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

[LeafByNiggle]

There is a vast difference between positive and negative obligations, and it is not appropriate to discuss them as if they were similar.

There is a difference between the two, but I would not call it vast. I would call it tiny.

Extraordinary circumstances call for an extra-ordinary response.

A child being born is not really an extraordinary event. It happens quite often.

The problem is that when multiple interpretations are reasonable it is never clear what the “proper” understanding is.

Yes, the Dark Night of the Soul has various interpretations too. That does not mean the words of St. John of the Cross are useless.

It may not be necessary to insist that the government has both the moral obligation and the moral authority to solve all social ills, but statements such as this one on health care certainly give that appearance.

If you don’t like how the current pope expresses himself, then tell me how you would make the same point Pope Francis made in a less ambiguous manner, but without watering it down.

But assigning blame is exactly the problem. Given the extreme poverty of Ethiopia one could argue they are blameless for providing inadequate health care for their citizens. On the other hand one could just as easily hold them at fault for causing much of their own poverty because of their political system. Blame is in the eye of the beholder, and it is a poor way to reach a consensus on what ought to be done by asserting ones political opponents are immoral. It is one thing to accuse someone of an error in judgment, but quite another to accuse him of bigotry, greed, or indifference, and unfortunately that is what this statement by the pope is likely to lead to.

Perhaps that is exactly the point the pope wanted to make.

That’s a valid question, but why is it a moral concern? If I believe that we should stop at X and you believe we need to give them 2X, can you really say that my position is immoral?

I don’t think the pope is talking about such fine distinctions. He is more likely talking about extreme examples of injustice, where some people in power do stop at zero with regard to providing health care.

There are two ways one can sin: by intent and by committing an act that is intrinsically evil. Since none of our choices in the area of “what do we owe” deals with intrinsic evils, the only way I can sin is if I have an evil intent. How can I sin if I believe that my level of what we owe is proper?

I think that falls under having a properly formed conscience.

 

[Ender]

There is a difference between the two, but I would not call it vast. I would call it tiny.

*“Only the negative commandments oblige always and under all circumstances…it is always possible that man, as a result of coercion or other circumstances, can be hindered from doing certain good actions; but he can never be hindered from not doing certain actions…” *(JPII Veritatis Splendor)
The differences are two: we know explicitly what we are not to do, but we only have guidelines about our positive acts. “Feed the hungry” is open to a wide variety of interpretations, and the positive acts alone are subject to circumstances. If we have no food ourselves we cannot feed the hungry, but we can without exception refrain from taking food from the hungry to feed ourselves.

Yes, the Dark Night of the Soul has various interpretations too. That does not mean the words of St. John of the Cross are useless.

True, but you have changed the argument. It wasn’t a question of whether certain comments have value but of knowing clearly what certain comments mean. This pope’s comments are ambiguous at best.

If you don’t like how the current pope expresses himself, then tell me how you would make the same point Pope Francis made in a less ambiguous manner, but without watering it down.

Given that explaining what point he was making requires me to understand his statement - something I have already said is open to various interpretations - I’m not sure how to do this. That said, I think this would have been better: Just as the state has an obligation to help its citizens with food and shelter where it is proper to do so, it has an equal obligation to assist with health care.

Perhaps that is exactly the point the pope wanted to make.

I sincerely hope not. Asserting moral blame over differences in political choices is really not what anyone should do, let alone a pope.

I don’t think the pope is talking about such fine distinctions. He is more likely talking about extreme examples of injustice, where some people in power do stop at zero with regard to providing health care.

To say he is “More likely talking about…” something reinforces my comment about what the “proper” understanding of his statement really is. It can be cited to support any number of positions.

I think that falls under having a properly formed conscience.

No, I emphatically disagree with this. You are talking situations where people don’t want to help; I am talking about situations where people disagree on what actions are most likely to be beneficial. The problem comes when one side insists that its opponents don’t want to help, a judgment they are both incapable of, and forbidden to, make.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

*“Only the negative commandments oblige always and under all circumstances…it is always possible that man, as a result of coercion or other circumstances, can be hindered from doing certain good actions; but he can never be hindered from not doing certain actions…” *(JPII Veritatis Splendor)
The differences are two: we know explicitly what we are not to do, but we only have guidelines about our positive acts.

Is the duty to attend mass on Sunday just a guideline? I thought it was pretty explicit.

Also, while the statement by JPII does give one an excuse for not doing certain good acts, it is not clear that “I didn’t think it was necessary” is one of those “other circumstances”.

