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

[LeafByNiggle]

It can clearly be called a universal right, if we understand that “universal” means no one may denied access to it.

With health care costs being what they are, “access” is a hollow promise. There are people who simply cannot afford it. So you have to ask what “access” means.

It doesn’t mean, and in fact cannot mean, that some are compelled by the force of law to provide it for others.

The principle of levying taxes by force of law is well established in almost every religious tradition. Isn’t it true of Lutheran and Anglican traditions too? It is not immoral when done by a legitmate authority acting in the common good. in specific circumstances it could be immoral, but the standards for that determination are quite strict, at least in Catholicism.

Everyone has a right to health care. No one has the right to someone else’s labor in order to acquire it.

See the earlier discussion in this thread between me and Ender where the distinction between a “right” and a “duty” was discussed with respect to health care. My point was that the pope was not so much giving license to the needy to demand health care as a right as he was reminding the rest of us of our duty to provide it. Furthermore, the pope was not specifying how that care should be provided - whether it be by community action (i.e. government) of by charities. He was speaking only of the duty that it be provided at some basic level.

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

See the previous remark about the legitimacy of government to levy taxes.

 

[LethalMouse]

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.

But the “healthcare is a right” crowd is solely focused on making a financial entangled mess rather than “creating a right”

It is illegal for me if I have a UTI to go by some antibiotics for $40 and be cured. This is making a right illegal.

Forcing me to pay thousands in taxes so I can pay hundreds of dollars to visit a man to “Allow” me to have what I need to cure me and then Spend the $40 on it.

That my friend is not rights…it is nothing but horribly disordered.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But the “healthcare is a right” crowd is solely focused on making a financial entangled mess rather than “creating a right”

Do you include Pope Francis in the “healthcare crowd”? Remember, it is his comment that we are discussing here.

It is illegal for me if I have a UTI to go by some antibiotics for $40 and be cured. This is making a right illegal.

Forcing me to pay thousands in taxes so I can pay hundreds of dollars to visit a man to “Allow” me to have what I need to cure me and then Spend the $40 on it.

That my friend is not rights…it is nothing but horribly disordered.

If you have concerns about the way certain regulations are structured, that is a legitimate discussion, but it is not this discussion.

 

[Ender]

But the “healthcare is a right” crowd is solely focused on making a financial entangled mess rather than “creating a right”

For the most part, the disagreements being discussed in this thread deal with this: what do the pope’s comments mean? Unfortunately they tend to be ambiguous and lend themselves to the interpretations you oppose. It is important to clarify them as much as possible, so these discussions are useful. Would you agree to this?

“Just as we have a moral obligation to feed the hungry we have an equal obligation to heal the sick. That said, what can be done is limited by circumstances, and the decisions about what ought to be done is debatable, and is a lay responsibility to determine.”

Ender

 

[LethalMouse]

For the most part, the disagreements being discussed in this thread deal with this: what do the pope’s comments mean? Unfortunately they tend to be ambiguous and lend themselves to the interpretations you oppose. It is important to clarify them as much as possible, so these discussions are useful. Would you agree to this?

“Just as we have a moral obligation to feed the hungry we have an equal obligation to heal the sick. That said, what can be done is limited by circumstances, and the decisions about what ought to be done is debatable, and is a lay responsibility to determine.”

Ender

I think from the Religiously guided aspect, the truth is healthcare is a right.

Healthcare in the sense that it is like free speech.

But like free speech we do not go out to people’s homes and make them give speeches.

The Pope as a man given his background and man statements I would put in the “healthcare crowd”.

What the Pope says morally in these regards is accurate, well meaning, and highly Pope level awesome.

The man intentions of he who holds the office however via how he leans his comments and his intended execution, I generally do not agree.

I think he speaks at times ambiguously and in a way that provides easy interpretation toward his man side of issues while maintaining the proper brush strokes to not actually say anything that would be uncouth.

 

[Darryl1958]

Rights are ephemeral.
Saying health care is a universal right is like saying heaven is a universal right.

Instead, say that universal health care, like hell having a population of zero, is a Catholic goal.

That gives us something to aim for.

 

[Ender]

Healthcare in the sense that it is like free speech.

The crucial difference between a “right” like health care and our right of free speech is that the former has to be provided by others while the latter is something others are forbidden to take from us. We have the former only if someone gives it to us; we have the latter unless someone takes it from us. That is no small difference.

