Pope Francis: health care is a universal right, not a consumer good [CWN]

[mackbrislawn]

Speaking to 9,000 people associated with the medical missionary organization Doctors with Africa, Pope Francis said that "health is not a consumer good, but rather a universal right, …

More…

Many people when they say they have a “right” to something, they really mean that someone else has a duty to give it to them. In other words, they are imposing obligations onto someone else.

I wonder if those who say “I have a right” think that they have any duties or obligations themselves. Somehow I doubt it.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Many people when they say they have a “right” to something, they really mean that someone else has a duty to give it to them. In other words, they are imposing obligations onto someone else.

I wonder if those who say “I have a right” think that they have any duties or obligations themselves. Somehow I doubt it.

You don’t believe that anyone has any rights? It’s hardly a controversial idea. Lots of people believe they have a right to things, and I’m sure they also believe they have obligations themselves.

 

[mackbrislawn]

You don’t believe that anyone has any rights? It’s hardly a controversial idea. Lots of people believe they have a right to things, and I’m sure they also believe they have obligations themselves.

When you have a “right” to something, what that really means is that government cannot pass a law saying you can’t get it. No one can stand in your way. For instance, when the NRA says that we have a right to bear arms, they mean that the government cannot prohibit their possession. The NRA does not mean that someone else has the duty to give us the arms!

Just because you have a right to things, does not mean that someone else has an obligation to provide them.

But that is what the “rightists” seem to be saying.

 

[magnet]

If one has a right to a commodity or service, does that mean that they can forcefully take it? If it is not available at one’s immediate location, can one go to another place and forcefully demand service or take the item without paying for it?

If universal health care is a right, and one needs it, can one then go into a hospital and demand the service without paying for it, even if the hospital is not prepared to provide it?

A roommate of mine had a brain seizure in my home, so I called emergency services. The fire dept. and ambulance arrived and took her to the emergency room of a local hospital. She believed that she had a right to these services, and refused to pay anything. Bills started arriving in the mail and she totally ignored them. Was this within her rights?

 

[graciew]

Many people when they say they have a “right” to something, they really mean that someone else has a duty to give it to them. In other words, they are imposing obligations onto someone else.

I wonder if those who say “I have a right” think that they have any duties or obligations themselves. Somehow I doubt it.

If I may ask,what do we live for then? Does somebody really have to remind us that it is our duty to do whatever is in our hands so that a sister,a brother,a daughter,a mother,a father may live? What comes before that?
Sometimes,It feels like he has the deference to keep speaking to us ,the deaf.

I could not care less,on the contrary I would be pleased if my taxes where for the basics a person may need. And share that.
Now if you are speaking about some order,I am all for that for the sake of better serving each and all.
If you are speaking about an attitude of entitlement and abusing systems unfairly,also,that does not help anyone.
But I do agree that a person should not have to beg for a son or a daughter to live ,nor should life and the best of treatments for a child conditioned on how much money one has.
Fortunately,we know that this is multiple times overcome by the generosity of so many persons who freely give money,time and talent.

 

[magnet]

In nature, the bottom line is survival. And success is all that counts. Whether the strategy is moral or not makes no difference in the end. There is no universal right. Whoever takes possession of a resource gets to decide how to use it.

For a mammal child, the parent provides the means of survival. For an adult mammal, the family may provide the means of survival. For wild mammals, adults may be solitary or live in social gatherings. Often males are kicked out of the pride and compelled to survive on their own, often unsuccessfully. In general, the solitary animal has the burden of survival by his own means. If this means stealing (e.g. hyenas, crows, vultures), survival is achieved. It makes no difference whether this is morally right. Success is what counts.

For ancient humans, hunting and gathering was the way to survival. Among certain Native American clans who lived on bison and rode horses, stealing from competing clans and making war on them was considered moral. In some suitable areas, keeping herds of domesticated animals was a successful strategy. So was stealing one’s neighbor’s animals. In other areas, farming became a successful strategy.

One might justify stealing by calling it a right. For communal pastures and hunting grounds, whoever got there first got to keep it. The one who kept it survived, and the one who did not failed to survive.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In nature, the bottom line is survival. And success is all that counts. Whether the strategy is moral or not makes no difference in the end. There is no universal right. Whoever takes possession of a resource gets to decide how to use it.