That said, I think this would have been better: Just as the state has an obligation to help its citizens with food and shelter where it is proper to do so, it has an equal obligation to assist with health care.

Actually that sounds quite good, and in the spirit of what I think the pope was saying. I think he would approve.

I sincerely hope not. Asserting moral blame over differences in political choices is really not what anyone should do, let alone a pope.

That is assuming your characterization “differences in political choices” is accurate.

Suppose the pope had come out in 1850 blaming the political choices in the the US that institutionalized slavery? It might have sounded like he was blaming those in power, and it would have been entirely appropriate for him to have done so. The people in power were not debating “How can we best serve the needs of the Africans that we brought here?” Rather they were debating “How can we derive the most economic benefit from from slaves”. Just because a decision has a political component does not mean it should be immune to moral censure. To take a more current example, I think you will agree that the political decisions related to abortion policy are appropriate targets for moral censure by the pope or anyone else.

No, I emphatically disagree with this. You are talking situations where people don’t want to help; I am talking about situations where people disagree on what actions are most likely to be beneficial.

It remains to be seen which situation most accurately describes what the pope is referring to.

 

[mackbrislawn]

It seems to me Jesus did not talk much about “rights,” but about what the requirements were to be His followers. That is, what the moral duties, or obligations He puts upon those who follow the Law of Christ. Upon us, as personal responsibilities.

However, we as sinners, as possessors of concupiscence, desire also to shirk our duties as followers of Christ. We want to find a way to get out of them, and at the same time pretend to have a clear conscience. One way to do that is to defer our personal duties to someone else, in particular to institutions. What if the good Samaritan had thought,“It is not my job to help that man beaten by robbers, that is the job of Caesar,” and went on his way.

No, Jesus tells us that is our job, not someone else’s. Jesus said the job of Caesar was to keep order and punish wrong doers. We, the Church, have duties under Jesus as well. However, it appears that more and more of these duties are being taken over by Caesar. These things need to be done sure enough, but there is a danger to the Church when that happens. When government does what the Church should be doing, the government begins to replace the Church. Caesar always has wanted to be worshiped, and government becomes a secular religion, taking the place of true religion. As Caesar increases, Church decreases.

Freedom of religion is becoming more and more to be interpreted as freedom from religion.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It seems to me Jesus did not talk much about “rights,” but about what the requirements were to be His followers. That is, what the moral duties, or obligations He puts upon those who follow the Law of Christ. Upon us, as personal responsibilities.

However, we as sinners, as possessors of concupiscence, desire also to shirk our duties as followers of Christ. We want to find a way to get out of them, and at the same time pretend to have a clear conscience. One way to do that is to defer our personal duties to someone else, in particular to institutions. What if the good Samaritan had thought,“It is not my job to help that man beaten by robbers, that is the job of Caesar,” and went on his way.

No, Jesus tells us that is our job, not someone else’s. Jesus said the job of Caesar was to keep order and punish wrong doers. We, the Church, have duties under Jesus as well.

Wait a minute. Up until now you have been talking about moral duties of individuals. Now, for the first time, and hereafter, you talk about these as duties of the Church, or people acting through the institutional Church. In keeping with the good Samaritan theme, notice that the Samaritan was not representing any church. He was acting as an individual. Jesus pointed out how this individual Samaritan was fulfilling the law of love. I see nothing in Jesus’ discourse that limits the acceptable ways in which this law of love should be fulfilled. The fact that He chose to make the protagonist of the story a Samaritan, who would be religiously deprecated by the Jews, shows that Jesus is not limiting how charity should be expressed.

In deciding how to apply that lesson to the world today, we can go in several different directions. We could do as you suggest and assign these moral duties to the Church. We could assign these moral duties to the community acting through their government. Or we could encourage these moral duties to be fulfilled by anyone and everyone who is capable of doing so.

However, it appears that more and more of these duties are being taken over by Caesar.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I think it depends on whether the Church is capable of meeting the needs of those who, like the traveller in Jesus’ story, met with misfortune. If they can be met that way, then fine. I doubt if the community in general is going to usurp moral duties that are being well met by the Church. But if the Church is not able to meet the needs of all those who should be helped, there is nothing wrong with the community doing so in a secular fashion. In fact it is contrary to the law of love to say “Wait! Don’t help that fellow! My Church will help him when we get around to it!”.

Caesar always has wanted to be worshiped, and government becomes a secular religion, taking the place of true religion. As Caesar increases, Church decreases.

