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.
stinkcat_14 said:
What is the horrendously stupid idea that you are talking about? If one is claiming that single payer is a horrendously stupid idea, that is not something that has been officially determined. Certainly, single payer has its issues and I personally don’t favor single payer, but when it comes to healthcare, there is no ideal solution. The real question is what set of problems do we want to live with. If we have our current system we have one set of problems. If we have single payer we have another set of problems. Reasonable people can differ as to which set of problems is preferable.
Click to expand...
I agree, which is why I took his hyperbolic, inaccurate question about St. Peter and added one of my own.

Reasonable people can indeed differ as to which set of problems is preferable, or which solution makes the most sense.

But then reasonable people don’t bring up St. Peter and claim those who oppose their system of choice somehow are greedy. But since I didn’t do that, you’ll have to ask Jtauke what his point was.
 
jtauke said:
False comparison, as doctors are not living in bare subsistence (unless bare subsistence is not having another 1000 sq ft in the house and the latest BMW in the driveway).

Emergency rooms in the US cannot turn away a patient for any reason, regardless of their ability to pay. Are doctors that work in the ER barely subsisting?
Click to expand...
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 get to decide/direct what the ‘reasonable’ level of compensation is for the services they provide given the hard work, risk, cost they incurred in achieving their credentials?

My daughter was highly encouraged by several doctors she knows to become one as she graduated college. She has the aptitude, the classes, the test scores, etc. Talked to several new doctors who are starting out and figured- absolutely not. The amount they are paid in no way would compensate her for the effort to get there.
 
styrgwillidar said:
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 get to decide/direct what the ‘reasonable’ level of compensation is for the services they provide given the hard work, risk, cost they incurred in achieving their credentials?

My daughter was highly encouraged by several doctors she knows to become one as she graduated college. She has the aptitude, the classes, the test scores, etc. Talked to several new doctors who are starting out and figured- absolutely not. The amount they are paid in no way would compensate her for the effort to get there.
Click to expand...
The other side of the story is that many medical practitioners have their salaries artificially inflated because of government regulation. Occupational licensing restricts entry and competition and therefore drives up physician salaries. Immigration restrictions reduce the ability of foreign physicians to come here and work for less. So I am not so sympathetic when I hear physicians whining about how bad they have it. They have it a lot better than they deserve.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
The other side of the story is that many medical practitioners have their salaries artificially inflated because of government regulation. Occupational licensing restricts entry and competition and therefore drives up physician salaries. Immigration restrictions reduce the ability of foreign physicians to come here and work for less. So I am not so sympathetic when I hear physicians whining about how bad they have it. They have it a lot better than they deserve.
Click to expand...
So, you’re in favor of stealing the best and brightest from developing nations so you can pay a little less for health care? How compassionate of you. Apparently health care is only a right in 1st world countries.
 
ucfengr said:
So, you’re in favor of stealing the best and brightest from developing nations so you can pay a little less for health care? How compassionate of you. Apparently health care is only a right in 1st world countries.
Click to expand...
Who is stealing anything? I am talking about mutually beneficial exchange. If I buy a car, I can buy one made in the US, in Japan, in South Korea, etc. The fact that I have so many choices is good for everyone. Why should physicians be any different. If they want to come here and practice and I want to hire them, why should that be a concern of yours?
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Who is stealing anything? I am talking about mutually beneficial exchange. If I buy a car, I can buy one made in the US, in Japan, in South Korea, etc. The fact that I have so many choices is good for everyone. Why should physicians be any different. If they want to come here and practice and I want to hire them, why should that be a concern of yours?
Click to expand...
It may be beneficial to you and the doctor, but it isn’t to the developing country you’re taking the doctors from. How can they exercise their “universal right to health care” when you’re poaching all their doctors, mainly so a relatively rich person, like you, can pay slightly less for health care, and also act out your envious impulses by sticking it to some people you imagine are doing better than you. Not seeing much charity here.
 
ucfengr said:
It may be beneficial to you and the doctor, but it isn’t to the developing country you’re taking the doctors from. How can they exercise their “universal right to health care” when you’re poaching all their doctors, mainly so a relatively rich person, like you, can pay slightly less for health care, and also act out your envious impulses by sticking it to some people you imagine are doing better than you. Not seeing much charity here.
Click to expand...
You’re right. We should force those doctors to stay where they are. If they try to leave their home country we could whip them or send trained “doctor catchers” after them. After multiple escape attempts we might have to move to more forceful measures like cutting off a foot, as a warning to other doctors to not leave their plantations, I mean, home county and clinic.
 
ucfengr said:
It may be beneficial to you and the doctor, but it isn’t to the developing country you’re taking the doctors from. How can they exercise their “universal right to health care” when you’re poaching all their doctors,
Click to expand...
In other words, we should ban all migration? Or should we impose a ban on high skilled people leaving their country of origin?
mainly so a relatively rich person, like you, can pay slightly less for health care, and also act out your envious impulses by sticking it to some people you imagine are doing better than you. Not seeing much charity here.
Click to expand...
I think you are the one who should be practicing charity. You are making blatantly unfounded assumptions:
  1. You assume my motive is that I want to pay less for healthcare. One of the earliest critics of occupational licensing was Milton Friedman. Was his motive that he wanted to pay less for healthcare?
  2. You assume that my motive is envy. Was Milton Friedman’s motive envy?
  3. You assume that they are doing better than I am. Where is your evidence of that?
What you fail to understand, is that some of us believe in true freedom and that less government can result in more freedom.
 
