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

[Monte_RCMS]

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.

Government is not needed for this.

Individuals can do this.

AND … individuals do this ALL THE TIME!

Especially in the United States.

We volunteer

And we start by helping out.

And then going to medical school.

And then doing healing … for free.

 

[Brendan]

However, the US system of emergency room care, by itself, falls short of the mark.

In a world where even the very basics of medical care are lacking, I would disagree. I have been to Africa, I have been in villages where the ONLY medical care is the first aid kit in the parish priest’s hut.

In the US, Health care exists, and even the poor have access to X-ray systems, labs and advanced medical equipment. That alone puts them, if not as medical ‘1%’'ers, but easily within the global Top-10 for medical care.

It is no accident that the Pope was making this statement to a group named “Doctors with Africa” It was not a call for us to give more in the western countries, it was a call to give even the basics of heath care to those who have NONE.

And this is the big problem with government health care. People look to the their own government, how can the government make it cheaper for ME!!

When then happens is a blinder gets put on, and those who do not even have functioning governments, or governments that barely have resources to provide police and educational system, and then expect them to offer medical care too.

The focus becomes, how to make life better for MY COUNTRY, for those who have the same color passport as me, and not a thought towards anybody else.

Sorry, if anyone here live in the developed world, is advocating more money so their own health care system gets better, or that of another developed country, they are TOTALLY missing the point of the Pope’s speech.

That money needs to be given to the Church, and go to the developing world.

If you apply most of this thread to the concept of food, it has been one huge complaint that the poor in the US have to eat sirloin at $4.99 a pound instead of filet for free, when I could point you towards millions in the world that have an empty rice bowl.

I’ve been there, I’ve seen it and Pope Francis was talking to the folks who are working on giving out the ‘rice’.

 

[Brendan]

FYI, Here is the group that the Pope was addressing

mediciconlafrica.org/en/

You can see the great work they are doing, and the otherwise complete lack of health care that exists in some of these countries

They work in the same general area of Tanzania that I do.

 

[Crossbones]

Do they have to be European or Canadian to have an valid opinion on the matter?

Archbishop Chaput in this interview:
The U.S. bishops have spoken in favor of a universal right to health care.
The bishops really do believe it. Health is a basic human right; we have a right to be healthy. There’s no declaration on the part of the Church that that has to be accomplished through government intervention.
There are many ways of approaching health care, and I think it’s very important for Catholics to understand the fact that the Church, seeing health care as a basic human right, does not mean [to say] there’s a particular method of obtaining that [right that’s] better than another.
Which agrees with your point, but contrary to gnjsdad that seems to say that universal healthcare is a moral imperative.

But then there is Archbishop Naumann and Bishop Finn (here):
This notion that health care ought to be determined at the lowest level rather than at the higher strata of society, has been promoted by the Church as “subsidiarity.” Subsidiarity is that principle by which we respect the inherent dignity and freedom of the individual by never doing for others what they can do for themselves and thus enabling individuals to have the most possible discretion in the affairs of their lives. (See: Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, ## 185ff.; Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 1883) The writings of recent Popes have warned that the neglect of subsidiarity can lead to an excessive centralization of human services, which in turn leads to excessive costs, and loss of personal responsibility and quality of care.
Read the entire letter. It’s pretty convincing that universal healthcare is contrary to subsidiarity.

And finally Papa Benedict (here):
The state which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person – every person – needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a state which regulates and controls everything, but a state which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need.
I don’t see how universal healthcare can accomplish both ends: a right to healthcare and the principle of subsidiarity. The mere term “universal” undermines subsidiarity.

After reading through these, it seems that we agree that Archbishop Chaput is neither endorsing or condemning a system like single payer. Pope Benedict is reiterating the principle of subsidiarity which then Bishop Finn and Naumann apply to medical care.

For the writing of Bishops Finn and Naumann, I struggled with what I perceived to be an inconsistency. They feel that Medicare is a strength of the United States system, yet are concerned with centralization. Medicare is just socialized medicine for those older than 65, people that make up 15% of the population and consume 36% of the healthcare resources. I don’t understand why more than a third of the healthcare expenses being under socialized medicine is alright, but if that is expanded, that is a problem.

 

[openmind77]

Government is not needed for this. Individuals can do this…

If individuals can do it then that is great. But it does not seem to have worked that well over the last 60 years in the US. There are still at least 30 million people uninsured in the country (the number was even higher before the ACA). The question is not how you do it, it is the results that count.

 

[ringil]

And no doubt the liberal media will cackle with glee at Papa Francis’ remarks .

We “cackle”? I might giggle, chortle, titter, or guffaw. I really don’t cackle though.

 

[Suudy]

For the writing of Bishops Finn and Naumann, I struggled with what I perceived to be an inconsistency. They feel that Medicare is a strength of the United States system, yet are concerned with centralization. Medicare is just socialized medicine for those older than 65, people that make up 15% of the population and consume 36% of the healthcare resources. I don’t understand why more than a third of the healthcare expenses being under socialized medicine is alright, but if that is expanded, that is a problem.

