C
Caesar517
Guest
No, those are fundamental human needs (if you replace housing with shelter). Other fundamental human needs include God, love, social relationship…
Agreed here.
- Status
G
goofyjim
Guest
You know we can clash over all this all we want. It’s about time to close this thread realizing that noone is going to change their opinion. And I respect yours as I hope you respect mine. If not sorry. I ain’t changing.
G
goofyjim
Guest
Then please list the basic human rights. You have never done so and I am getting the impression that you don’t feel there are any even though you talk about them so much.
C
Caesar517
Guest
I certainly respect your opinion, but I think it is pointlss to enter a debate with the “I’m right and I won’t change my mind for anything” mentality. It defeats the entire purpose of seeking truth via debate.
You haven’t ansewred this question, though: If I have a right to something, yet I done actually have it, doesn’t that mean someone has violated my rights? Rights do not become violated of their own accord and a person certainly can’t violate their own rights.
P
pathia
Guest
I’m pretty sure my right to pursue happyness is pretty much completely nullified by my inability to afford my own healthcare costs. I’ve almost died three times in my life because of this now and it is going to kill me, it’s inevitable. Next time they won’t find an antibiotic that works, or I’ll just suffer a stroke or something. I’m only 28 and I am dying from lack of care.
C
Caesar517
Guest
These are the most fundamental ones which come to mind: Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
We have a right to life. No one but God may deprive us of that. A person can forfeit their right to life if they decide to remove someone else’s right to life (self defense).
We have a right to liberty. Every human is priceless and we must be free from slavery and tyrannical government oppression.
We have a right to the pursuit of happiness. Every human must be free to form his own beliefs and hold his own values.
C
Caesar517
Guest
You have a God-given right to pursue happiness, not a right to have happiness. If you are not happy with your life, then I suggest deep prayer. We are all here for a reason, the challenge is figuring out what that is.
P
pathia
Guest
You are talking to someone who has attempted suicide half a dozen times. Thankfully I’m pretty bad at it.
I have prayed, fasted, hallucinated, subjected myself to the point of exposure, done drugs illegal and legal, communed with nature in simple meditation. Everything under the sun, from the simple to the complex.
I have never felt anything, or any purpose, I have never felt God, or Jesus, or anything at all. It is all a void of nothingness. This includes church itself, I am only a part of it out a force of habit.
When I am institutionalized, which has happened several times. I get plenty of care, until they realize I’m just depressed, and then let me go as I am not going to harm anyone.
My life is also in jeopardy from the lack of preventive care. All of my major hospitalizations wouldn’t have happened if I had a regular doctor. The ER is my only doctor.
R
ribozyme
Guest
So do you think prayer will expunge her medical debt? Well, charity didn’t.
C
Caesar517
Guest
Wow, I wasn’t aware of your situation. You will be in my prayers, friend. I will pray that you will find your purpose.
C
Caesar517
Guest
I believe prayer will help a person find their purpose, not magically come up with large amounts of money.
R
ribozyme
Guest
Define “tyrannical government oppression”! Do you think Denmark and Norway are examples of “tyrannical government oppression?”
C
Caesar517
Guest
I was thinking of more extreme examples like the Israelite slaves in Egypt or maybe communist countries. Places where people are not free. There certainly are varying degrees of oppression, however.
S
SFTor
Guest
This is simply ignorant. The FDIC was created after the Great Depression, when we had banks overrun with depositors who wanted their money out yesterday. The FDIC provides stability in our financial system.
Health care fits in the same category. It is a factor to promote stability and productivity in our society. If we allow our health care system to continue to deteriorate, we will pay for it through higher social costs, higher health care costs, lost productivity, and lost ability to compete with other economies.
Caesar: The Census Bureau numbers specifically say “Americans”. Are illegal immigrants Americans?
S
SFTor
Guest
This debate can only progress if we recognize that we cannot run a society on dogma and principles alone. Look at what happens with every authoritarian state that tries.
The United States is facing a problem: far too many people do not have access to health care. This is a very expensive proposition—ask any economist. So far our system is costing us about twice the per capita annual cost of comparable nations.
If we let it continue, there will be plenty of other costs to pay.
The United States is facing a problem: far too many people do not have access to health care. This is a very expensive proposition—ask any economist. So far our system is costing us about twice the per capita annual cost of comparable nations.
If we let it continue, there will be plenty of other costs to pay.
C
Caesar517
Guest
Government interference in the economy has never been good in the long run. What it does provide is a quick fix that looks good right away, but has long-term consequences that harm the economy.
I know very well what UHC is supposed to do. I firmly believe that it will not accomplish it’s goal. I believe the solution to fixing health care is for the governent to get out of it, quite frankly.
What does this have to do with anything? Did I cite any Census Bureau numbers?
S
SFTor
Guest
No, I did. The numbers specified 47 million Americans. You subtracted illegal aliens. Where did that come from?