That is true. So what is the solution? To increase charity from the Church? Or to decrease charity from “Caesar”? Which comes first?

 

[Ender]

Is the duty to attend mass on Sunday just a guideline? I thought it was pretty explicit.

Yes, except where it isn’t. As with all the positive precepts, there are exceptions.

Also, while the statement by JPII does give one an excuse for not doing certain good acts, it is not clear that “I didn’t think it was necessary” is one of those “other circumstances”.

What you’re looking for is a reason to claim the moral high ground in a dispute that doesn’t involve any moral choice. If you think an action is appropriate and necessary while I think it ineffectual and costly, what makes your position morally superior to mine? You may in fact be right, but my error is just that: an error. It is not a sin.

Suppose the pope had come out in 1850 blaming the political choices in the the US that institutionalized slavery? It might have sounded like he was blaming those in power, and it would have been entirely appropriate for him to have done so. The people in power were not debating “How can we best serve the needs of the Africans that we brought here?” Rather they were debating “How can we derive the most economic benefit from from slaves”. Just because a decision has a political component does not mean it should be immune to moral censure. To take a more current example, I think you will agree that the political decisions related to abortion policy are appropriate targets for moral censure by the pope or anyone else.

That an issue is a political concern clearly does not mean that it cannot therefore be a moral issue as well, and slavery and abortion are two good examples of this. I will point our, however, that those issues involve actions that are intrinsically evil, and while I accept that any question involving intrinsic evil is necessarily a moral issue, I am not aware of any issue that does not involve an intrinsic evil that I would consider to include a moral concern (beyond the “Will I help or not?” question).

Ender

 

[mackbrislawn]

LeafByNiggle;13993782

Wait a minute. Up until now you have been talking about moral duties of individuals. Now, for the first time, and hereafter, you talk about these as duties of the Church, or people acting through the institutional Church. In keeping with the good Samaritan theme, notice that the Samaritan was not representing any church. He was acting as an individual. Jesus pointed out how this individual Samaritan was fulfilling the law of love. I see nothing in Jesus’ discourse that limits the acceptable ways in which this law of love should be fulfilled. The fact that He chose to make the protagonist of the story a Samaritan, who would be religiously deprecated by the Jews, shows that Jesus is not limiting how charity should be expressed.

The Church is the Christian people as distinct from Caesar. We get our moral ideas from Jesus through the instutional Church. Jesus gives us our moral obligations (notice He does not talk about rights, but duties). Now, the Protestants aren’t entirely wrong when some of them define the Church as the collection of those saved, so when a Christian does something, it is the Church doing it.

Yes, the Samaritan represented the Samaritan Church. And he lived up to his churchly obligations (law of love) much more so than the sanctimonious Jews.

In deciding how to apply that lesson to the world today, we can go in several different directions. We could do as you suggest and assign these moral duties to the Church. We could assign these moral duties to the community acting through their government. Or we could encourage these moral duties to be fulfilled by anyone and everyone who is capable of doing so.

I didn’t assign those moral duties to the Church, Jesus did. And not to Caesar. Jesus assigned them to us individually and personally. And we in turn cannot assign them to anyone else.

You haven’t addressed the main point of how we avoid our personal duties by deferring them to the “community.” Now, you’re right, I suppose we should encourage anyone and everyone to fulfill their moral duties, by calling to their mind the Law of Christ. But that is all we can do.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I think it depends on whether the Church is capable of meeting the needs of those who, like the traveller in Jesus’ story, met with misfortune. If they can be met that way, then fine. I doubt if the community in general is going to usurp moral duties that are being well met by the Church. But if the Church is not able to meet the needs of all those who should be helped, there is nothing wrong with the community doing so in a secular fashion. In fact it is contrary to the law of love to say “Wait! Don’t help that fellow! My Church will help him when we get around to it!”.

Is decrease of the Church a good thing or a bad thing? If you are an atheist, I suppose it is a good thing. I have a friend who is an atheist and he hates all churches and superstition and wants them done away with. I also see in bookstores books about how awful religion is. So, if you are the Devil, decrease of the Church is a good thing. But if you take belief in God seriously, and that there is such a thing as heaven and hell, and a need for salvation, then decrease in Church is a bad thing. Decrease in Church means decrease in Christ and God. We both know there are secularists who want to marginalize Church and religion and make it at most a private affair in a person’s own mind.

Yes, it seems that the Church and its individuals are less and less capable of meeting the needs of those who meet with misfortune. Christians need to step up to the bat. But why should they if the “secular community” meaning Caesar is doing it for them?

