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

[stinkcat_14]

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

Certainly socialized medicine has it’s set of problems. Our system has it’s problems as well. If I were a poor and uninsured person, would I consider Canada’s system worse than ours? I cannot say that I would. In Canada a poor person would have to wait for an MRI. In the US, the poor person would not get the MRI. So is Canada’s worse in that case?

I personally would prefer our system, but that is because I have sufficient access to insurance and I am not likely to be uninsured.

 

[Brendan]

The problem with governmental solutions is, by definition, they are NEVER universal health care.

They serve only the select in their own countries, only their citizens. And even that is iffy. My father was born in Northern Ireland. By that, I am technically a UK Subject. Somehow I doubt that I can cancel my US health insurance and have them send all the bills to NHS.

What is meant by Universal, is well… everyone.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I do regular mission work in Tanzania. I was in a village near the Rwanda border, where the only health care was the First Aid kit in Fr David’s hut.

Where I helped Fr David treat a girl with a large cut, I cleaned the wound, he ‘stitched’ it with super glue. And where a father had to carry his 5 year old son 3 miles to Fr David, so Fr David could give him some Ibuprofen for the kid’s fever.

So given the complete LACK of health care in a lot of countries, and no ability for their governments to provide it, why are any of us talking about more spending in developed countries. Even the US poor are in the global top 20% for health care access.

Does anyone on this thread really, honestly think that Pope Francis, in a talk to doctors who do volunteer work in Africa, mean for more health care spending in a Western country?

Let’s get those who really have NO access to health care, not even something as basic as a couple of Ibuprofen, so real health care. And then, and ONLY THEN, start talking about what more we can do for the Top 20%

 

[Darryl1958]

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?

Yes. I believe that the Canadian system is unsustainable, although moderately better than the ‘have your cake and eat it too’ model that Americans have adopted with Obamacare.

There was big problems when the mini-boomers of the 1920’s came into the system in large numbers ten years back, and this will soon be eclipsed by the arrival of Baby Boomers coming into the system in large numbers in the next ten years or so, but this time being supported by the wages of the baby dearth we have left in our own wake.

The system will not collapse; it will be ‘rationalized’.

Euthanasia is but one of the ways that rationalization will play out. Waiting lines, unto death, will be another. Heavy borrowing, and deferring the cost to future generations will be yet another.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

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.

If the patient lives long enough, it is great.

 

[Ender]

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I do regular mission work in Tanzania. I was in a village near the Rwanda border, where the only health care was the First Aid kit in Fr David’s hut…

So given the complete LACK of health care in a lot of countries, and no ability for their governments to provide it…

If healthcare is a universal right then it cannot be abridged merely by claiming it cannot be afforded. No one would ever suggest that the rights of life and liberty might be curtailed if a government decided it was too costly to permit their full expression. Either healthcare is not quite the universal right it is proclaimed to be or Tanzania should be excoriated for providing so little of it. The choice between these options does seem to be obvious.

Ender

 

[Darryl1958]

If the patient lives long enough, it is great.

Universal health care, with the caveat that, hopefully, you will even receive it before you die.

That is to say that there has been no delivery system worthy of Paradise yet, not even socialism.

 

[Brendan]

If healthcare is a universal right then it cannot be abridged merely by claiming it cannot be afforded. No one would ever suggest that the rights of life and liberty might be curtailed if a government decided it was too costly to permit their full expression.** Either healthcare is not quite the universal right it is proclaimed to be or Tanzania should be excoriated for providing so little of it**. The choice between these options does seem to be obvious.

Ender

That statement would only be true of one presumed that it was the government’s responsibility to provide it.

I would disagree. Like all such rights, it would be incumbent on us to assist anyone who cannot purchase food, shelter, clothing or health care. That does not mean that we have to fund filet for those who cannot afford food, or mansions for those who do not have shelter, or Guicci shoes for those without clothes. But we are called to make sure the very basics are covered, even ( and especially) for those in dire poverty.

That is what it means to be a Catholic Christian. Hence why I go over there personally.

But there are, of course, other means. Making donations to support organizations like the one the Pope was speaking to ( Doctors with Africa). Or supporting similar organizations that work in other geographies.

What is utterly astounding about this thread is the call for more health care in the Western countries. Anyone who actually supports the Pope’ call should be doing what they can to get even the most basic of health care offered in places that have nothing, instead of making MRIs cheaper for the poor in the US.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I have worked in some of these fourth world countries.

The customary health care practice is to have an airline ticket in your pocket at all times.

And if you get hurt or sick, you take a taxi to the airport and take the first plane out to Europe and then take a taxi to the hospital in Paris.

This is not sarcasm.

These are bad places.

They have diseases with no names. You just lose weight. And die.

A LOT of the people I worked with died.

It is possible that I am the sole survivor of the group I worked with.

One day, back here in the USA, I was visiting with my spiritual director and he was telling me of the letters he gets because he is involved with the propagation of the faith … and he gets depressed from the horror stories in Africa.

At a college reunion, I won the prize for the most countries visited.

[A ball point pen.]

[But, don’t believe me … join the Peace Corps and see for yourself.]

[seriously]

 

[philipl]

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?

So how do you interpret what the Pope says? He makes a statement and there are many different ways to interpret it. Many Catholics can not agree on what Francis is saying.

 

[Ender]

That statement would only be true of one presumed that it was the government’s responsibility to provide it.