Caesar, UHC is doing the job better and cheaper than private health care in the industrialized world, except for the U.S. Why do you firmly believe it will not accomplish its goals? Are we Americans so inept?
C
Caesar517
Guest
Hmm… I think you are reffering to Oscar’s post.
Please provide your figures and sources, so we can shoot them down… again. http://www.council-of-elrond.com/forums/images/smilies/bored.gif
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
I cited those numbers, and included my source in my post. You need to catch up on reading posts.
Ugh, are we really back to this again? You really need to go back and read old posts- this thread is over 1000 posts long, and this issue has been covered repeatedly.
The “quality of care” issue has already been debunked- I even posted an article that specifically compares quality of care between Canada and the US, and concludes that the two systems are essentially comparable in all areas except for the frequency and quality of preventative care, where the US leads Canada.
As far as the “cheaper/more efficient” myth, here’s a brief summary of old posts on that topic-
In large part, the disparate costs between our system and UHC systems happens because when they calculate the healthcare costs in UHC countries, they only count the costs that those governments pay. **But when they count the cost of healthcare in the US, they include the costs of everything that the government pays, that private insurers pay, and that private individuals pay. **The end result of this is that every medical cost is counted in the US numbers, including elective surgeries, cosmetic surgeries, people paying out of pocket for name brand meds instead of generics, etc-whereas in UHC countries, these costs are not included in the cost of UHC, and so they are not reported as part of the healthcare costs of those countries.
Additionally, as has been mentioned numerous times before, UHC countries leverage drug companies to sell their products at a lower cost, under threat of nationalizing the drug patents. Consequently, the drug companies recoup much of this cost by charging the US more for drugs.
Comparing costs between the entire US healthcare system and the cost of what is covered in UHC countries is hardly comparing apples to apples.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
You don’t see to understand what is meant by the concept of rights in Catholic Social Teaching, the most important aspect of which is that **rights cannot be separated from responsibilities. **
That is, all, yes ALL, of those rights which are proper to our dignity as human persons depend upon our responsibilities as human beings-to one another, to our families, and to the larger society.
So, here is a basic primer on the relationship of rights and responsibilities in regard to human dignity and charity according to Catholic Social Teaching.
There are two aspects to charity in Catholic Social Teaching. These are not opposing types, but are distinct responses to very different circumstances-that is, you can’t decide you like one approach over the other, because it would actually be a violation of human rights to apply one approach in a situation that calls for the other approach.
TYPE 1:
For example, food and shelter may be proper to my dignity as a human person, but if I make no effort to secure these things in a manner consistent with my human dignity, then I have essentially forsaken my right to food and shelter. Yes, I can ask for help from others to secure these things, but this is an appeal to charity, which can only be free given. The genuine work of charity from others in this case is not simply to give me what I need, because to do so does not respect my free choice to forsake my own rights. Instead, the truly charitable act is to help me appreciate my potential to live as a dignified human being such that I willingly choose to pursue that which is proper to a human being. This would be the “teach a man to fish…” idea. [In this case, and I can’t stress this enough, it is actually a VIOLATION of an individual’s human rights to provide for them what they have willfully chosen not to secure for themselves.
TYPE 2:
On the other hand, if I do everything within my power to secure food and shelter for myself and my family, but am simply unable to do so as a result of overwhelming social or environmental factors, I have not forsaken my right to these things, and so have greater cause to appeal to the good will of others who are thus compelled by Christian Charity to help me secure that which is proper to my already present choice to live in accordance with that which is proper to my dignity as a human person. This is the situation referred to in Populorum Progressio #23:
‘If people are rich and do give help to those who stand in need, they
only give the poor what was already theirs. The earth was made for
all, not just for the rich.’ So wrote St Ambrose.
Populorum Progressio #23*
only give the poor what was already theirs. The earth was made for
all, not just for the rich.’ So wrote St Ambrose.
Populorum Progressio #23*
I hope this helps to clarify why I believe that it would actually be morally unacceptable to simply create blanket charity for everyone, regardless of if they need it, want it, or have attempted to secure it for themselves.
Yes, Healthcare could be considered a human right because basic healthcare is proper to our dignity as human persons. However, we have the responsibility to secure this right by engaging in other aspects of human dignity, such as working and living responsibly, making responsible choices with our financial gifts-such as choosing to pay for healthcare if we can afford it, even if that means we have to go without other things which are not proper to our dignity as human persons.
Those people who have the ability but not the desire to secure their own healthcare have effectively forsaken their right to healthcare.
However, we are compelled by Christian Charity to reach out to those people who have the desire but not the ability to secure their own healthcare, because healthcare is their right and they have met their responsibility to live in accordance with their dignity as human persons.
The problem with involving the government in this process is that it violates EVERYONE’s human dignity because it ignores the real meaning of rights and responsibilities which are so essential to what it is to be human persons in community with others, and instead replaces these with a system of entitlements which do not require any kind of individual effort or exchange, and ultimately degrade the value of what it means to be a human persons.
- Status