For a mammal child, the parent provides the means of survival. For an adult mammal, the family may provide the means of survival. For wild mammals, adults may be solitary or live in social gatherings. Often males are kicked out of the pride and compelled to survive on their own, often unsuccessfully. In general, the solitary animal has the burden of survival by his own means. If this means stealing (e.g. hyenas, crows, vultures), survival is achieved. It makes no difference whether this is morally right. Success is what counts.

For ancient humans, hunting and gathering was the way to survival. Among certain Native American clans who lived on bison and rode horses, stealing from competing clans and making war on them was considered moral. In some suitable areas, keeping herds of domesticated animals was a successful strategy. So was stealing one’s neighbor’s animals. In other areas, farming became a successful strategy.

One might justify stealing by calling it a right. For communal pastures and hunting grounds, whoever got there first got to keep it. The one who kept it survived, and the one who did not failed to survive.

When you say “X is what counts”, and “Y makes no difference”, you are saying this based on an assumed valuation of immediate survival - as if this is the only value worth talking about. You make no justification for using this standard of “what counts” other than that’s what you choose to use as the one and only standard. But for those of us who see value beyond immediate biological survival, your standard appears somewhat arbitrary.

But as it turns out there is a way to refute your analysis staying within the realm of biological evolution. Just as individual species evolve by natural selection applied to individuals, so entire populations evolve by natural selection applied to the population as a whole. A population that cooperates in matters of common resources can be more successful than another population that is more focused on the supremacy of the individual or even of the immediate family. So the characteristic of sharing becomes, for the population as a whole, an evolutionary advantage.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It may help in this discussion of rights to realize this: All the resources that make life possible, and comfortable, are ultimately undeserved gifts from God. No one true deserves (in any absolute sense) the goods or other benefits with which they have been blessed. One cannot say to God, “This is mine. I earned it. I deserve it.”, for without God, that person would not even exist. Therefore the only one who has the authority to grant rights is God, the author of all that is good. If it pleases God to give one person more goods than another, then so be it. The one with less has no cause to complain, and the one with more has no cause to boast. Neither one truly deserves what they have, whether it be a little or a lot. And it also may please God to give one person more with the expectation that he share that gift with others. When he does so, it is not through his own generosity the goods are shared. It is through the generosity of God who provided the goods in the first place. Therefore it is best if we think of ourselves as stewards of the resources we have, rather than rightful owners. Stewards are managers of their master’s property. They do not own the property. They certainly don’t deserve to do whatever they please with that property.

So when Pope Francis says that heath care is a right, I think he is saying that it is one of those gifts made possible by God with the expectation that the gift be shared on some level. Now exactly what that level may be is open to discussion, and I don’t think Pope Francis is assuming any specific details in that discussion. But we should be open to the thought that God has placed some sort of obligation on us all in that regard.

 

[mackbrislawn]

It may help in this discussion of rights to realize this: All the resources that make life possible, and comfortable, are ultimately undeserved gifts from God. No one true deserves (in any absolute sense) the goods or other benefits with which they have been blessed. One cannot say to God, “This is mine. I earned it. I deserve it.”, for without God, that person would not even exist. Therefore the only one who has the authority to grant rights is God, the author of all that is good. If it pleases God to give one person more goods than another, then so be it. The one with less has no cause to complain, and the one with more has no cause to boast. Neither one truly deserves what they have, whether it be a little or a lot. And it also may please God to give one person more with the expectation that he share that gift with others. When he does so, it is not through his own generosity the goods are shared. It is through the generosity of God who provided the goods in the first place. Therefore it is best if we think of ourselves as stewards of the resources we have, rather than rightful owners. Stewards are managers of their master’s property. They do not own the property. They certainly don’t deserve to do whatever they please with that property.

So when Pope Francis says that heath care is a right, I think he is saying that it is one of those gifts made possible by God with the expectation that the gift be shared on some level. Now exactly what that level may be is open to discussion, and I don’t think Pope Francis is assuming any specific details in that discussion. But we should be open to the thought that God has placed some sort of obligation on us all in that regard.

I think you have clarified a lot in this muddled discussion.

Your last sentence says it well. It shows that the proper framing of the question is then: what obligations, that is, moral duties, has God placed on us who have particular talents (gifts) to share with those who do not have those particular talents.

I think that is the proper way to think of the matter: what moral duties has God placed upon all of us, not what “rights” we have. Because as you have pointed out, we don’t have any “rights” at all, just what God in his grace gives us.

