Pope Francis: healthcare is a 'universal right,' not a 'consumer good' [CWN]

  • Thread starter Thread starter CWN_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Basic health care needs are covered in the US. No one is turned away at an Emergency Room, because it is illegal to do so. There are free care pools in every state to cover the expenses. What is not covered is open to negotiation and payment plans. A person may pay only 5$ per month for the rest of their life, based on ability to pay, but there basic health care needs will always be taken care of.

The Pope’s point was about basic health care needs not being met in places like Africa where peop are left to die in the street.

If you want to debate nonessential care, it is an entirely different discussion.
 
Suudy said:
It is still being debated because people disagree on what is meant by “universal access to basic health care needs.” For some, they think it means 100% coverage in a manner that is paid for by someone else. Until the US gets there, our system falls short of the mandate for universal access.
Click to expand...
That’s an interesting term you’ve used: “Mandate.”

Can the Church issue a “mandate” to a pluralistic democracy? In the USA, we have citizens from all religions, all ethnic groups; every walk of life, who express a wide diversity of political philosophies, and they are not all in agreement. If the people vote for a universal for of health care (however that is to be defined) then they might be in conformity with the pope’s “mandate.” But, if they don’t vote for it, they won’t be. And there’s nothing the Church can do about it. It seems like this would be something entirely beyond the abilities of the Church to actually mandate. The pope cannot mandate anything to a democracy because his Church is completely incapable of controlling the will of an electorate outside of its purview. A free people who can vote for their governance may not conform to the Church’s teachings (and, in saying this, I’m presuming that some form of as-yet-to-be defined “universal healthcare” is an agreed-upon teaching of the Church). Universal health care may be good in theory, but it’s nearly impossible to achieve this side of heaven. The conflict is between theory and praxis. This being said, I don’t know that “mandate” is the word that should be used.
 
WJeffrey said:
If you want to debate nonessential care, it is an entirely different discussion.
Click to expand...
I agree. Unfortunately, the supporters of single-payer are glomming onto Papa Francis’ words about this to push their agenda. They don’t make the same distinction you are making.

But I’m happy you are here trying to make the case to separate them.
 
August_Carlson said:
That’s an interesting term you’ve used: “Mandate.”
Click to expand...
That’s the exact interpretation the single-payer advocates are making of Papa Francis’ words. Since healthcare is a ‘universal right,’ they think it means that there is a mandate to provide for those rights.
August_Carlson said:
This being said, I don’t know that “mandate” is the word that should be used.
Click to expand...
It is my word to describe the fervor of the single-payer advocates. And I think it apt.

Bernie Sanders is basically echoing Papa Francis in his support for single-payer. The co-opting of Papa Francis’ words has already begun.

 
WJeffrey said:
Basic health care needs are covered in the US. No one is turned away at an Emergency Room, because it is illegal to do so. There are free care pools in every state to cover the expenses. What is not covered is open to negotiation and payment plans. A person may pay only 5$ per month for the rest of their life, based on ability to pay, but there basic health care needs will always be taken care of.

The Pope’s point was about basic health care needs not being met in places like Africa where peop are left to die in the street.

If you want to debate nonessential care, it is an entirely different discussion.
Click to expand...
I am not certain what you mean by “nonessential care”? 🤷

I do think in the US we have a lot of patients that run to the Doctor every time they feel a little discomfort. For those kind of visits, you should be obligated to cover the full expense of your visit. Same thing with cancellations and no-shows - an epidemic that occurs a lot with older and lower income patients.

It is a given that someone that needs the assistance of urgent care due to a trauma, should be covered.

But how about the areas of wellness? Obesity is a big problem in American culture that leads to early encounters to medical issues such as diabetes. Diabetes can lead to the dependence of costly medication that can escalate if it is not managed. Do we cover these type of issues simply because you refuse to change your lifestyle?

I agree with Bernie that we should not leave someone to die. However, we truly cannot afford to cover the expense of all the aliments thrown our direction.
 