You’re right, one shouldn’t say, “Wait, don’t help that fellow!”, we should say, “Wait, let me help you help him!” We should wait around for neither Church nor Caesar to do it.

That is true. So what is the solution? To increase charity from the Church? Or to decrease charity from “Caesar”? Which comes first?

To increase charity from Church is what comes first. Which means our own personal charity. That is what the law of love means.

But sadly, our sinful nature rebels at the law of love. We don’t want to help; we are selfish. We like to think of ourselves as good, without being good. That was my point to begin with, we shrug our obligations off onto someone, or something, else. But it is apparent that forced charity does not fulfill the law of love at all.

Remember, Caesar does not do things out of the law of love, but of power. The more things Caesar does, the more Caesar is worshipped, and the less Christ is worshipped. Which may be a good thing? Is it good for the Church to be usurped? My atheist friend would think so.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Yes, except where it isn’t. As with all the positive precepts, there are exceptions.

Calling them “exceptions” is not the same as calling the rules “guidelines”. How about we say the admonitions to provide health care is a rule with exceptions, rather than mere guidelines, OK? It is a lot tougher to justify an exception than to excuse non compliance because it is “just a guideline”.

That an issue is a political concern clearly does not mean that it cannot therefore be a moral issue as well, and slavery and abortion are two good examples of this. I will point our, however, that those issues involve actions that are intrinsically evil, and while I accept that any question involving intrinsic evil is necessarily a moral issue, I am not aware of any issue that does not involve an intrinsic evil that I would consider to include a moral concern (beyond the “Will I help or not?” question).

Ender

OK, I am a Yankee’s fan and I see someone wearing a Red Sox hat, and I decide to punch him in the face. That is not an intrinsic evil (because boxing is a valid sport), yet I think that would be a moral failing or mine, not just a “mistake”.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I didn’t assign those moral duties to the Church, Jesus did. And not to Caesar. Jesus assigned them to us individually and personally. And we in turn cannot assign them to anyone else.

Jesus did not prohibit Caesar from doing good works either. I am not suggesting that we assign our duty to government or anyone else. What I am objecting to is the implication that who does the good work is more important than the fact that the good work get done. I have no objection to encouraging Christians to do their duty. But I do object when someone suggests that in order to get Christians to do their duty, we must first discourage government from doing it, so as to give some Christians the excuse why they don’t need to do it.

You haven’t addressed the main point of how we avoid our personal duties by deferring them to the “community.”

That is because I don’t hold that view.

Now, you’re right, I suppose we should encourage anyone and everyone to fulfill their moral duties, by calling to their mind the Law of Christ. But that is all we can do.

Do you mean we cannot vote for a community solution when the opportunity arises?

Is decrease of the Church a good thing or a bad thing?

I am not advocating a decrease in the Church. So we can both agree that is a bad thing.

Yes, it seems that the Church and its individuals are less and less capable of meeting the needs of those who meet with misfortune. Christians need to step up to the bat. But why should they if the “secular community” meaning Caesar is doing it for them?

So which is more important? That Christians step up to bat, or that someone steps up to bat?

But it is apparent that forced charity does not fulfill the law of love at all.

I disagree.

 

[mackbrislawn]

LeafByNiggle;13994414

Jesus did not prohibit Caesar from doing good works either. I am not suggesting that we assign our duty to government or anyone else. What I am objecting to is the implication that who does the good work is more important than the fact that the good work get done. I have no objection to encouraging Christians to do their duty. But I do object when someone suggests that in order to get Christians to do their duty, we must first discourage government from doing it, so as to give some Christians the excuse why they don’t need to do it.

Nope, Jesus didn’t prohibit Caesar but didn’t assign him that role. Actually, from the point of view of following Christ, who does the good is**** the important thing. But, you don’t hold that view. Which means, we, as Christians, can then shirk our personal moral duties because we can think, after all, it is not who does the good work, but that it get done. So if someone else is doing it, doing it is what is important.

Do you mean we cannot vote for a community solution when the opportunity arises?

This is pretty vague, but I suppose we can, but first a Christian solution should be sought. Why vote when we can do it ourselves?

I am not advocating a decrease in the Church. So we can both agree that is a bad thing.

Good. We agree that is a bad thing. But, the more the government is looked to as a provider, the less the Church, that is Christians, are looked to. And that is a bad thing. We, the church, as Christians are giving up our appointed role, and ceding it to Caesar. You don’t advocate a decrease in the Church, good. But what you do advocate eventually results in a decrease in the Church, bad. That’s the problem.

