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

[Suudy]

Those who oppose ACA

That’s quite a stretch. But this is the usual rhetoric, and of the kind I pointed out earlier in the thread regarding granny over the cliff.

Nobody on the right, and nobody who oppose the ACA think it better that people have no insurance. And besides, the ACA still didn’t give everyone coverage! Yet the entire system was radically changed for a marginal increase in coverage?

Those of us who oppose the ACA do so because it radically changed the entire system to help the people on the margins. Rather than just provide relief for them, say such as a COBRA subsidy for those transitioning jobs or increased Medicaid funding or subsidies for only the poor, the bill went far beyond that.

If you are going to equate opposition to the ACA as a desire to have people be uninsured, I’m going to claim that people who oppose Israel want Jews to be killed. So, is it better for Jews to be dead?

 

[lmachine]

As for socialized medicine, if it’s so wonderful, why do we in healthcare see medical tourists come here for cancer (and other) treatment they can’t get, or can’t get in time, at home?

Ten times as many Americans travel to other countries for healthcare than come here.

 

[estesbob]

I support the Pope on this!

As does everyone else in this thread.

 

[openmind77]

…
Nobody on the right, and nobody who oppose the ACA think it better that people have no insurance. …

Is that why so many republican governors have refused the Mediaid expansion that would cover so many more poor people without any cost to the state?

 

[Suudy]

Is that why so many republican governors have refused the Mediaid expansion that would cover so many more poor people without any cost to the state?

First, I have no idea why you think it is the governors’ job to expand. That is a legislative function, and most of the states that have refused the expansion have done so in the state legislature. The governor cannot just sign the state up.

And it is naive to think that the federal dollars will completely cover the expansion. Look at any of the statements by the governors or state leaders about why they refuse the expansion. Some states have similar programs that do not fit well with a Medicaid expansion, and the framework necessary to shift things over was not addressed (which is the case in my state) by proposals to accept the expansion. It also ignores the string associated, such as surrendering control of state health initiatives to the federal government. Look at the Texas message to the HHS Secretary.

But if you think the reason that the expansion has been refused by some states is because they don’t want to people to have insurance, you have it completely wrong. This kind of rhetoric is push granny over the cliff type propaganda.

 

[Little_Sheep]

But who is to pay for it?

All of us.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

All of us.

How?

 

[openmind77]

…
But if you think the reason that the expansion has been refused by some states is because they don’t want to people to have insurance, you have it completely wrong…

You can rationalize your reasons for denying healthcare to millions of poor people all you want, but ultimately I am not the one who you need to convince.

I am sure the Christ when he returns, will find you reasons for letting millions go without healthcare quite acceptable. He will be returning pretty soon, so you and the rest of the those people against ACA should polish your arguments well.

 

[Suudy]

You can rationalize your reasons for denying healthcare to millions of poor people all you want, but ultimately I am not the one who you need to convince.

I haven’t denied anyone anything. Indeed, my voluntary contributions to charities demonstrate otherwise. But if you want to play that game you can rationalize your reasons for confiscating the resources of others and squandering then on bloated, inefficient programs all you want, but ultimately I am not the one who you need to convince.

I am sure the Christ when he returns, will find you reasons for letting millions go without healthcare quite acceptable. He will be returning pretty soon, so you and the rest of the those people against ACA should polish your arguments well.

7 times 70 times

 

[openmind77]

I haven’t denied anyone anything. Indeed, my voluntary contributions to charities demonstrate otherwise. …

Of course, I did not mean that you personally have denied healthcare to anyone. However, many republican state governors and/or legislatures have denied healthcare to millions of poor people who would have otherwise qualified for coverage under the ACA medicaid expansion. These governors/legislatures and their supporters will have some explaining to do to the Christ when he returns, regarding why they thought denying poor people healthcare was a good idea. I am sure they have excellent explanations which Christ will readily accept. No worries.

 

[JimG]

If healthcare is a universal right, it raises some questions. Does such a right impose an obligation on doctors and medical personnel to treat everyone with no expectation of payment? (Indeed this is the case in many ER’s today, and many docs do indeed treat persons with no expectation of payment. We have free clinics and sliding scale clinics in my own city.) But medical personnel must still make a living.

Does a universal right to healthcare imply that every doctor and hospital must accept Medicaid and Medicare patients? Some do not. But it’s not a major problem so far, since those who take such patients are paid (at reduced rates) by taxpayers anyway.

