Obamacare Is Not the Christian Position, but Universal Health Care Is

[fkjuliano]

Any rational understanding of Christian charity mandates that in a society as wealthy as the United States, everyone, including the least of our brothers, should have access to food, housing, education and, yes, health care. That is my opinion, but more importantly, it is the inerrant teaching of Pope John XXIII. In his encyclical Peace on Earth, health care is listed among those basic rights flowing from the sanctity and dignity of human life.

However, some here have said that it is somehow un-Christian for the government to be the one to provide that health care, that we should instead trust the “free market.” But the sad fact is that the free market has been given every chance to provide quality, affordable health care for everyone and it has failed miserably. As everyone knows, there are upwards of 50 million Americans without health care and many millions more who, though insured, are vulnerable to the depredations of profit-driven health insurers, such as being denied life-saving treatments or having their coverage canceled once they fall sick.

Just as it is insensate to advocate for a private army, police force, or courts of justice, one can hardly justify placing this basic necessity of life in the hands of private corporations, entities that admittedly have gain for their shareholders as their one and only consideration. That is why, instead of tinkering with the current system, as Obamacare does, we should abolish it altogether and institute a system similar to those of the United Kingdom and Canada. Of course, many falsehoods have been spread about health care in those countries, but despite longer waits for some elective procedures, their systems are objectively better than the American one as measured by concrete standards, such as infant mortality and longevity, and they accomplish that at a fraction of the cost. As to abortion, Obamacare, besides being insufficient in the way of reform, has been deliberately tainted with it, but it is an absolute mistake to conflate pre-natal infanticide with universal health care; regardless of what type of health care system is in place, abortion should simply be treated as murder if done for free, and as murder-for-hire if there is a payment involved.

Another objection to mandatory universal health care is made on the grounds of individualism. According to this line of thought, everyone should have the right to decide whether or not he or she wants to pay for health care. Besides the obvious consideration that if some are allowed to opt out, the system would not be universal by definition, we should also realize that the whole mindset that opposes universal health care on principle is based on individualism. And individualism is absolutely not a Christian concept. In fact, it has been defined as a heresy by the Catholic Church, alongside a whole group of ideas, generally known as “Americanism.” This may be surprising and even outrageous to the misinformed, but it is a clear teaching of Pope Leo XIII from his 1898 encyclical Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, and certainly in line with the great corpus of Catholic thought dating back to the days of Our Lord and Savior. I would respectfully suggest that American Catholics enamored with the point of view found in the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal read the above-mentioned document instead.

As to Christian Scientists and others who might object to universal health care on religious grounds, I wish to be clear: we ought give that no consideration whatsover. We ought not put the tenets of a false faith on equal footing with the teachings of our Holy Church. Rather, Catholics should strive not to let such beliefs affect social policy that concerns us all. Furthermore, I pray that this might the final blow against Mary Baker Eddy’s rapidly shrinking sect, and that the Holy Spirit will move many of its members towards a true understanding of the Christian faith in the Catholic Church.

In short, universal health care is an essentially Christian and especially Catholic ideal. Those who have misgivings about it should humbly reconsider their position in light of the teachings of the Catholic Church and remember that, yes, we are indeed our brother’s keeper.

 

[rskempf]

Socialized medicine is contrary to the concept of subsidiarity. The advantages of free market health care, in the way of lower costs, and the increased influence of charity when prices are competitive are just too great to ignore.

On the other hand, every attempt at socialism has either failed or made matters worse.

 

[Walter_Casler]

You can have it, I don’t want it and it’s being forced on all of us and that makes it 1000000% unconstitutional. I’m an EMT and by law EVERYONE no matter what can not be denied medical help or treatment. All they have to do is show up at the ER.
But hey if you like the IRS telling you what you can and can not get done or what meds you’ll be able to take, then this is for you. Lets not get into the death panels. I like the way it’s done now with my doctor, only him knowing what it’s in my file. I also like the fact that I don’t have to crawl before obama and the others to beg for meds or treatments for my wife and kids.
Also if it’s so good then why did obama and his friends have themselves exempt from this great healthcare. Hmmmmmm any reason for that? Maybe I wan to be exempt from this unconstitutional law, oh wait I’ll have the IRS after me for “healthcare evasion”.