So which is more important? That Christians step up to bat, or that someone steps up to bat?

Definitely that Christians step up to bat. And, yes, we should discourage
government from doing it first, because it provides an excuse for Christians not to.

I disagree.

I wish you would say why you disagree. If you force someone else to do the charity you should do, does that fulfill the law of love for you? Apparently you think so.

All this discussion is part of a broader context, the Culture Wars. Secularization has been winning. Secular humanists want to marginalize religion and church altogether, to make it unimportant, to have no role in the public square. Because the more secular solutions are looked to, the less Christ and His Church are looked to. The church decreases, and you agreed that is a bad thing.

That is the danger of looking to Caesar for solutions to problems. Which is my main point to address. Caesar is a very convenient bargain, true, but it is a Faustian bargain.

 

[Ender]

Calling them “exceptions” is not the same as calling the rules “guidelines”. How about we say the admonitions to provide health care is a rule with exceptions, rather than mere guidelines, OK? It is a lot tougher to justify an exception than to excuse non compliance because it is “just a guideline”.

You still haven’t grasped the point I’m trying to make. We are told to heal the sick; that’s the rule, and while we can all agree to that what we cannot agree to is what constitutes non compliance. Does it mean I have to support Obamacare? If I oppose national health care as provided by the UK and other countries am I non compliant? In fact the church takes no position on those questions; they are not only entirely prudential (and political), but it is not appropriate for bishops to weigh in on the matter. This is a lay responsibility to resolve.

OK, I am a Yankee’s fan and I see someone wearing a Red Sox hat, and I decide to punch him in the face. That is not an intrinsic evil (because boxing is a valid sport), yet I think that would be a moral failing or mine, not just a “mistake”.

It is difficult to communicate clearly even when both sides are trying. I think if you worked at it even a little you would understand what I’m trying to say.

Ender

 

[mackbrislawn]

LeafByNiggle;1399039 I

s the duty to attend mass on Sunday just a guideline? I thought it was pretty explicit.

The Law of Love supersedes the duty to attend mass on Sunday. If you see a car wreck while you are on the way to mass, the duty to render aid supersedes mass attendance. And it is more than just driving by and calling 911 on your cell phone so Caesar can come.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle;1399039 I

The Law of Love supersedes the duty to attend mass on Sunday. If you see a car wreck while you are on the way to mass, the duty to render aid supersedes mass attendance. And it is more than just driving by and calling 911 on your cell phone so Caesar can come.

Yes, there are exceptions to the rule. This is one of them. Illness is another. But you still would not call Sunday mass attendance a “guideline” would you?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You still haven’t grasped the point I’m trying to make. We are told to heal the sick; that’s the rule, and while we can all agree to that what we cannot agree to is what constitutes non compliance. Does it mean I have to support Obamacare? If I oppose national health care as provided by the UK and other countries am I non compliant? In fact the church takes no position on those questions; they are not only entirely prudential (and political), but it is not appropriate for bishops to weigh in on the matter. This is a lay responsibility to resolve.

Yes, the examples you cite are all prudential judgement. But I don’t think your examples are exhaustive of the types of situations to which you are applying your general conclusion, and that is that decisions on what to do about health care are necessarily all judgements with no moral component. It is one thing to oppose Obamacare because you think it is inefficient or ineffective or unfair in its implementation. It is quite another thing to oppose all forms of universal health care on the general principle that people should be encouraged to provide for their own health care, and making it unavailable any other way does just that. I think that would be a morally questionable position to take.

It is difficult to communicate clearly even when both sides are trying. I think if you worked at it even a little you would understand what I’m trying to say.

Ender

I think I do understand what you are trying to say. I just think you are stretching the application of the principle further than it can go. When you use examples to support a general principle, it is important that those examples cover all the significant variations that can come up under the general principle. You made a general statement about the relationship between intrinsic evil and morality. It seemed to imply that no decision is immoral unless it deals with an intrinsic evil. My example of the angry baseball fan was just meant to show that you can indeed make a decision that is immoral even when no intrinsic evil is involved. So if you are going draw a distinction between decisions about slavery and decisions about health care, you can’t use the fact the slavery is an intrinsic evil. For even decision about non-intrinsic evil things can be moral or immoral.

 

[Ender]

It is one thing to oppose Obamacare because you think it is inefficient or ineffective or unfair in its implementation. It is quite another thing to oppose all forms of universal health care on the general principle that people should be encouraged to provide for their own health care, and making it unavailable any other way does just that. I think that would be a morally questionable position to take.