Because when we frame the question in terms of “rights,” it becomes one of selfishness, me, me, me. We are then saying, “I have the ‘right’ to this, so therefore I have the ‘right’ to take it from you, if you don’t give it to me.” Thinking in terms of “rights” seems to imply, “I have a ‘right’ to this, which means I am placing an obligation upon you to give it to me.”

Well, do we have a “right” to place duties or obligations upon someone else? Or does only God have that right?

Graciew misunderstands. Graciew seems to think that I am denying that we have duties. Not all all. I am trying to clarify what the concept of “rights” really is, and it is not the placing of duties upon someone else, and ignoring your own.

That health care is a universal right is obvious, and also ambiguous. What does it mean? It seems in this thread different takes have been expressed.

 

[graciew]

Graciew misunderstands. Graciew seems to think that I am denying that we have duties. Not all all. I am trying to clarify what the concept of “rights” really is, and it is not the placing of duties upon someone else, and ignoring your own.

That health care is a universal right is obvious, and also ambiguous. What does it mean? It seems in this thread different takes have been expressed.

I am sorry if I did,Mackbrislawn.
We freely give what we freely received.
We have come to the point, perhaps where so many do not even know that they have a right to live,that it has to be stressed. How valuable a life is.
In my mind living and lasting are not the same. Life has a name and a last name,and that is upon Whom our eyes are fixed upon.
Sorry again,if I upset you or misunderstood you.Sincerely.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I am sorry if I did,Mackbrislawn.
We freely give what we freely received.
We have come to the point, perhaps where so many do not even know that they have a right to live,that it has to be stressed. How valuable a life is.
In my mind living and lasting are not the same. Life has a name and a last name,and that is upon Whom our eyes are fixed upon.
Sorry again,if I upset you or misunderstood you.Sincerely.

Thank you, Graciew. I sense your goodness. And you’re right, many do not know they have a right to live, or, rather, that others do not have the right to take their life from them.

 

[djames99]

One proposal is that the millions of dollars profits made by poor nations who host gambling establishments/systems (national,state/provincial lotteries included), could be funneled to finance a health care system only. Of course the existence of such businesses is an issue in itself. They should not exist at all. Individuals taking home 20 million is not uncommon. Imagine the profit base.

But those poor nations who actually control their governments could insist that the profit goes back entirely into the new health system. Theoretically, within a few years, one could reasonably envisage enough would be there to start a geriatric and family health clinic with subsidized medicine. Later it could extend to long care health and other health needs. If those nations can successfully pry the fingers of this ‘business’ from the clutches of the racketeers, it could be a temporary source for new systems, eventually absorbed by the general tax system.

All ready tried before I would guess.

 

[JonNC]

When you have a “right” to something, what that really means is that government cannot pass a law saying you can’t get it. No one can stand in your way. For instance, when the NRA says that we have a right to bear arms, they mean that the government cannot prohibit their possession. The NRA does not mean that someone else has the duty to give us the arms!

Just because you have a right to things, does not mean that someone else has an obligation to provide them.

But that is what the “rightists” seem to be saying.

That is what the basis of a right is. There is only one right the government is constitutionally obliged to provide; the right to a lawyer if charged with s criminal offense.

My rights should place no burden on others. I don’t know what the Holy Father means, but the historical American perspective is it is a right. I have a right to healthcare, but I do not have a right to someone else’s labor in order to acquire it. That is where the Church and charities come in.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That is what the basis of a right is. There is only one right the government is constitutionally obliged to provide; the right to a lawyer if charged with s criminal offense.

My rights should place no burden on others. I don’t know what the Holy Father means, but the historical American perspective is it is a right. I have a right to healthcare, but I do not have a right to someone else’s labor in order to acquire it. That is where the Church and charities come in.

Jon

If the Holy Father is talking about the right to healthcare in your sense, the only denial of that right would be when someone has the money to pay for healthcare, and still is refused care. Can you think of any place in the world where that is happening? I can’t. No, if you have the money, you already have healthcare. The only way that Pope Fracis’ words can be interpreted is that on some level, people who do not have the money to pay for healthcare must still be provided care.

Now this doesn’t mean every conceivable medical procedure, nor does it mean that care must be provided by government. Charities providing healthcare would certainly satisfy the moral duty that the Pope speaks of. But when charities fail to provide that care to all, then we as a people have failed in our duty. In that case, government can provide that care. And yes, you would have to pay for it. But you would have to pay for it anyway through your charitable contributions. If you hate the idea of government taking your money and paying for someone else’s healthcare, then see to it that your charitable donations are sufficient to do the job without government.