 

[rskempf]

Good points.

If it is so good, why did it take so much effort to pass? Why is America so anxious now?

I am grateful you are an EMT. May God bless you for your direct and charitable work!

By the way, those of us in the private sector need to see/hear your viewpoint. We do not work in the “industry” and are grateful for your perspective.

Again, God bless you!

 

[Walter_Casler]

Thank you, well we feel “but not all EMT’s I’m sure” But my friends who are EMT’s feel that it’s going to make such a mess of things. Just look at the healthcare system in the UK. Standing room only in every ER all the time, the same with doctors offices. The level of care is so below par that it’s scary. The doctors don’t seem to really care, they never get paid for their service.
My one friend grew up in the UK and just went back last year with her kids, during the visit one of them became ill. She waited in the ER 6 hours, 6 hours to just have the doctor look at him and say "he’s alright, just a cold. No meds, nothing. Turns out when they got back here to the states they took him to a real ER and he had such a bad sinus and ear infection that they endded up amitting him for two days.
My foot doctor is already looking to find ways to survive the take over, he knows it will be the end of his practice. It’s a very sad time for this country and we need to take it back and make it once again “The Land of the Free”.
God Bless

 

[St_Francis]

Any rational understanding of Christian charity mandates that in a society as wealthy as the United States, everyone, including the least of our brothers, should have access to food, housing, education and, yes, health care. That is my opinion, but more importantly, it is the inerrant teaching of Pope John XXIII. In his encyclical Peace on Earth, health care is listed among those basic rights flowing from the sanctity and dignity of human life.

However, some here have said that it is somehow un-Christian for the government to be the one to provide that health care, that we should instead trust the “free market.” But the sad fact is that the free market has been given every chance to provide quality, affordable health care for everyone and it has failed miserably. As everyone knows, there are upwards of 50 million Americans without health care and many millions more who, though insured, are vulnerable to the depredations of profit-driven health insurers, such as being denied life-saving treatments or having their coverage canceled once they fall sick…

Someone else pointed this out, in different words, but I see that the options proposed are limited: government… or market…?

In reality, there ought to be another “public sector,” and that is the one provided by the Church. Back when entire societies were truly Catholic, social safety nets were provided by the monasteries and convents. Monks had leprosariums (sp?), insane asylums, etc.

Since our society is not Catholic, everything is skewed, and there are no good solutions, only patch-work solutions trying to cover up the lack of what we really need, which is the Church.

 

[royal_archer]

There is a unstated issue. Yes it would be good if everyone had access to health care but what if someone won’t get a job, won’t be responsible, and won’t take advantage of the options given to them but they demand to take from others? This is the situation we are in. We have a society that is lazy and unproductive or underproductive who exploit the annonymoty of a bloated government program to hide their laziness.

While the rich have an obligation not to exploit the poor, the lazy have an obligation to not exploit the working class. Unfortunately some miss apply social justice and charity teachings as an excuse to force the working class to provide for those unwilling to work.

Once we fix the lazziness problem the health care shortfall problem will go away on it’s own.

 

[markomalley]

Any rational understanding of Christian charity mandates that in a society as wealthy as the United States, everyone, including the least of our brothers, should have access to food, housing, education and, yes, health care. That is my opinion, but more importantly, it is the inerrant teaching of Pope John XXIII. In his encyclical Peace on Earth, health care is listed among those basic rights flowing from the sanctity and dignity of human life.