It’s not alright. I don’t think Medicare is efficient. The fact that it has been around for 50 years and that it is a political third rail is the only reason it won’t be fixed. The very things that Centisimus Annus warns about regarding the welfare state are coming to pass in Medicare. And they would be exacerbated by increasing the sphere of federal control over healthcare.

 

[Suudy]

We “cackle”? I might giggle, chortle, titter, or guffaw. I really don’t cackle though.

Well, I suppose that depends if one rids a broomstick or not. You must be the acrophobic type of liberal.

 

[Suudy]

If individuals can do it then that is great. But it does not seem to have worked that well over the last 60 years in the US. There are still at least 30 million people uninsured in the country (the number was even higher before the ACA). The question is not how you do it, it is the results that count.

The issue isn’t whether individuals and charities can get it done. The issue is whether the government will get out of the way and let them get it done. You speak of the last 60 years. When has the government been the most active in the regulation and control of healthcare? The last 60 years. And the biggest problem is cost.

And it is no coincidence that the rapid rise in healthcare costs parallels the rapid rise in government regulation, oversight, and meddling in healthcare.

 

[philipl]

In this, the Pope is reiterating Catholic teaching, as explicated in various Papal encyclicals (see, for instance, Laborem Exercens).

As such, Catholics are morally bound to accept this. This is not a matter of prudential judgment.

Just like Private property right are a “universal right” doesnt mean that I can be required to pay for another health care. I have no problem with health care being universal, I have a HUGE problem that its governments job to provide it.

 

[philipl]

justify whatever means are necessary

The confiscation of private property?

The removal of a free press?

The ending of a life that only has a few days left to justify cost saving?

A benevolent Dictatorship?

Is this what is “whatever means are necessary”?

 

[openmind77]

The issue isn’t whether individuals and charities can get it done. The issue is whether the government will get out of the way and let them get it done. You speak of the last 60 years. When has the government been the most active in the regulation and control of healthcare? The last 60 years. And the biggest problem is cost.

And it is no coincidence that the rapid rise in healthcare costs parallels the rapid rise in government regulation, oversight, and meddling in healthcare.

You make some great arguments. I especially liked the one earlier about the WHO report being bogus. It is definitely the government’s fault that there over 30 million people uninsured in the US. The fact that everyone is covered by their governments in the rest of the developed world is just a coincidence. Just get the government out of the way in the US, and all Americans will magically be covered.

I am sure when the Christ returns he will agree with your excellent analysis - no worries at all.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

If individuals can do it then that is great. But it does not seem to have worked that well over the last 60 years in the US. There are still at least 30 million people uninsured in the country (the number was even higher before the ACA). The question is not how you do it, it is the results that count.

Actually, in real life, healthcare and medical insurance are two totally different things.

One is getting to see a medical professional.

The other is figuring out payment.

Two totally different things.

Important not to get them mixed.

 

[openmind77]

Actually, in real life, healthcare and medical insurance are two totally different things.

One is getting to see a medical professional.

The other is figuring out payment.

Two totally different things.

Important not to get them mixed.

So true! In the US, they never ask to see your insurance coverage before treating you. You can always figure out the payment later. Two totally different things.

 

[Suudy]

You make some great arguments. I especially liked the one earlier about the WHO report being bogus. It is definitely the government’s fault that there over 30 million people uninsured in the US.

I’m glad you agree. Yet somehow I don’t think you are being serious. If you think the WHO report is meaningful, explain how their terms and definitions have any relevance, especially with regard to access and equity.

The fact that everyone is covered by their governments in the rest of the developed world is just a coincidence. Just get the government out of the way in the US, and all Americans will magically be covered.

You keep using the word “covered”. As Monte pointed out, what does this have to do with healthcare other than payment? The issue isn’t healthcare, the issue is paying for it. And government is the #1 reason costs have gone up, making it harder to pay for it.

Now, what makes it so hard to pay? That it is so expensive. For some reason, people seem to think that having someone else pay for it is the best way to handle costs. How about actually reducing costs?

And I’ve got the perfect fix. We can get 100% coverage by having the government offer a $1 policy to everyone. Only costs a bit of $350 million a year. That’s universal coverage. And it’s equitable. Everyone would have the exact same coverage. By the WHO’s reports standards, we’d have excellent access (everyone would have coverage) and excellent equity (everyone gets the exact same coverage). But I suspect that’s not good enough for those in favor of universal health care.

If instead government were to work in the margins, helping fill that gap between what individuals and private organizations do not manage to do, there would be 100% coverage. But government has to first work to reduce costs so that individuals and private organizations can afford to get the work done. Coverage mandates, banning or severely limiting HSAs and high deductible plans, reporting requirements, etc drive up costs–and every single one of these are government burdens. As the cost drops, more people can afford the coverage. As the mandated regulations are reduced, private organizations can afford to take on a greater share of the burden. And the margins get smaller, and the government spends less helping.

I am sure when the Christ returns he will agree with your excellent analysis - no worries at all.