Does such a universal right imply a right to MRI’s and CT scans as often as the patient may desire, or does it imply only a minimal level of service? Does it imply a right to a cancer drug which cures 50% of patients but costs $10,000 per dose?

Did such a right exist in the 6th century as a universal right? Or is it only now a universal right?

 

[Suudy]

Of course, I did not mean that you personally have denied healthcare to anyone. However, many republican state governors and/or legislatures have denied healthcare to millions of poor people who would have otherwise qualified for coverage under the ACA medicaid expansion. These governors/legislatures and their supporters will have some explaining to do to the Christ when he returns, regarding why they thought denying poor people healthcare was a good idea. I am sure they have excellent explanations which Christ will readily accept. No worries.

Well, as a Hindu I find your concern about what Christ would think interesting. And given I oppose efforts at the federal level, I guess you think I need the same explanations for Christ?

 

[openmind77]

Well, as a Hindu I find your concern about what Christ would think interesting. And given I oppose efforts at the federal level, I guess you think I need the same explanations for Christ?

Whenever you oppose help for the poor regarding healthcare or food or housing - at whatever level this opposition - at the federal level, state level, city level or individual level, if you oppose help for the poor, you will have to answer to the Christ for this opposition when he returns.

And he will return very soon, so get your explanations ready. It does not matter what I think, it only matters what he thinks - so think up of some good excuses.

 

[Ojo_Feliz]

According to the article, it doesn’t conflict with American law or policy. Anyone is free to use an Emergency Room for health care. Basic health care needs are met for even the poorest citizen or illegal immigrant.

In the US, hospital emergency rooms are required to stabilize a person so he will not die within the next few days. This is not basic health care, but the practice of snatching life from the jaws of death.

Basic health care would ensure that a person with high blood pressure, or diabetes, or any number of long term disease processes would be treated so they did not bring a person to the point of death. In the long run, it is far less expensive to provide this service than to rely on emergency care to pull people back from the brink of death.

Pope Francis is correct. Health care, as with housing or food or safety, is a human right. How best to meet these rights, of course, is a matter of prudential judgment. However, the US system of emergency room care, by itself, falls short of the mark.

 

[JimG]

Whenever you oppose help for the poor regarding healthcare or food or housing - at whatever level this opposition - at the federal level, state level, city level or individual level, if you oppose help for the poor, you will have to answer to the Christ for this opposition when he returns.

And he will return very soon, so get your explanations ready. It does not matter what I think, it only matters what he thinks - so think up of some good excuses.

Is it well known that Christ insisted that the Roman government provide healthcare to all its citizens regardless of ability to pay? Did his followers recommend such a government wide plan for the empire?

One wonders that Jesus did not spend 100% of his time in healing all the sick of Judea and Galilee healing the sick. Yet he healed only on occasion in conjunction with his teaching.

 

[openmind77]

In the US, hospital emergency rooms are required to stabilize a person so he will not die within the next few days. This is not basic health care, but the practice of snatching life from the jaws of death.

Basic health care would ensure that a person with high blood pressure, or diabetes, or any number of long term disease processes would be treated so they did not bring a person to the point of death. In the long run, it is far less expensive to provide this service than to rely on emergency care to pull people back from the brink of death.

Pope Francis is correct. Health care, as with housing or food or safety, is a human right. How best to meet these rights, of course, is a matter of prudential judgment. However, the US system of emergency room care, by itself, falls short of the mark.

It really depends on what a country can afford to provide for its citizens. For a third world country in Africa or Asia (even a rich one like China), it is very difficult to provide comprehensive healthcare for all its citizens.

However, for the richest country on earth - the US, it is really shameful that it can not provide the level of healthcare that Canada, UK, most European countries, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan can do for their citizens. Even Brazil does a fairly good job at providing healthcare for everyone.

The US has barely started doing it with ACA, but it still does not cover everyone.

 

[Suudy]

Whenever you oppose help for the poor regarding healthcare or food or housing - at whatever level this opposition - at the federal level, state level, city level or individual level, if you oppose help for the poor, you will have to answer to the Christ for this opposition when he returns.

Sure. But I don’t think Christ is quite so naive as to think that people who try to balance the needs of the poor with the rights of individuals are acting in bad faith. It’s one thing to say there is a duty to help the poor. It is another to say that everyone has a right to the fruits of their labor. Both are taught by the Church. How do you balance the two? It’s not as simple as you seem to imply it is.