Ender

 

[graciew]

The crucial difference between a “right” like health care and our right of free speech is that the former has to be provided by others while the latter is something others are forbidden to take from us. We have the former only if someone gives it to us; we have the latter unless someone takes it from us. That is no small difference.

Ender

Freedom of speech is luxurious for the voiceless,Ender.
In a home,when one of the children is ill and needs urgent care,nothing else has value. What would you not sell so that your child may live?

Letting go of what has no value is something we experience in extreme circumstances .Things and " not things".

   What rattles me is that at the back of the mind there is this sense that those who own the money are the " owners of charity", but it doesn t feel like it is charity  to give so much thought to it. How to better do it,yes. If to do it,well..not so for me...

And it does not escape our memory I guess,that the Church has always encouraged a culture of work as well. So hopefully we could be working on many ends and rights at a time so that persons can have access to the basics with dignity as any of us would be more than grateful for.

There are places where there is not even drinkable water,Ender.

 

[LethalMouse]

The crucial difference between a “right” like health care and our right of free speech is that the former has to be provided by others while the latter is something others are forbidden to take from us. We have the former only if someone gives it to us; we have the latter unless someone takes it from us. That is no small difference.

Ender

Dependancy mentality is the problem. Yes to a point, but if you note my other arguements on the topic you see that the aspects affecting this right are highly rooted in the legislation that MAKES you need someone else.

Just limiting some of this insanity would grant much more healthcare to people without slave laboring anyone else.

Let alone what standards? You say it NEEDS administered? Vs what the person can aquire without unjust law?

Where is that line? There is 3 hearts and 10 ppl who need a transplant… what do we do?

One Hep drug cost over $11 BILLION dollars to develope. The cost to a patient is like 90k for 3 months treatment.

How do you have that 11 BILLION dollars worked out if you make them charge $2 a treatment etc…

So as it stand in the US we do NOT have healthcare rights in entirety because we are legalistically denied many healthcare options.

However in the sense of what options exist, anyone with means to access can.

Much like free speech, if I can access a compjter or not is my issue.

And there are all kinds of free clinics and whatnot. But they are not the top of the line hospital??? See that is the arguement of this whole thing…

Like food. If I offer my poor neighbors to feed them via ric e ans pasta bc I can afford it. They would say thanks but no thanks and go to a restaurant they can afford…

I do support allowing people to do healthcare, access it without odd red tape, and for example grow their own food!

My poor neighbors have a slee of unemployed bodies or part time workers, and ACRES of land…

They dont grow a stick of food…

I can afford to eat fairly luxuriously and irresponsibly…

I grow all kinds of food.

Tis the difference.

 

[graciew]

I grow all kinds of food.

Tis the difference.

That is awsome!

 

[fisherman_carl]

Health care is free where I live.
I am sharing this,but please do not translate it into your politics. I do not mean to and I honestly do not understand much about your system. So this is here.
It needs improving,of course,it is not perfect,obviously,but more than once in the middle of nowhere we have had those emergencies with ourselves and children and here no one can be turned away at the door of a hospital. And I like that. And even if I know it does take taxes,education and health are worth our sharing, for me…
Sure some need more resources,and equipment and there is a long way to go. I cannot help wondering how much was deviated and poorly used by our governments that could have been directed to health…
There are those little town hospitals where everything will be heartfeltly given,care and attention and knowledge. I know…being nurses and doctors is a vocation and they do not make a lot of money there but they love it. You can hear that. Most of them alternate public and private practice. So you would have the same doctors .
To tell the truth,most of us who work also have private medicine.
Hospitals in the city are crowded,so that would be another story and long to tell.
Now if I am to tell the truth,I know that wherever we go,there will be a small place,a town hospital,and that is something I would not change for anything . They have saved us from trouble in emergencies and I am really really grateful those nurses and doctors are there. And may God bless them much.

Health care is never free. You pay for it in your taxes.

 

[JonNC]

=LeafByNiggle;14007034]With health care costs being what they are, “access” is a hollow promise. There are people who simply cannot afford it. So you have to ask what “access” means.

That is what the church is for.