Actually, what was written in Pacem in Terris was:
11. But first We must speak of man’s rights. Man has the right to live. He has the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and, finally, the necessary social services.
Blessed John XXII did not list health care as a right. He stated that man has the right to the means necessary for medical care. There is a difference.

We don’t advocate that the State provide all its citizens with food. We don’t advocate that the State issue every citizen his or her clothing. We don’t advocate that the State erect public housing for all citizens and then force those citizens to move into government housing. We don’t advocate that the State set a bedtime for each of us to force each citizen to get 8 hours of sleep.

We do advocate that the State make it possible for a person to have the means to have food, to have the means to get clothing, to have the means to get rest, to have the means to secure housing.

Just as Blessed John XXIII did not advocate for the State to directly provide food, clothing, shelter, and rest…he did not advocate for the State to directly provide medical care. He advocated for individuals to be guaranteed the ability to have the means to have all those items in the list.

There are places to this day where a person will not be allowed to receive basic services, such as health care, due to their race, their religion, their sex, or their tribe. Even if the person in question had plenty of money, they would still not be allowed to set foot inside the wrong hospital. Rwanda and Darfur come to mind, as does Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Blessed John XXIII also spoke of duties of individuals in that encyclical:
28. The natural rights of which We have so far been speaking are inextricably bound up with as many duties, all applying to one and the same person. These rights and duties derive their origin, their sustenance, and their indestructibility from the natural law, which in conferring the one imposes the other.
29. Thus, for example, the right to live involves the duty to preserve one’s life; the right to a decent standard of living, the duty to live in a becoming fashion; the right to be free to seek out the truth, the duty to devote oneself to an ever deeper and wider search for it.

1. …Hence, to claim one’s rights and ignore one’s duties, or only half fulfill them, is like building a house with one hand and tearing it down with the other.
   Bl. John also talked about the responsibilies of the State:
2. It is generally accepted today that the common good is best safeguarded when personal rights and duties are guaranteed. The chief concern of civil authorities must therefore be to ensure that these rights are recognized, respected, co-ordinated, defended and promoted, and that each individual is enabled to perform his duties more easily. For “to safeguard the inviolable rights of the human person, and to facilitate the performance of his duties, is the principal duty of every public authority.”
   Along the subject of Bl John XXIII, we should also discuss his other major encyclical letter, Mater et Magistra.
3. But however extensive and far-reaching the influence of the State on the economy may be, it must never be exerted to the extent of depriving the individual citizen of his freedom of action. It must rather augment his freedom while effectively guaranteeing the protection of his essential personal rights. Among these is a man’s right and duty to be primarily responsible for his own upkeep and that of his family. Hence every economic system must permit and facilitate the free development of productive activity.
   We also know the conclusion that Bl John said about socialism: *no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. *

Of course, multiple Popes, including John XXIII, did discuss the idea of “social insurance” for individuals and families who were out of work, but the scope of the discussion was for those who were, due to no fault of their own, unable to earn a living to fulfill their duties. That, of course, is a separate issue than creating a socialist (or even a fascist) structure for the entire health care system and merits a separate discussion altogether.

We could also address the issues raised by Pius XI, Leo XIII, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI on the issue…but I thought it appropriate to restrict discussion to what you’d mentioned in your first paragraph.

As for the rest of your post, well, it appeared to hang on this first paragraph, so I’ll just leave it be for now.

(BTW, welcome to CAF)

 

[the_hazel_nut]

Well I have to admit, I never thought I’d hear someone on this board say that we need to be MORE like the Canadian / UK healthcare systems to be more Catholic.

I agree with your post. It’s great. Universal healthcare is a Catholic ideal. This is a subject that I feel pretty strongly about. Even if Obamacare has flaws and it’s not right, universal healthcare is.

I hope what I write doesn’t distract from your post, but it’s something that I have to say. Catholicism stood out to me when I was very liberal and secular because of things like this that fit into the consistent life ethic.

