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

[LeafByNiggle]

The unborn have a right to life independent of the rights and obligations of their mothers. It is certainly true that the mother has the obligation to care for her unborn child, but the child’s right is not based on the mother’s obligation. It is completely different than believing the right of the poor comes from the obligation of the rich.

Ender

Given that the right of the poor comes from God and not from the obligation of the rich, how does that impact how a right is properly realized? Certainly it does not mean that only God can realize the right for the poor. Instead of saying the right of the poor comes from the obligation of the rich, shouldn’t we say the obligation of the rich comes from the right of the poor?

 

[Ender]

I traced this chain of responses back to post 211, and I think I found the source of the confusion. In that post, Darryl said
*The American founders would have argued that fundamental rights do not come from government, but come from God.
*

Part of the disagreement could very well be over the meaning of the phrase “universal right”, but I think in the context in which the pope used it, it does in fact mean our God given rights, and not our government’s obligations.

However this speaks only about what is and what is not a fundamental right. It says nothing about the proper way in which a right is ensured. In particular, it does not imply that government should not be an instrument of the providing of those rights.

Well, this begins to get slippery by blurring the distinction between fundamental rights, about which there should be little disagreement, and the means of “ensuring” them, about which there will be little but disagreement.

Let’s take another right - the one that gets talked about in these parts more than any other - the right to life. It too is a fundamental right given by God. However government can and should play a role in providing that right by forcing people, through legal means, not to have an abortion.

Again, this reverses the nature of what’s involved. A fundamental right like the right to life exists, it is not provided by the government; the government can only see that it is not taken away. In the case of health care, that “right” does not exist independent of other entities that can provide it. The right to life exists and can only be abridged; the “right” to health care does not exist and therefore must be provided.

I don’t think you want to say that bearing a child to full term should be a charitable choice on the part of the mother. So why would you say that the only proper way to administer the fundamental right to health care is to rely on the charitable choice of those who choose to provide it?

The right of the unborn exists independently of the rights of the mother. The “right” to health care does not exist independently of the ability of someone else to provide it. These are fundamentally different concepts.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The analogy was not meant to show that healthcare is a universal right. Pope Francis already made that point much more eloquently than I could. And Ender (whom I was responding to) accepted that it was a right.

I’m disappointed that I have been so obscure: in fact I reject the pope’s assertion that healthcare is a universal right. That is the point my comments have been trying to demonstrate.

Ender

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Instead of saying the right of the poor comes from the obligation of the rich, shouldn’t we say the obligation of the rich comes from the right of the poor?

Yes, or as Pope Benedict XVI I think said, “We cannot give to the poor out of charity what is due to them in justice”.

 

[Ender]

Given that the right of the poor comes from God and not from the obligation of the rich, how does that impact how a right is properly realized?

If healthcare is a fundamental, God given right, who is abridging that right for those who lack access to it? In Brendan’s example, healthcare consists of band-aids and aspirin, so who is it that has violated the fundamental rights of the Tanzanians living in such conditions? Their government? The doctor who provides such poor relief? Brendan? Me?

I think the argument can be made that an infant has the right to be cared for, and this right does stem from (and results in) an obligation of the mother or surrogate to provide it. This would be an example of a right resulting in an obligation on someone else, but I also think this is a rather special case.

Did the injured traveler have a right to receive help from the Samaritan? Did the priest and the Levite abridge his right, or merely fail to meet their own obligation? Should the traveler feel any gratitude to the Samaritan if all he did was provide something to which the traveler had a fundamental right anyway?

Ender

 

[August_Carlson]

Perhaps we should examine the word “healthcare” itself before we determine whether it’s a universal right.

“Health” is a condition that is sought after, hoped for, but not guaranteed in this life. It is not a universal right.

“Care” comes from the Latin “cartitas.” It can be translated (in English) as “charity.”

There is an expectation in our hearts that charity will be offered when a critical need is expressed or can be observed. Is it the government’s responsibility to provide charity?. Is it competent to do so? (These are two very different questions, but the answers to both must be carefully explored and articulated).

I think Pope Benedict is on to something when he writes: “We cannot give to the poor out of charity what is due to them in justice.” I suspect that justice **is **a universal right that can properly be placed under the purview of government. In a democracy, such as the United States, justice must be administered by the people and their representatives who agree upon the laws found in our constitution. As such, healthcare, while not necessarily a universal right, can be administered upon the agreement of the people.

 

[ucfengr]

I’m not sure I understand the focus on healthcare as a universal right. Clean water, food, and shelter would seem to rank higher on the hierarchy of what is needed for survival. Why is there less focus on those things? There are people living in truly dire circumstances and we spend time arguing over whether or not 1st world governments should provide relatively rich people free annual check ups.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I’m disappointed that I have been so obscure: in fact I reject the pope’s assertion that healthcare is a universal right. That is the point my comments have been trying to demonstrate.

Ender

Well, if he could not convince you, I won’t presume to be able to do it.