I would argue that nothing is a fundamental right that depends on another entity to provide it, private or public.

Like all such rights, it would be incumbent on us to assist anyone who cannot purchase food, shelter, clothing or health care.

We are called upon to aid those less fortunate, whether it be to provide food, shelter…or heath care. If the latter is a ‘universal right’ are not the others as well? Wouldn’t this mean that all the necessities of life are therefore rights? I’m not even sure I know what that means: if we have a right to something doesn’t that justify us in demanding that it be provided? Surely we are justified in demanding the right to life and liberty…but does this also mean we justified in demanding that someone else provide us with food, shelter and clothing? Doesn’t this turn charity on its head? After all, how can your contribution be considered charitable if the recipient is justified in demanding that you provide it whether you choose to or not?

That is what it means to be a Catholic Christian. Hence why I go over there personally.

I don’t dispute what is required of us as Christians. I do dispute the idea that one person has a right to the goods produced by another.

Ender

 

[Darryl1958]

I would argue that nothing is a fundamental right that depends on another entity to provide it, private or public.

The American founders would have argued that fundamental rights do not come from government, but come from God.

 

[Ender]

The American founders would have argued that fundamental rights do not come from government, but come from God.

Exactly, which is why benefits provided by governments (such as health care) cannot be considered fundamental rights.

Ender

 

[Darryl1958]

Exactly, which is why benefits provided by governments (such as health care) cannot be considered fundamental rights.

Ender

The right to life is self-evident. It is the rhetoric that presumes the right to life flows from government that needs to be rejected. People do not have a ‘right’ to government largess and the resultant government interference.

 

[stinkcat_14]

The right to life is self-evident. It is the rhetoric that presumes the right to life flows from government that needs to be rejected. People do not have a ‘right’ to government largess and the resultant government interference.

Try explaining that to medicare recipients.

 

[Darryl1958]

Try explaining that to medicare recipients.

Once a government entitlement is put into place, people plan their futures accordingly. To renege on promises of course would rankle medicare recipients at this stage.

That is why the Tea Party movement was formed, to limit the expansion of entitlements.
But the Tea Party movement failed to gain the necessary traction whatsoever, even among Americans who purportedly believe in limited government.
The “a pox on both their houses mentality” reigned supreme the last election cycle.

Ergo Trump and Sanders.

 

[Brendan]

Exactly, which is why benefits provided by governments (such as health care) cannot be considered fundamental rights.

Ender

Once again, your statement is only true if the only practice of that right could be condutected by governments.

As Darrlyl noted, these rights come from God, and they are granted to everyone. Ergo they are rights, and they are universal.

As such we have an obligation ( dictated by God) to provide those who do not have acces to the means to maintain life, to assist them.

Thus I fully agree, this is not an obligation of governments, (and thus can have no reliance on governments) but for all of us.

We can, and should band together, to assist each other. That is why government programs fail. They deliberately exclude others for access. We, as Catholics, cannot

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Try explaining that to medicare recipients.

Medicare and Social Security are paid for by their own dedicated tax structure(s).

They are badly managed.

Very badly managed.

BUT, you can visit the County of Galveston program and see how a privately managed program competes successfully with Social Security … as an example.

ncpa.org/pub/ba514

The state of Indiana had adopted an HSA format to be their version of Medicare … actually it was the state’s medical finance program.

In addition, to bollix things up even more, there is a Federal agency that doesn’t advertise, but which really messes up the works. HCFA.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Medicare and Social Security are paid for by their own dedicated tax structure(s).

Actually, in the case of Medicare that is not true. The only part of Medicare that is paid for through the payroll tax is part A. If we got rid of parts B and D it would be a lot more sustainable. Those are heavily subsidized by general tax revenue.

They are badly managed.

Very badly managed.

Not surprising given that they are government welfare programs.

BUT, you can visit the County of Galveston program and see how a privately managed program competes successfully with Social Security … as an example.

ncpa.org/pub/ba514

The state of Indiana had adopted an HSA format to be their version of Medicare … [actually it was the state’s medical finance program.

In addition, to bollix things up even more, there is a Federal agency that doesn’t advertise, but which really messes up the works. HCFA.

Once again, Medicare and Social Security are government programs that have no justification. Old age is predictable, so people can easily plan for their own expenses in old age. Or they can work, or they can get help from their families. There is no need for Medicare at all, if people are really destitute there is always medicaid.
[/quote]

 

[ucfengr]

Once again, Medicare and Social Security are government programs that have no justification. Old age is predictable, so people can easily plan for their own expenses in old age. Or they can work, or they can get help from their families. There is no need for Medicare at all, if people are really destitute there is always medicaid.

They plan that the 12+% of their income they pay in FICA taxes will pay them a defined benefit in their old age. I’m not sure how Social Security is relevant to the discussion of health care as a “universal right” though?

 

[CatholicSheila]

So, you’re asserting we have the right to force/direct folks live at a subsistence level because they happen to provide services we categorize as a ‘universal right’?

You do realise that in many nations with ‘socialized’ health care doctors are not living at a subsistence level, right?

The average GP earns $200 - 300K in Australia. Interestingly whilst GPs have the right to charge over and above the government payment only 80% choose to do so. So that’s earned primarily on government payments only.

For comparison, the mean salary in Australia is $72 800 and the median salary is $57 400 (full time workers only). So despite having universal health care, doctors earn very good money.

The whole idea that doctors can’t afford to be doctors if there is universal health care is a straw man.