I held the stereotype that Christians only cared about life inside the womb and hey, as a liberal I cared about life outside the womb, I felt superior. But then my (practicing) Catholic friend let me know that Catholics care about health care and just wars, and I could clearly see they cared about ALL life, there was no argument there. For a few years I still disagreed, but I knew that her position was consistent.

CCC 2211
The political community has a duty to honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure especially:

• the freedom to establish a family, have children, and bring them up in keeping with the family’s own moral and religious convictions;
• the protection of the stability of the marriage bond and the institution of the family;
• the freedom to profess one’s faith, to hand it on, and raise one’s children in it, with the necessary means and institutions;
• the right to private property, to free enterprise, to obtain work and housing, and the right to emigrate;

- in keeping with the country’s institutions, the right to medical care, assistance for the aged, and family benefits;

- the protection of security and health, especially with respect to dangers like drugs, pornography, alcoholism, etc.;

• the freedom to form associations with other families and so to have representation before civil authority

 

[fkjuliano]

@Walter Casler

I hate to break the news to you, but there are death panels now. Only they are composed of non-doctor employees of for-profit health insurance companies, and if they deem a certain treatment to be “experimental,” it will be denied even if your doctor disagrees with that assessment. In other words, if you think health care decisions are now made only between patients and their doctors, you are sadly mistaken. If I had to choose between a government death panel and a private insurance death panel, I would pick the former because at least there would not be a direct financial incentive to deny me treatment.

And by the way, relating a single case where the American health care system acquitted itself better than the British one is meaningless. I have waited longer than six hours in an American emergency room on more than one occasion. My sister was told at a U.S. hospital that she only had a cold and could go home only to nearly die three days later from dengue fever. I don’t base my opinion on those experiences, however, but rather on the fact that the U.S. health care system achieves poor results in longevity, infant mortality and other objective criteria at a cost three times higher than that of any other country.

As to the notion that people who depend on emergency rooms even come close to having adequate health care, that is just a joke, and a rather uncharitable one at that.

Matthew 25:34-46

 

[fkjuliano]

Actually, what was written in Pacem in Terris was:

Blessed John XXII did not list health care as a right. He stated that man has the right to the means necessary for medical care. There is a difference.

The basic fact is that there are up to 50 million people in the United States without health care. I will grant you that some of them have “the means necessary for medical care,” but choose to apply said means to some kind of luxury. But what about the millions who do not in fact have the means? Those would include the poor, children of irresponsible parents and anyone who has a “pre-existing condition.” In addition, irrational “free trade” policies and accompanying de-industrialization are constantly adding to their numbers. I honestly would be curious to know what concrete “free market” solutions might be used in order to provide health care to all because the Republican Party did not present such proposals during the recent months-long debate. Instead, they proposed that health insurance be sold across state lines, which would make the laws of the state with the lowest standards the national norm, and to curb malpractice lawsuits, which, though perhaps justified, would hardly solve the problem.

As to universal health care being a form of socialism, that is just as false as claiming the U.S. military is a socialist institution. The definition of socialism is having the government own the primary means of production. Health care, though vital to the functioning of society, is part of the services sector and hardly a primary means of production. Clearly, some functions of society rightfully fall within the purview of government. To deny that is to idolize the “free market,” and since you are an admirer of Pope Benedict, as I am, you should be especially considerate of his critical views on capitalism. In the case of health care, judging by how well the for-profit version has worked in comparison to Medicare and the systems of other countries, I can only conclude that it would better off being run by the government.

 

[fkjuliano]

Someone else pointed this out, in different words, but I see that the options proposed are limited: government… or market…?

In reality, there ought to be another “public sector,” and that is the one provided by the Church. Back when entire societies were truly Catholic, social safety nets were provided by the monasteries and convents. Monks had leprosariums (sp?), insane asylums, etc.

Since our society is not Catholic, everything is skewed, and there are no good solutions, only patch-work solutions trying to cover up the lack of what we really need, which is the Church.