WJeffrey said:
Why is this post still being debated? The Pope said nothing new, and the US health care system is 100% compliant with basic health care needs being met for everyone.

That includes every citizen, every illegal immigrant, and person in the US legally that is not a citizen.

.
Click to expand...
That may be true for emergency care but what about pre-natal care and pediatric care, care for chronic illnesses like CHF, Diabetes, COPD, etc.
 
Suudy said:
That’s the exact interpretation the single-payer advocates are making of Papa Francis’ words. Since healthcare is a ‘universal right,’ they think it means that there is a mandate to provide for those rights.

It is my word to describe the fervor of the single-payer advocates. And I think it apt.

Bernie Sanders is basically echoing Papa Francis in his support for single-payer. The co-opting of Papa Francis’ words has already begun.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7y_4m2Aoh...8/P2jcr_JbZNE/s1600/bernie+on+health+care.png
Click to expand...
Is Bernie going to volunteer and open his own free clinic?
 
ucfengr said:
Socialists are only generous with other people’s time and money.
Click to expand...
Republicans and democrats tend to be similar. After all, there is nothing particularly virtuous about going to war or expanding socialized medicine and making future generations pay for it. And these have been done by both parties.
 
The differences between a Sanders and a Cruz vis-a-vis socialism are subtle ;), but visible to the discerning eye nevertheless.

Trump and HRC on the other hand, are two peas in a pod, of the same social circles, and Trump even contributes to Hillary’s foundation.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Republicans and democrats tend to be similar. After all, there is nothing particularly virtuous about going to war or expanding socialized medicine and making future generations pay for it. And these have been done by both parties.
Click to expand...
Were the French wrong to finance the First World War by borrowing, thereby obligating future generations to pay for it? Would the more moral stance have been for France to surrender?
 
ucfengr said:
Were the French wrong to finance the First World War by borrowing, thereby obligating future generations to pay for it? Would the more moral stance have been for France to surrender?
Click to expand...
If they had the option to sacrifice and pay up front, there is no reason to place the burden on future generations. I am not sure how this is relevant though. In our recent wars we had to ability to sacrifice and not place the burden on future generations. That would have been honorable. To go to war and make future generations pay for it is not honorable.
 
philipl said:
Who get to decide how to conform? The Pope? You? Joel Osteen?
Click to expand...
Each individual works in their own way. As a Catholic, I say as the Pope so says. It is an ideal. Just because millions disagree doesn’t mean we should surrender. Through evangelization we work to convert, through converts we work to create coalitions, and through coalitions we work to bring all in line with God’s will. If you truly believe the Catholic Church is the one, true Church, with the fullness of faith, how can you not desire that all should be a part of it?
 
If health care is a universal right, then people would do well to find better solutions to how to delivery health care universally than what socialism has to offer.
The bottom line is that the socialist method of delivery is in general unsustainable, and therefore seeks to rationalize costs.
 
Darryl1958 said:
If health care is a universal right, then people would do well to find better solutions to how to delivery health care universally than what socialism has to offer.
The bottom line is that the socialist method of delivery is in general unsustainable, and therefore seeks to rationalize costs.
Click to expand...
So are you saying the Canadian or UK solution for delivery of healthcare is unsustainable?

Is it about to collapse or will it collapse in a few years?
 
openmind77 said:
So are you saying the Canadian or UK solution for delivery of healthcare is unsustainable?

Is it about to collapse or will it collapse in a few years?
Click to expand...
Well, in the UK they do have waiting lines. And the Canadians do have access to hospitals in the USA for medical tourism.

studies/the-private-cost-of-public-queues-for-medically-necessary-care-2016-edition

fraserinstitute.org/studies/the-private-cost-of-public-queues-for-medically-necessary-care-2016-edition
 
True the UK waiting times are a problem BUT everyone has access to free medical care for as long as its needed and over 65 or with a long-term condition i.e. diabetes medication is free.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top