You know, your lame attempts at guilt tripping are getting old. Drop the shtick. Its condescending and tiresome. And if you are Hindu as your religion tagline claims, you shouldn’t even give two shits about what Christ thinks.

 

[gnjsdad]

Just like Private property right are a “universal right” doesnt mean that I can be required to pay for another health care.

Private property rights are not absolute, according to Church teaching.

philipl:

I have no problem with health care being universal, I have a HUGE problem that its governments job to provide it.

I think to properly understand under what circumstances the government is required to act, it is necessary to go back to the proper Catholic understanding of the relationship between Church and State. Traditional Church teaching is that there are two distinct areas of authority, that of the spiritual and that of the temporal. Both exercise authority in their separate spheres because both get their legitimate authority from Christ. Church fathers liken this to the relationship between the body and the soul. The Church is to the soul what the state is to the body.

Now, the state has responsibility above all to the common good (as properly understood through the lens of Church teaching). The common good (again, properly understood) supercedes even private property rights. Since access to healthcare is a universal right, it is the state’s obligation under the common good to see to it that all under its authority have proper healthcare. This does not mean that the state MUST administer it, it just means that the state has the moral obligation to see that its citizens get the proper care, ideally through subsidiary organizations. This is the proper locus of the principle of subsidiarity.

Obviously, this is a very basic sketch and my comments should not be taken as a moral endorsement of one or another particular government program.

I have seen that many Catholics do not even have the most rudimentary understanding of Church teaching on Church and State and unfortunately view this through a distorted lens of Americanism, which takes individual rights to the extreme and does not recognize the institutional rights of the Catholic Church vis a vis the State.

The Kingship of Christ is a matter of defined Church doctrine, and the Kingship of Christ is not recognized under the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Suudy]

Now, the state has responsibility above all to the common good (as properly understood through the lens of Church teaching). The common good (again, properly understood) supercedes even private property rights. Since access to healthcare is a universal right, it is the state’s obligation under the common good to see to it that all under its authority have proper healthcare. This does not mean that the state MUST administer it, it just means that the state has the moral obligation to see that its citizens get the proper care, ideally through subsidiary organizations. This is the proper locus of the principle of subsidiarity.

So, how does universal health care fit into this?

No poster on this thread has denied that access to healthcare is a right. People have denied that the right to access compels another to act. And there is a difference. Of course current political systems use an intermediary–currency through taxation–to bridge that gap. But also, nobody here has denied that the state has a right to impose taxes to meet the needs on the margin. But as you point out, the state has moral obligation to see that people get proper care. And as you note, through subsidiary organizations.

But universal healthcare is completely contrary to this notion. When the government provides a substitute function, it must do so as briefly as possible (see Centisimus Annus). A universal healthcare system is a program that permanently usurps the proper role of societies of a lower order. I see no way to reconcile universal healthcare and subsidiarity. I see nobody in favor of universal healthcare even suggesting that it be a temporary program to fill the gaps. And regardless, it would have been far more effective, inexpensive, and appropriate for the government to work in the margins. Instead, we have this continual push for a complete takeover at the federal level of what is rightly the role of individuals and local organizations.

The Kingship of Christ is a matter of defined Church doctrine, and the Kingship of Christ is not recognized under the Constitution of the United States.

I’m not sure what this has to do with anything posted.

 

[gnjsdad]

So, how does universal health care fit into this?

But universal healthcare is completely contrary to this notion. When the government provides a substitute function, it must do so as briefly as possible (see Centisimus Annus). A universal healthcare system is a program that permanently usurps the proper role of societies of a lower order. I see no way to reconcile universal healthcare and subsidiarity. I see nobody in favor of universal healthcare even suggesting that it be a temporary program to fill the gaps. And regardless, it would have been far more effective, inexpensive, and appropriate for the government to work in the margins. Instead, we have this continual push for a complete takeover at the federal level of what is rightly the role of individuals and local organizations.

Under the American system, with its emphasis on individual rights vs the government (with no recognition of rights and duties owed by government to the Church), there is no way to reconcile universal healthcare with subsidiarity. There is no hope of a true implementation of the common good or of subsidiarity in America today

Hence…

Suudy:

I’m not sure what this has to do with anything posted.

my comment on the Kingship of Christ. That is a doctrine that is barely mentioned anymore. It applies not only to individuals but to society. Society has a moral obligation to recognize God and the primacy of His Church. Barring that, any system falls short of the ideal.

 

[SWolf]

Just like Private property right are a “universal right” doesnt mean that I can be required to pay for another health care. I have no problem with health care being universal, I have a HUGE problem that its governments job to provide it.

Precisely. This points to the differentiation between a positive and negative right. Governments can do a much better job protecting negative rights than positive rights. Positive rights, like health care, are better done through charity.

 

[SWolf]

my comment on the Kingship of Christ. That is a doctrine that is barely mentioned anymore. It applies not only to individuals but to society. Society has a moral obligation to recognize God and the primacy of His Church. Barring that, any system falls short of the ideal.

Does this mean you support, in principle, having Catholicism as the State religion?