There is a lot of truth in what you say, but I think the U.S. will become a true Catholic nation no sooner than Saudi Arabia will, but then we must remember Matthew 19:26. In the meantime, how can we make this country just a little bit more Christian?

 

[St_Francis]

There is a lot of truth in what you say, but I think the U.S. will become a true Catholic nation no sooner than Saudi Arabia will, but then we must remember Matthew 19:26. In the meantime, how can we make this country just a little bit more Christian?

More prayer for conversions, more evangelization.

 

[markomalley]

The basic fact is that there are up to 50 million people in the United States without health care. I will grant you that some of them have “the means necessary for medical care,” but choose to apply said means to some kind of luxury.

The basic fact is out of that 50 million number oft-quoted by left-wingers, a far, far smaller number of people should be the target group.

The census bureau report that is the source of this number reports that out of the 45.7 million in 2008 that did not report having insurance, 9.7 million of them were not US citizens. It also reported that 9.1 million of them had incomes of $75,000 per year (which surely means that they could afford some type of insurance). And that 13 million of them had incomes of $25,000 or less (and the vast majority of those, except for single people, would be eligible for already-existing social insurance programs). And that over 8 million of those uninsured were under 18 (there is an already-existing social insurance program called SCHIP, which provides government-paid insurance for children of families making less than $88,000 per year).

This 2003 Blue Cross Blue Shield report says the following (I point out 2003, because there were significant changes in the system after 2003, including expansion of SCHIP) showed that 1/3 of those without insurance were eligible for some existing government assistance but hadn’t applied for it. It also validated that 30% of those who didn’t have insurance could have afforded it but selected to not pay for it.

So if you’re going to cite a number, that number should be significantly smaller that “50 million,” shouldn’t it?

But what about the millions who do not in fact have the means? Those would include the poor, children of irresponsible parents and anyone who has a “pre-existing condition.”

The poor have medicaid.

As for children, are you advocating that the government take over all aspects of parenting, or only force the parents to buy health insurance that they could afford but don’t want? (Note: if the parents don’t want to buy health insurance, are they even going to take their kids to the doctor?)

HIPAA (enacted in 1996) precludes issuing employer-based health insurance for pre-existing conditions. It allows for exclusions for that pre-existing condition, but only for the first six months (and if you had coverage from a prior job, even that would not be allowed).

In addition, irrational “free trade” policies and accompanying de-industrialization are constantly adding to their numbers. I honestly would be curious to know what concrete “free market” solutions might be used in order to provide health care to all because the Republican Party did not present such proposals during the recent months-long debate. Instead, they proposed that health insurance be sold across state lines, which would make the laws of the state with the lowest standards the national norm, and to curb malpractice lawsuits, which, though perhaps justified, would hardly solve the problem.

Let’s talk about the problem at hand. If you would like to discuss de-industrialization and its impact on society, that’s a separate issue, isn’t it?

After all, if de-industrialization increases unemployment, expanding social programs as a result would simply increase government expenditures dramatically…thus either forcing draconian increases in tax rates (which would cause even more companies to make a decision to off-shore operations) or would further increase the national debt (which would cause the value of the dollar to decline, as it is doing right now).

So let’s deal with one issue at a time.

As to universal health care being a form of socialism, that is just as false as claiming the U.S. military is a socialist institution. The definition of socialism is having the government own the primary means of production. Health care, though vital to the functioning of society, is part of the services sector and hardly a primary means of production. Clearly, some functions of society rightfully fall within the purview of government.

You are right. There are clearly some functions of society that are rightfully delegated to the federal government. Those functions are defined in the US Constitution.

(cont’d in next post)

 

[markomalley]

To deny that is to idolize the “free market,” and since you are an admirer of Pope Benedict, as I am, you should be especially considerate of his critical views on capitalism.