 

[JonNC]

If the Holy Father is talking about the right to healthcare in your sense, the only denial of that right would be when someone has the money to pay for healthcare, and still is refused care. Can you think of any place in the world where that is happening? I can’t. No, if you have the money, you already have healthcare. The only way that Pope Fracis’ words can be interpreted is that on some level, people who do not have the money to pay for healthcare must still be provided care.

Now this doesn’t mean every conceivable medical procedure, nor does it mean that care must be provided by government. Charities providing healthcare would certainly satisfy the moral duty that the Pope speaks of. But when charities fail to provide that care to all, then we as a people have failed in our duty. In that case, government can provide that care. And yes, you would have to pay for it. But you would have to pay for it anyway through your charitable contributions. If you hate the idea of government taking your money and paying for someone else’s healthcare, then see to it that your charitable donations are sufficient to do the job without government.

So, IOW, this right requires slavery. My having the “right” to the fruits of some one else’s labor, against their will, is the very definition of slavery. A right for one that requires the slavery of another is not a right, but a power.

Jon

 

[Ender]

If the Holy Father is talking about the right to healthcare in your sense, the only denial of that right would be when someone has the money to pay for healthcare, and still is refused care. Can you think of any place in the world where that is happening? I can’t. No, if you have the money, you already have healthcare. The only way that Pope Fracis’ words can be interpreted is that on some level, people who do not have the money to pay for healthcare must still be provided care.

Now this doesn’t mean every conceivable medical procedure, nor does it mean that care must be provided by government. Charities providing healthcare would certainly satisfy the moral duty that the Pope speaks of. But when charities fail to provide that care to all, then we as a people have failed in our duty. In that case, government can provide that care. And yes, you would have to pay for it. But you would have to pay for it anyway through your charitable contributions. If you hate the idea of government taking your money and paying for someone else’s healthcare, then see to it that your charitable donations are sufficient to do the job without government.

There is nothing in the pope’s statement that limits the provision of healthcare to only the people of ones own country. Nor could such a limitation exist if this is a natural right like life, and liberty. So, if your interpretation is correct we have as much of an obligation to provide healthcare for the entire world as we do for our own citizens.

That such provision is clearly impossible leaves two possibilities: either healthcare is not a right (in the sense you suggest) or we are all sinners. If you argue that we are limited by what is doable then you put healthcare in the same category as our other moral obligations like feed the hungry, comfort the afflicted…heal the sick. Those, however, are not spoken of as the rights of others, but as the obligations we bear. I think that’s a better way to view it.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So, IOW, this right requires slavery. My having the “right” to the fruits of some one else’s labor, against their will, is the very definition of slavery. A right for one that requires the slavery of another is not a right, but a power.

Jon

Take it up with Pope Francis. I am just relaying his words.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There is nothing in the pope’s statement that limits the provision of healthcare to only the people of ones own country. Nor could such a limitation exist if this is a natural right like life, and liberty. So, if your interpretation is correct we have as much of an obligation to provide healthcare for the entire world as we do for our own citizens.

That such provision is clearly impossible leaves two possibilities: either healthcare is not a right (in the sense you suggest) or we are all sinners. If you argue that we are limited by what is doable then you put healthcare in the same category as our other moral obligations like feed the hungry, comfort the afflicted…heal the sick. Those, however, are not spoken of as the rights of others, but as the obligations we bear. I think that’s a better way to view it.

Ender

I think the sense in which the Pope spoke about healthcare being a right** was** the sense in which it is an obligation we bear. I am not viewing it in any different way from that.

By the way, it is such a pleasure to debate with someone who actually thinks for a change before writing (and makes me think). Thanks.

 

[JonNC]

Take it up with Pope Francis. I am just relaying his words.

Pope Francis is welcome to his view on this. I agree that we as Christians must care for the needs of the least of His children.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I think the sense in which the Pope spoke about healthcare being a right** was** the sense in which it is an obligation we bear. I am not viewing it in any different way from that.

By the way, it is such a pleasure to debate with someone who actually thinks for a change before writing (and makes me think). Thanks.

Do you believe Pope Francis would require people to help others against their free will?

Jon