ARSpade said:
You’re right. We should force those doctors to stay where they are. If they try to leave their home country we could whip them or send trained “doctor catchers” after them. After multiple escape attempts we might have to move to more forceful measures like cutting off a foot, as a warning to other doctors to not leave their plantations, I mean, home county and clinic.
Click to expand...
I’m not the one arguing that “health care is a universal right”. I’m merely pointing out the implications of such an assertion. If health care is a universal right, it can’t be just for rich countries, it has to apply to poor ones too.
 
ucfengr said:
I’m not the one arguing that “health care is a universal right”. I’m merely pointing out the implications of such an assertion. If health care is a universal right, it can’t be just for rich countries, it has to apply to poor ones too.
Click to expand...
You are the one asserting that anyone who argues against government interference in markets is doing so out of envy. You have yet to justify that assertion.
 
ucfengr said:
I’m not the one arguing that “health care is a universal right”. I’m merely pointing out the implications of such an assertion. If health care is a universal right, it can’t be just for rich countries, it has to apply to poor ones too.
Click to expand...
Is your argument that such things as assertions that “healthcare is a universal right” a bit like a pie in the sky pipe dream?

Who isn’t for healthy happy people anywhere and everywhere you like, well fed and well housed and well clothed, and with top of the line health care options to chose from?

Who also isn’t for individual freedom of movement, and people moving anywhere that please them?

The problem is not with people’s hearts and the near universal desire for paradise for everybody.
The devil is in the details, and the means and conflicts that arise in developing delivery systems in order to do these kinds of things.

It would be great to mass produce the Jesus garment that whosoever touches its hems is healed from all infirmity, or the Jesus touch which multiplies bread and loaves for all.

And it is great that love motivates popes and really much of the world to desire such outcomes.

There is one interpretation of the sin of Moses striking the rock not really being a sin at all, but the reason that Moses was not allowed to enter the Promised Land was because a leader who could draw forth sustenance for the people on faith alone was not the kind of leader suitable for leading the people into the land of ordinary time, where water had to be fetched from the well, and food brought forth through plow and sickle.

We no longer live in the time where universal health care is provided by miracle either. In the world of the ordinary, I agree that providing health care universally in such a way that those universal benefits are limited to an aspirin is wrought with difficulties and competing concerns.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
You are the one asserting that anyone who argues against government interference in markets is doing so out of envy. You have yet to justify that assertion.
Click to expand...
Not really. I see now that you’re making libertarian arguments against occupational licensing and for unrestricted immigration. What I don’t see is how that’s relevant to the proposal that “health care is a universal right”. I’m somewhat sympathetic to the notion that licensing professions has gotten crazy, but I’m less so to the notion that because it’s silly to require a license to paint nails or braid hair, it’s also silly to require one to perform surgery.
 
ucfengr said:
I’m not the one arguing that “health care is a universal right”. I’m merely pointing out the implications of such an assertion. If health care is a universal right, it can’t be just for rich countries, it has to apply to poor ones too.
Click to expand...
In addition, it is essential to describe the mechanism by which that health care will be provided.

For example, freedom of speech is easy.

But health care requires complex social structures along with huge educational facilities and very large physical plants [modern hospitals].
 
Suudy said:
What kind of government do you think Christ will create when he returns? What will 75% of Americans think of a religious leader? What would some Catholics think of a religious leader?

If a religious person believes the tenets of their faith, and believes they are consistent with God’s will, then why wouldn’t they want those tenets to be embodied in all facets of life, including the government? Our goal should always be to conform our lives–all aspects of our lives–with the truth. And if one believes that Christ is the “way the truth and the life,” then the goal should be to conform our lives to Christ.

Frankly, I think people who out one side of their mouths say they are devout Christians and out the other side of their mouth say that they don’t want others to be Christians are being disingenuous either about their faith, their evangelization, or both. One is either all in for Christ, or not in at all.
Click to expand...
When christ returns I wont be worried about what government he creates. But christ returning is a far cry than a state religion.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
In addition, it is essential to describe the mechanism by which that health care will be provided.
Click to expand...
What bothers me about this latest use of “universal right to healthcare” is that it is a rallying cry for single-payer. In terms of ranking, it seems to me that healthcare comes after food, shelter, and clothing. Yet nobody seems to be clamoring for single-payer food, clothing, or shelter. Why not?
 
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.

If you want to debate what is taking place in Africa, feel free. However, in the civilized world there is universal access to basic health care needs.
 
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.

If you want to debate what is taking place in Africa, feel free. However, in the civilized world there is universal access to basic health care needs.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top