It is quite possible to take a position so extreme that one may reasonably judge the person holding it to be culpable for taking it, but that’s not where the debate over health care is. The problem is this: one side looks at the position taken by the other, believes it will be harmful, and on that basis declares it to be immoral. That is virtually never a valid judgment. Generally, only when an issue revolves around an intrinsic evil is it possible to state without doubt that one position is evil. All other issues involve a judgment of the motivation of ones opponents.

You made a general statement about the relationship between intrinsic evil and morality. It seemed to imply that no decision is immoral unless it deals with an intrinsic evil.

No, not at all. There are two reasons why an act may be immoral (three if you count the circumstances, but those are secondary): the nature of the act, and the intent behind it. Even a normally good act like charitable giving can be evil if the intent is disordered. The thing is, with an act that involves an intrinsic evil you may absolutely condemn it as immoral without knowing anything whatever about the intent, but if an intrinsic evil is not involved the only way the act can be immoral is if the intent is disordered. Unless it is transparently obvious, intent is something you absolutely cannot know, and judging a person’s intent to be evil is itself a sin against charity. As far as normal political issues are concerned there is no possible way to know why a person holds the position he does - and it is improper to assume the worst.

Ender

 

[Randy_Carson]

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…

Does the Holy Father have any ideas about how we pay for free, unlimited healthcare for everyone?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Does the Holy Father have any ideas about how we pay for free, unlimited healthcare for everyone?

Straw man argument. The pope did not propose that healthcare be unlimited, or that it be free.

 

[Ender]

Straw man argument. The pope did not propose that healthcare be unlimited, or that it be free.

If access to health is limited then in what sense can it be said to be a universal right? I understand that I may sacrifice a right because of my own misbehavior, but if I have done nothing to deserve it, how can my rights properly be limited? This points up the problem of calling something like this a universal right. The exercise of that “right” depends on others to provide it, may very well be severely limited, and will inevitably differ enormously from one person to another based on what country one happens to live in. Yet all these differences are natural, and not resolvable. So if there is a natural (and huge) difference between the enjoyment of “universal rights” between one country and another, why is it a problem to recognize the natural differences that occur within the same country? More to the point, how can this ever be considered to be a universal right when it is not now, never has been in the past, and never will be in the future - universal?

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If access to health is limited then in what sense can it be said to be a universal right? I understand that I may sacrifice a right because of my own misbehavior, but if I have done nothing to deserve it, how can my rights properly be limited? This points up the problem of calling something like this a universal right. The exercise of that “right” depends on others to provide it, may very well be severely limited, and will inevitably differ enormously from one person to another based on what country one happens to live in. Yet all these differences are natural, and not resolvable. So if there is a natural (and huge) difference between the enjoyment of “universal rights” between one country and another, why is it a problem to recognize the natural differences that occur within the same country? More to the point, how can this ever be considered to be a universal right when it is not now, never has been in the past, and never will be in the future - universal?

Ender

You are surely imposing too rigid a requirement on the meaning of “universal”. We say we have universal primary school education in the US, despite the fact that there are large variations in the quality of that education, because we all recognize that equality is the goal. Similarly, we can say that health care is a universal human right even if it is not perfectly realized. The fact that differences are in some sense natural does not mean those differences should be accepted without any attempt at correcting them.

 

[JonNC]

If access to health is limited then in what sense can it be said to be a universal right? I understand that I may sacrifice a right because of my own misbehavior, but if I have done nothing to deserve it, how can my rights properly be limited? This points up the problem of calling something like this a universal right. The exercise of that “right” depends on others to provide it, may very well be severely limited, and will inevitably differ enormously from one person to another based on what country one happens to live in. Yet all these differences are natural, and not resolvable. So if there is a natural (and huge) difference between the enjoyment of “universal rights” between one country and another, why is it a problem to recognize the natural differences that occur within the same country? More to the point, how can this ever be considered to be a universal right when it is not now, never has been in the past, and never will be in the future - universal?

Ender

It can clearly be called a universal right, if we understand that “universal” means no one may denied access to it. It doesn’t mean, and in fact cannot mean, that some are compelled by the force of law to provide it for others. Everyone has a right to health care. No one has the right to someone else’s labor in order to acquire it. If someone else is compelled to pay for my healthcare, it is no longer a right, but a privilege, and the one being compelled is a slave.

Jon