The principle of levying taxes by force of law is well established in almost every religious tradition. Isn’t it true of Lutheran and Anglican traditions too? It is not immoral when done by a legitmate authority acting in the common good. in specific circumstances it could be immoral, but the standards for that determination are quite strict, at least in Catholicism.

Of course levying taxes is a necessary event in a free country. The difference is that in the United States, health care isn’t among the enumerated powers.

See the earlier discussion in this thread between me and Ender where the distinction between a “right” and a “duty” was discussed with respect to health care. My point was that the pope was not so much giving license to the needy to demand health care as a right as he was reminding the rest of us of our duty to provide it. Furthermore, the pope was not specifying how that care should be provided - whether it be by community action (i.e. government) of by charities. He was speaking only of the duty that it be provided at some basic level.

And I agree that it is our duty as His regenerate to care for the least of His children. But He did not say force people to do so against their will.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That is what the church is for.

What does that mean? If the church does not meet the needs of those who cannot afford health care, that those needs should just go unmet? Ideally voluntary charity would be a good way to meet those needs, but communal action by a legitimate authority performing this function too is not contrary to any moral precept.

Of course levying taxes is a necessary event in a free country. The difference is that in the United States, health care isn’t among the enumerated powers.

Do you mean it is not among the enumerated ways in which the government can spend money? That view has not been held by the USSC, has it?

And I agree that it is our duty as His regenerate to care for the least of His children. But He did not say force people to do so against their will.

Nor did he say anything against it either.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Maybe there is a country somewhere whose government does not like a segment of the population, so is denying them their right to health care. Maybe when members of that segment try to go to the doctor, police or soldiers turn them away, thereby denying them their universal right to health care.

This has happened in the past in regards to our universal right to life. The Nazis did not like a segment of their population, so they denied the Jews the right to breathe, and put them into gas chambers. The Soviets did a similar thing with the Ukranians, by denying them the right to eat. The Soviet government confiscated foodstuffs there and exported them to the West, creating a famine in Ukraine. Millions died in these instances. So yes, governments can deny universal rights.

 

[rebeccanew]

Our understanding of healthcare is an issue…

If my car is broken and I need a starter I can buy one and install it. I do not need to pay a mechanic to write me a slip to be allowed to buy a starter… I can also legally have my neighbor install it for me.

Now, have an infection and need $20 of antibiotics? Not the same laws…

Now lets assume for arguements sake like my neighbor who is a whiz with cars I have a non doctor neighbor who is smart enough to research and treat me… nope, we go to jail… yeah

So here I question our obsession with “healthcare” vs healthcare… one allows care, the other is a system.

Good point-the patient becomes a commodity for health care provider all too often.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Good point-the patient becomes a commodity for health care provider all too often.

Only government ordained “priests” can dispense only government approved medical sacraments.

 

[graciew]

Health care is never free. You pay for it in your taxes.

Yes,I do.

 

[JonNC]

=LeafByNiggle;14010990]What does that mean? If the church does not meet the needs of those who cannot afford health care, that those needs should just go unmet? Ideally voluntary charity would be a good way to meet those needs, but communal action by a legitimate authority performing this function too is not contrary to any moral precept.

You’re worried about the Church not meeting the needs of the poor, when the federal government has proven since the advent of the Great Society programs that, not only can it not meet the needs of the poor, but in the process of trying, it has spent (wasted) trillions of dollars, and by its policies damaged perhaps beyond repair the American family.
I would encourage you to read Marvin Olasky’s, The Tragedy of American Compassion

Do you mean it is not among the enumerated ways in which the government can spend money? That view has not been held by the USSC, has it?

The USSC has held that the general welfare clause gives them additional power. As a result, see above.

Nor did he say anything against it either.

So, is it your view that charity can be compulsory, and that this is okay?

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So, is it your view that charity can be compulsory, and that this is okay?

Jon

I’m not sure it meets the definition of charity, but whatever you call it, I do think it is OK to follow the pope’s admonition to treat health care as a universal right rather than as a privilege for only those whose can pay for it.

 

[JonNC]

I’m not sure it meets the definition of charity, but whatever you call it, I do think it is OK to follow the pope’s admonition to treat health care as a universal right rather than as a privilege for only those whose can pay for it.

A universal right. A right that anyone may access. Everyone has a right yo health care. No one has a right to someone else’s labor. That’s called slavery

Jon