. Are you comfortable living in a society like that?

 

[Hastrman]

Obviously there is a right to healthcare…just like there’s a right to property.

The proper balance of the two is left as an exercise for the reader, AKA “prudential judgment”.

 

[Listener]

I’m sorry I can’t back this up right now, but I believe I read recently in a Catholic publication that Pope Benedict thinks that health care is a basic right. He supposedly told this to the World Health Organization (WHO).

If I remember right, the USA didn’t agree with him. Maybe someone can correct me if I’m wrong.

Personally, I think the right to life doesn’t mean much if you don’t also have a right to health care.

 

[Hastrman]

I’m sorry I can’t back this up right now, but I believe I read recently in a Catholic publication that Pope Benedict thinks that health care is a basic right. He supposedly told this to the World Health Organization (WHO).

Property is also a basic right. This isn’t really widely disputed. States that would deny their people health care they can afford—like some countries I can name that won’t let you get procedures except from the state system—are doing a lot more against that basic right than countries that simply don’t think state-run health care is feasible.

Merely because property is a basic right doesn’t mean you have a right to take from someone who you think has too much. The same goes for health care.

Health care is, in fact, a form of property; and the right to property is primarily negative (you can’t be deprived of whatever degree of it you’ve got) than positive (setting some minimum level of it, based on…something:shrug.

 

[RyanBlack]

Property is also a basic right. This isn’t really widely disputed. States that would deny their people health care they can afford—like some countries I can name that won’t let you get procedures except from the state system—are doing a lot more against that basic right than countries that simply don’t think state-run health care is feasible.

Merely because property is a basic right doesn’t mean you have a right to take from someone who you think has too much. The same goes for health care.

Health care is, in fact, a form of property; and the right to property is primarily negative (you can’t be deprived of whatever degree of it you’ve got) than positive (setting some minimum level of it, based on…something:shrug./QUOTE]

But this is not what the Church teaches about the right to health care. Of course the Church does not dictate the specific way in which the state should carry out its obligation to ensure that people have access to health care and furthermore, the Church teaches that the means through which one would normally secure one’s own access to health care is through work. However, the church does not define the right to health as you do.

 

[Newbie2]

Property is also a basic right. This isn’t really widely disputed. States that would deny their people health care they can afford—like some countries I can name that won’t let you get procedures except from the state system—are doing a lot more against that basic right than countries that simply don’t think state-run health care is feasible.

Merely because property is a basic right doesn’t mean you have a right to take from someone who you think has too much. The same goes for health care.

That’s true, but I don’t think anyone here is saying that health care should be a “take from the rich” proposition.
Health care is, in fact, a form of property; and the right to property is primarily negative (you can’t be deprived of whatever degree of it you’ve got) than positive (setting some minimum level of it, based on…something:shrug.

I agree in that sense, but we have to remember that health care is more like the right to food and water, which are consumables.