I have read both his criticism of capitalism that has pursued strictly a technical end and socialism. Left-wingers (such as the editors of National Catholic Reporter and US Catholic) attempt to bundle Ratzinger into the socialist camp, using his criticism of purely liberal capitalism as a justification, while right-wingers try to bundle him into the capitalist camp, using his criticism of socialism as their justification.

Neither are accurate.

In fact, he has been fairly consistent in his advocacy for a market-based economy that is bounded by Christian morality and ethics. In his recent encyclical Caritas in Veritate, he thoroughly introduced a term into the social doctrine lexicon: gratuitousness.

In fact, he points out in that encyclical:Solidarity is first and foremost a sense of responsibility on the part of everyone with regard to everyone, and it cannot therefore be merely delegated to the State. (paragraph 38)
He also advocates repeatedly, throughout his writings, for the consideration of subsidiarity in all matters of society.

Perhaps if you re-read some of his writings with that in mind, you may get some additional insights.

In the case of health care, judging by how well the for-profit version has worked in comparison to Medicare and the systems of other countries, I can only conclude that it would better off being run by the government.

News flash: medicare is broke. social security is broke.

NHS is breaking the UK.

You may wish, finally, to meditate on the words of Ven JPII (Centessimus Annus)

[INDENT]     In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new  type of State, the so-called "Welfare State". This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by  remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very  harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the "Social Assistance State". Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State.  Here again *the principle of subsidiarity *must be respected: a  community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of  a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should  support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the  activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.
 By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State  leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies,  which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for  serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in  spending.

[/INDENT] Bottom line: I can see making available some form of social assistance for those who, through no fault of their own, are unable to secure the basic goods of life, to include the means to pay for medical attention. I would prefer that society deals with that requirement through what the Church calls “intermediate bodies,” (i.e., by means of the family or through charitable means…and if those are unable to do so, then by a local government…and only as a last resort, and only for the minimum time necessary, by the Federal government)

But I see no need to go COUNTER to Church teaching for the State to directly intervene in the affairs of ALL lower social units when the MAJORITY of those lower social units are doing the job just fine, thank you.

A better object for State intervention would be for the State to examine those factors that contribute to excessive costs (thus pushing the availability of medical care out of reach of small businesses and working class individuals) and to remove those factors.

(As an example, are you familiar with IRS Pub 527…deals with charitable contributions? Are you aware that a doctor (or lab or hospital) would not have the option to claim the cost of medical care provided to the poor as a charitable contribution? Why? Because the value of your time is explicitly excluded from being deductible. In addition, a deductible contribution must be made to a recognized charity, not to an individual. What would happen if Congress would modify the Internal Revenue Code to allow doctors to make some sort of deduction for care for the indigent?)

 

[1ke]

The basic fact is that there are up to 50 million people in the United States without health care.

This is a false statement. There are not “50 million people” without health care. There may be 50 million people without health insurance, but that does not mean they cannot receive health care.

what concrete “free market” solutions might be used in order to provide health care to all

Define what you mean by “health care.” What is basic health care? What goes beyond basic? What should society provide to be considered (in your opinion) to be meeting basic human rights, every treatment imaginable or some set of basics?

In the case of health care, judging by how well the for-profit version has worked in comparison to Medicare and the systems of other countries, I can only conclude that it would better off being run by the government.

You go spend a week in the hospital in Italy (as I did) and have an operation in that foreign country (as I did) and then come back and tell me their system is better.

Upon check in at the hospital we were informed that the hospital does not provide FOOD for patients-- that is the responsibility of the FAMILIES. They also don’t provide any personal hygiene (i.e. bathing), that is also the responsibility of the FAMILY.

And, in the week I was there, my sheets were never changed, I was not given any hospital gown/clothing to wear (I wore my own, right into surgery where it was stripped off and I was naked and my clothes given back afterwards). No air conditioning, no ammenities (i.e. the rooms were bare of everything except walls and beds), 4 to a room, no privacy curtain, and technology that is 50 years out of date.