I see the balance as an individual mandate first, then a societal mandate next. And only in those cases where individuals and smaller segments of society fail should government step in. And this is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity. So, my opposition to the federal takeover of healthcare to achieve an end is really an opposition to the means, not the end. And based on your comments, it appears you are failing to separate the two.

And he will return very soon, so get your explanations ready. It does not matter what I think, it only matters what he thinks - so think up of some good excuses.

As a Hindu, what do you care what Christ thinks? And why bother to warn anyone to think up explanations?

 

[Suudy]

However, for the richest country on earth - the US, it is really shameful that it can not provide the level of healthcare that Canada, UK, most European countries, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan can do for their citizens. Even Brazil does a fairly good job at providing healthcare for everyone.

On what basis do you make this claim? The WHO report? The report that considers things like access (aka coverage) and equity (aka coverage inequality) as prime factors in determining the quality of a health care system? The report that cannot even agree on a definition of terms, such as infant mortality? The report that fails to consider differences in lifestyle and other factors when computing life expectancy?

It’s the same kind of sophomoric analysis that is done to claim there is a gender pay gap 27%. They pick categories that will have pre-determined outcomes, fail to account for differences in cultures and lifestyles, and fail to even factor in different scales of measure.

The US has barely started doing it with ACA, but it still does not cover everyone.

The ACA did zilch to address the real problem: increased costs. Indeed, it increased costs by increasing regulation and reporting requirements. And as people continue to suffer due to a lack of coverage and inability to pay, the only entity to blame is the government itself. Were the government to get out of the way, eliminate mandates, open avenues of saving and payment, and free up individual choice, one would see costs drop. Instead, President Obama and his partners in crime decided to have someone else pay the bill, rather than figure out how to reduce the bill in the first place.

 

[openmind77]

Sure. But I don’t think Christ is quite so naive as to think that people who try to balance the needs of the poor with the rights of individuals are acting in bad faith. It’s one thing to say there is a duty to help the poor. It is another to say that everyone has a right to the fruits of their labor. Both are taught by the Church. How do you balance the two? It’s not as simple as you seem to imply it is.

I see the balance as an individual mandate first, then a societal mandate next. And only in those cases where individuals and smaller segments of society fail should government step in. And this is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity. So, my opposition to the federal takeover of healthcare to achieve an end is really an opposition to the means, not the end. And based on your comments, it appears you are failing to separate the two.

Sounds like a great argument. I am sure the Christ will buy it.

Although I don’t know where exactly you read this ‘balance’ stuff in the Christ’s teachings. Any reference to this ‘balance’ you talk of in the New Testament?

However, his injunction to help the poor (or else) is pretty clear in Matthew 25:31-45. There are no caveats about ‘balance’ in these verses.

As a Hindu, what do you care what Christ thinks? And why bother to warn anyone to think up explanations?

Do I really need to justify why I care what the Christ thinks?

For more important - the reason I am warning you: it is because the time for the Return of the Jesus is very soon - a matter of a couple of years, maybe even a few months.

 

[Suudy]

Although I don’t know where exactly you read this ‘balance’ stuff in the Christ’s teachings. Any reference to this ‘balance’ you talk of in the New Testament?

However, his injunction to help the poor (or else) is pretty clear in Matthew 25:31-45. There are no caveats about ‘balance’ in these verses.

The Bible is a whole lot longer than just 14 verses in the middle of a single book. Maybe you’d like to factor in the rest of the Bible as well?

But perhaps you should read the Catechism’s explanation of the 7th commandment. In there you’ll see there is a balance that need be struck between the universal destination of goods and private ownership.

Do I really need to justify why I care what the Christ thinks?

Sure. You seem to be happy to lecture people on honing their arguments for Him. Why would a warning from a Hindu have any particular meaning to a Christian?

For more important - the reason I am warning you: it is because the time for the Return of the Jesus is very soon - a matter of a couple of years, maybe even a few months.

And as a Hindu you believe this? Why?

And if Christ is returning in just a couple of years, or even a few months, do you really think it matters that the US come up with a plan to provide universal coverage that would take at least a decade to phase into place? And is universal coverage really the primary thing people should be worrying about?

But, I suppose a Hindu prophet would be a novel approach for Christ to announce his coming.