 

[Darryl1958]

Even popes need to define their terms and make their arguments.
Given the context of his talk, the terms and arguments he make are laudatory of the efforts that people with good hearts are making to give people with no access to doctors and health care based in science some rudimentary forms of care.

 

[Ender]

Well, if he could not convince you, I won’t presume to be able to do it.

Assertions are not arguments; there is no convincing involved. So far the arguments presented in support of the assertion are unpersuasive.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I think Pope Benedict is on to something when he writes: “We cannot give to the poor out of charity what is due to them in justice.”

There may be a truth here but it is infelicitously phrased. It is not inherently unjust for one person to be wealthy and another to be poor, and it diminishes the virtue of a kind act to call it just rather than charitable. After all, rendering justice is doing nothing more than what is due, while charity goes beyond what is owed.

This idea is expressed in the catechism this way:2446 "The demands of justice must be satisfied first of all; that which is already due in justice is not to be offered as a gift of charity".
The two are similar, but there is a significant difference. Pope Francis’ citation suggests that charity is an obligation of justice; the catechism simply asserts that it is not charity to give someone that which he justly merits. It does not suggest that what is given in charity is what is owed by justice.

I suspect that justice **is **a universal right that can properly be placed under the purview of government. In a democracy, such as the United States, justice must be administered by the people and their representatives who agree upon the laws found in our constitution. As such, healthcare, while not necessarily a universal right, can be administered upon the agreement of the people.

Justice is a universal right, and while there are hard cases where the just solution is difficult to determine, in general there is a common understanding of what it means. This is decidedly not true of healthcare. It really does stretch the meaning of something to call it a universal right while at the same time being unable to define what it is.

Ender

 

[Suudy]

It is easy to speculate now on what would have happened without a government mandate. But it is still just speculation.

The direction was clearly toward integration. A backlash from the government (e.g. state governments) led to an opposite backlash by the federal government. The government, both state and federal, made things worse.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The direction was clearly toward integration. A backlash from the government (e.g. state governments) led to an opposite backlash by the federal government. The government, both state and federal, made things worse.

Still speculation. And I don’t think the “trend” you speak of is even factually correct.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

The direction was clearly toward integration. A backlash from the government (e.g. state governments) led to an opposite backlash by the federal government. The government, both state and federal, made things worse.

The state governments were just a mirror of the culture which was a very long way from freely accepting integration. To insure the rights of negros to be served in some eating establishments, as well as to be taught in some schools the Feds had to take action. People were being killed!

 

[Ender]

The direction was clearly toward integration. A backlash from the government (e.g. state governments) led to an opposite backlash by the federal government. The government, both state and federal, made things worse.

Right after the Civil War blacks and whites competed at the same jobs. In Georgia the state government passed a law that whites had to use white tradesmen. It seems that too many whites were using black blacksmiths. People might be prejudiced, but most of them aren’t going to act on their prejudices against their own interests. Only governments can get people to do that.

Ender

 

[Suudy]

Still speculation. And I don’t think the “trend” you speak of is even factually correct.

Then why were Jim Crow laws even necessary? If all the businesses were already on board with racism, why was Jim Crow necessary to enforce it?

Listen to Sowell and Williams–both very cognizant and subject to those systems–and tell me how they could be so wrong.

 

[Suudy]

The state governments were just a mirror of the culture which was a very long way from freely accepting integration. To insure the rights of negros to be served in some eating establishments, as well as to be taught in some schools the Feds had to take action. People were being killed!

If that were true, why was is necessary to codify it? Clearly some people and institutions were not toeing the cultural line. It may have been far from fully integrated and I agree it was. But instead of a peaceful progression, it became coerced integration, which gave birth to a host of other racial issues. The governments made things worse; first the states then the federal government.

 

[Suudy]

Right after the Civil War blacks and whites competed at the same jobs. In Georgia the state government passed a law that whites had to use white tradesmen. It seems that too many whites were using black blacksmiths. People might be prejudiced, but most of them aren’t going to act on their prejudices against their own interests. Only governments can get people to do that.

Ender

Indeed. And that racist intent is still active in one of the unions’ favorite piece of legislation: Davis-Bacon.

fee.org/articles/davis-bacon-jim-crows-last-stand/

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Then why were Jim Crow laws even necessary? If all the businesses were already on board with racism, why was Jim Crow necessary to enforce it?

There are many possible reasons besides an evil government coercing the people into being racists. For example,

The businesses that did not want to have anything to do with blacks may have wanted to eliminate competition from those businesses that did freely associate.

Those same businesses may have wanted “moral cover” for their position, so they could say “it’s the law. There’s nothing I can do about it.”

It may have been an initiative from the citizens (voters!) wanting to keep their stores “clean” so they didn’t have to suffer the “indignity” of mixing with “those people”.

In any case, any argument that starts with “why else would…” is based on the omniscience of the people it convinces. It is an extremely weak argument to rely on. Even if I could not imagine any other reason, that does not mean another reason does not exist, and I just may be to limited to think of it. Many atheists use that same argument: “If there is a god, why would he…”

 

[Alex_H]

I agree with the Pope.