Yep, I got medical care of a standard that made the orthopedic surgeon back here in the states cringe. He actually considered rebreaking my ankle.

It was explained to me in Italy that I would get one pin in each bone (I had my ankle broken in two places) because THAT IS WHAT THE GOVERNMENT ALLOWED. They used 50 year old equipment and 50 year old techniques because that’s all the government could afford to give.

I prefer what we have here, thank you very much.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

Actually, what was written in Pacem in Terris was:
11. But first We must speak of man’s rights. Man has the right to live. He has the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and, finally, the necessary social services.
Blessed John XXII did not list health care as a right. He stated that man has the right to the means necessary for medical care. There is a difference.

We don’t advocate that the State provide all its citizens with food. We don’t advocate that the State issue every citizen his or her clothing. We don’t advocate that the State erect public housing for all citizens and then force those citizens to move into government housing. We don’t advocate that the State set a bedtime for each of us to force each citizen to get 8 hours of sleep.

We do advocate that the State make it possible for a person to have the means to have food, to have the means to get clothing, to have the means to get rest, to have the means to secure housing.

Just as Blessed John XXIII did not advocate for the State to directly provide food, clothing, shelter, and rest…he did not advocate for the State to directly provide medical care. He advocated for individuals to be guaranteed the ability to have the means to have all those items in the list.

There are places to this day where a person will not be allowed to receive basic services, such as health care, due to their race, their religion, their sex, or their tribe. Even if the person in question had plenty of money, they would still not be allowed to set foot inside the wrong hospital. Rwanda and Darfur come to mind, as does Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Blessed John XXIII also spoke of duties of individuals in that encyclical:
28. The natural rights of which We have so far been speaking are inextricably bound up with as many duties, all applying to one and the same person. These rights and duties derive their origin, their sustenance, and their indestructibility from the natural law, which in conferring the one imposes the other.
29. Thus, for example, the right to live involves the duty to preserve one’s life; the right to a decent standard of living, the duty to live in a becoming fashion; the right to be free to seek out the truth, the duty to devote oneself to an ever deeper and wider search for it.

1. …Hence, to claim one’s rights and ignore one’s duties, or only half fulfill them, is like building a house with one hand and tearing it down with the other.
   Bl. John also talked about the responsibilies of the State:
2. It is generally accepted today that the common good is best safeguarded when personal rights and duties are guaranteed. The chief concern of civil authorities must therefore be to ensure that these rights are recognized, respected, co-ordinated, defended and promoted, and that each individual is enabled to perform his duties more easily. For “to safeguard the inviolable rights of the human person, and to facilitate the performance of his duties, is the principal duty of every public authority.”
   Along the subject of Bl John XXIII, we should also discuss his other major encyclical letter, Mater et Magistra.
3. But however extensive and far-reaching the influence of the State on the economy may be, it must never be exerted to the extent of depriving the individual citizen of his freedom of action. It must rather augment his freedom while effectively guaranteeing the protection of his essential personal rights. Among these is a man’s right and duty to be primarily responsible for his own upkeep and that of his family. Hence every economic system must permit and facilitate the free development of productive activity.
   We also know the conclusion that Bl John said about socialism: *no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. *

Of course, multiple Popes, including John XXIII, did discuss the idea of “social insurance” for individuals and families who were out of work, but the scope of the discussion was for those who were, due to no fault of their own, unable to earn a living to fulfill their duties. That, of course, is a separate issue than creating a socialist (or even a fascist) structure for the entire health care system and merits a separate discussion altogether.

We could also address the issues raised by Pius XI, Leo XIII, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI on the issue…but I thought it appropriate to restrict discussion to what you’d mentioned in your first paragraph.

As for the rest of your post, well, it appeared to hang on this first paragraph, so I’ll just leave it be for now.

