Universal Healthcare is a Human Right

Totally agreed. In most other developed nations, they have some form set up.

the best solution to this problem is if there are prayers for the people who the medicine did not heal after all - how Jesus and His twelve disciples healed all sick people who they found/met at least?!, then why not it be possible also today there be a complete healing entirely through prayers before the true God and Jesus?!

Blessings

I disagree the part about it being a basic human right. Basic human rights are things like the right to defend yourself from an attacker, right to free speech implying a free human spirit, etc.

I do believe we should be offering it in the U.S. We can afford it, we owe it to our citizens. Not as a right, but as a privilege of being a citizen of a wealthy country.

As a Christian I am all for it. We should all be supporting any legislation which provides benefit to the poor, the helpless, the masses who cannot afford it.

I'm rather neutral on healthcare, so i'll just play devils advocate.

A right to healthcare? So a right to force someone else to take care of you? All those verses are great for individual initiative, in which case, why not form private organizations whom there purpose is to provide healthcare? Government's purpose is not to make you better or worse. Its purpose is too govern and only to govern. That there are people who require healthcare and do not have it, is no fault of the government. But the fault of a society where people see the government as the only venue to realize their agenda. Put it simply, they'd rather not do the leg work required in setting up a private organization. So...they care about the poor. But only enough to tell someone else to lift their own finger to do something about it.

sniperelite7 said:

I'm rather neutral on healthcare, so i'll just play devils advocate.

A right to healthcare?

Click to expand...

I suggest that you might further specify, "universal" healthcare. I agree, people do not have a right specifically to "universal" healthcare. "Universal" implies a particular method of delivery of healthcare. "Healthcare" is more general.

People do have a right to basic healthcare, according to the United Nations. Philosophically, this right is certainly debatable, but the U.N. did vote on it which implies that the majority of the people on the planet likely agree with it, which is supportive of the premise.

The link below goes to a treaty signed by member nations of the United Nations. Their idea of "the right to health" is spelled out.

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article 12, specifically - part of the definition of the right to health includes the right to healthcare.

I believe currently in the U.S. we satisfy this requirement for this right, although we do not satisfy it through "universal" healthcare as yet. There are probably other political/social systems which probably also satisfy it without utilizing a socialistic approach. The U.N. did not specify the "how", just the basic right.

I also believe the standard is dynamic. The right to health is applied differently for different situations, countries, economies...The U.N. would affirm that the citizens of Mongolia have their right to health, but their right is limited to what is available in Mongolia. Mongolians do not have the right to the sort of healthcare available to citizens of the U.S. To a degree, the right to health, per the U.N., is an ongoing mandate for all governments to continually be working to improve healthcare (access and quality) for all their citizens.

There is also likely a difference between basic health and advanced health. Most countries, probably every country, has at least a two tiered system. People on the bottom do get their right to health actualized, but they do not necessarily get the same health care as citizens who are able to purchase additional care. People on the bottom tier get basic health. The rest of us get advanced health. I believe that is unavoidable regardless of your delivery system.

free,NO!..affordable? YES!

Christian7PraiseJesus said:

"When Jesus heard it, He saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
Jesus's, God's words, Mark 2:17

"Jesus answered them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick."
Jesus's, God's words, Luke 5:31

"When Jesus heard this He said, "Those who are healthy don't need a physician, but those who are sick do."
Jesus's, God's words, Mathew 9:12


Jesus, who is God, commands us to give humanity medical care, to help the sick, without compensation.

Click to expand...

I generally agree that Jesus supports caring and healing, especially of those in great need who are unable to pay for it. I do not buy the "for no compensation" argument.

Additionally, the above passage, is really more about the spirit, not the physical or the mental.

It is also good to remember that everybody does pay. We do not all pay cash, but we do all pay.

There are different forms of payment.

There are plenty of "disabled" people who convince themselves they are "disabled". I am not saying some people are not disabled, but many who claim disability are in fact capable of working. These same people have to sell this "disability" to their own soul. They have to sacrifice some spiritual freedom to take that government check. They have enslaved their souls to a self-image which is detrimental to their overall well being. 50 years ago many of these people who are questionably disabled would have jobs. They may have been happier. I know people like this. I have met them. Some go to my church.

Jesus does not want our spirits enslaved to poor health, demons, our our own fears and lowered expectations for our future possibilities for our lives.

To a degree, health care is based ultimately on the form of government present in whatever country you live in. Some governments support individual freedom, individual rights. Some, less so. There is always a price. It may not be monetary, but we all sacrifice something to get another thing.

In Holland they have euthanasia. In China, until recently, they only allowed one child per couple. In the U.S., with all our freedoms, persons who are injured in a car wreck and are likewise involved in suing the other driver for pain and suffering have been shown to suffer physical ailments more than those who choose not to sue. The reason they suffer more is thought to be because they need to justify the money they are going to get from the lawsuit. They have to have physical damage. So, they spend more time in physical therapy, and some never recover. That is both physical and mental payment.

In a centralized system there are dangers. The centralized non-Christian health administration can come up with all sorts of non-Christian programs and decisions. For example, in the reasonably Christian U.S. there were programs which forced the sterilization of citizens since the early 1900's for essentially being poor. It was finally discontinued in the 1960's. The people being sterilized were thought to be unfit to have kids. It was thought that their kids would not be productive, law abiding citizens. That is here, in our country, with our wonderful government, that was before the 1960's, when our government and culture went through so much change.

There are advantages to having a free market system. Our own country currently offers the opportunity for the best healthcare available in the world. Japan does well, but we actually offer the very best, across the board. Leaders and millionaires preferentially come to the U.S. for advanced healthcare. We lead the world in the invention of new medical devices and bringing new drugs to market. No other country compares. That is free market power.

The big drawback is that millions of our citizens do not have healthcare. They are forced to go to the ER.

I like many things about the British system. They do a better job treating their entire population for less money than we do.

So, people will "pay" mentally, physically, spiritually, politically, economically (as in what kind of economy do you have to have if you have socialized healthcare-Greek for example), and possibly of course with cash or insurance for their healthcare. Everybody pays. Every person pays something. We live in community. We all pay, one way or another, for everything.

The principle of "free health care to those unable to afford it" is not the only Christian principle in play here. I believe Jesus supports the principle of freedom and the principle of caring for those in need or in poor health, for example. There are probably other Christian principles which also need to be balanced in and considered.

Jesus did not necessarily tell us the specifics of how we are supposed to go about balancing and implementing these principles. And, we do not live in the sociopolitical age in which Jesus lived. Consequently, the application of Christian principles may be very different in our society.

Furthermore, we are not Jesus. We do not cure most people with miracles, wish we did. Our job, as Christians, is to balance the various applicable principles we follow as best we can. That includes planning for ramifications of how following one principle may affect the bigger political and economic lives of all our citizens.

I would agree broadly speaking, though this does not imply how healthcare should be provided.

Jesus said if you turn your back on the needy, you turn your back on him. Argue with Jesus if you have a problem with the poor, sick and needy.

That's my point. You should get the healthcare you deserve.When I say you...I mean YOU and your family. Sure, the rich should have nicer things. But, we're talking about life, death and/or suffering. Big houses, big cars, flashy jewelry...I'm okay with that. But, nobody should have to go without health care because they don't have enough. I have a huge problem with that.