(BTW, welcome to CAF)

Good job John. Many problems arise throught the sloppy and inappropriate use of the word “Right”.

 

[KitSileya]

Got to point out your flawed statement that 50 million Americans lack health care - what they lack is health insurance. In fact, many (increasing numbers, actually) have health insurance but still cannot afford to go to the doctor. Many, many Americans have to choose between preventative care and food. A staggeringly high number of bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses.

I am very, very happy that my medical treatment is decided by my doctor and not by a paper pusher. I am glad that the 30% of my income I pay in taxes goes to provide health care to others. If I never need medical treatment ever again, I will still be happy to pay my taxes, because I do not want anyone to postpone getting treatment for cholecystitis, for example, because they are unsure whether they can pay the copay, or get a subsequent surgery accepted by their insurance company. I sure was happy everything was covered when I was hospitalized for 5 days for that reason. I am happy I can change jobs without worrying about being denied health insurance because I have a troublesome gallbladder. I am happy that my brother, who is physically handicapped, doesn’t get turned down for jobs because his health care insurance would be too expensive. And, to shock you further, I am glad that the money I pay for health care in the form of my taxes, so that it doesn’t end up being million dollar bonuses for insurance CEOs rather than pay for treatment of drug addicts, the unemployed, the lazy, the chronically ill, expectant mothers, Catholic priests, prisoners, my neighbors, and those I pass on the street. And the bonus? It’s soooo much cheaper to do it our way than the American way!

 

[markomalley]

Got to point out your flawed statement that 50 million Americans lack health care - what they lack is health insurance. In fact, many (increasing numbers, actually) have health insurance but still cannot afford to go to the doctor. Many, many Americans have to choose between preventative care and food. A staggeringly high number of bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses.

I am very, very happy that my medical treatment is decided by my doctor and not by a paper pusher. I am glad that the 30% of my income I pay in taxes goes to provide health care to others. If I never need medical treatment ever again, I will still be happy to pay my taxes, because I do not want anyone to postpone getting treatment for cholecystitis, for example, because they are unsure whether they can pay the copay, or get a subsequent surgery accepted by their insurance company. I sure was happy everything was covered when I was hospitalized for 5 days for that reason. I am happy I can change jobs without worrying about being denied health insurance because I have a troublesome gallbladder. I am happy that my brother, who is physically handicapped, doesn’t get turned down for jobs because his health care insurance would be too expensive. And, to shock you further, I am glad that the money I pay for health care in the form of my taxes, so that it doesn’t end up being million dollar bonuses for insurance CEOs rather than pay for treatment of drug addicts, the unemployed, the lazy, the chronically ill, expectant mothers, Catholic priests, prisoners, my neighbors, and those I pass on the street. And the bonus? It’s soooo much cheaper to do it our way than the American way!

As long as you’re happy. That’s the important thing.

 

[KitSileya]

As long as you’re happy. That’s the important thing.

Of course. However, the situation here does make it difficult to find work for our Missionaries of Charity - there’s not a lot of poor people around who need food, medical attention, care that does not already get that from the government. However, there’s no shortage of people who need personal contact, here as everywhere. And seeing as the Catholic Church is in diaspora here, we need their prayer in a way we do not perhaps need their traditional works of faith. So it all works out in the end.

Another funny thing is, of course, that the government also has a church tax, which everyone who is a member of a registered religious society pays and which the government augments, so the Catholic Church here is subsidized by the state. This is because we have a state church, and to be fair, they pay the same amount to everyone else too. You can opt out of course.

But to get back on thread, I am always surprised at how anti-government Americans are, especially in the health care debate. I cannot understand why they refuse to look at health care like they do fire brigades, police, education, roads. How can they accept to pay taxes for fire brigades that may never be called to put out a fire in their own home, but refuse to pay for health care for their neighbors? You wouldn’t want your neighbor to burn to death, but you would accept that he succumbs to cancer because he cannot pay for chemotherapy.