health care

health care / politics — 1 Comment
6
Sep 09

what we’ve learned so far

The debate about health care in my experience thus far has had lots of teachable moments a kin to the President’s Beer Summit. I’ve learned a lot:

  • It’s easy to let opinions get drowned out by name calling and insults,
  • Some argue that there is much more at stake than just health care (an unfortunately major part of this debate is over socialism and America’s move towards it if this bill is passed and whether the founding fathers intended it to be this way or how they would have handled it),
  • When you’re prepared with research and facts it makes you a better arguer,
  • Many people aren’t prepared with research and/or facts,
  • Most of all, polls show that America does think that something is wrong with the healthcare system and that the vast majority of us feel that affordable health care for everyone is a good thing – we differ just on the method by which that should come about.

So what do we do with this knowledge.

  • Cut out the name calling – my wife had a saying for a long time: “Sarcasm kills communication.”  It’s true.  We can add that name calling, insults and badly placed fusions of entertainment and enlightenment to the exact same thing.  Approach the debate with a clear head.  To be frank, I have had to remind myself that people on the right aren’t bad – sorry, just being honest.
  • Realize that some people do think there is more at stake than health care. Do I think that America is becoming a socialist nation?  Not on your life.  Why?  America is the “wealthiest” nation in the world for a reason.  No one is brain dead enough to really mess with that formula.  Is the move to a public option a move towards socialism? I don’t believe so for a minute, but I can see how it could be spun that way.  It’s much like calling saying humans are moving towards becoming martians because we’ve been to space a time or two.  The expanse that the nation would have to travel to get from where we are to what socialism actually is is simply too great.
  • Be prepared.  Read.  Consume the information and deal with what it actually says….. don’t let you enlightenment be fuzed with entertainment.  Too much at stake  (the bill: PDF – it’s really not that bad, Socialism, capitalism, FACTCHECK.org)
  • You know what….we’re not enemies here.  Please remember that.  Even though I think this health care bill could do more good for this country than bad, and even though you may think the opposite way, we are still not enemies.  We are as much not enemies as this country is not becoming socialist.  Enemies are the people that wish you harm.  We want the same things – we just need to agree quickly on how to make that happen.

So, that’s what I’ve learned so far.  I know I have a lot more learning to do.

faith / general / health care — Comments Off
3
Sep 09

human’s rights

Yesterday, I laid out what I thought it meant to be human. At the core of life, if you ask me, are relationships (we should value and be engaged in relationships) and a desire for self-/corporate-actualization and improvement. There are lots of aspects of being human beings but arguably these are the most uniquely human.

In order to tackle the question of whether or not we should be pursuing universal health care, we need to figure out if humans deserve health care.

What are human rights?

What are humans entitled to because they are human?  There are many different perspectives everything from we have no more rights than animals on the planet to we have complete and total reign over every resource around us.  As with everything, there has to be some reasonable middle ground.

On personal levels, we sometimes hear that human rights are those things that only God gives you and only God can take away.  So let’s think about what a few of these could be.

  • life
  • ???

I’m up to one.

Some of us believe “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  I don’t have an objection to this other than to say I don’t know where we can find proof of this.  I believe that if you add ” . . . within certain boundaries” after each of those things, then that’s probably a little closer.

Modern day nations have tried to put some definitions to this concept too.  Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the US has a Bill of Rights, and even the UN has the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I’m sure many other nations have similar documents.  Each have a slightly different perspective – it’s interesting to compare and contrast the Canadian and UN charters with the US Bill of Rights, by the way.  None of them have consensus on what the rights of a human are – and the priorities are noticably different.

I’m going to assume that the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as it was drafted by several different nations, is most representative of the generally accepted list of human rights.

After article 1 which says that are humans are equal and should act towards each other with a spirit of brotherhood, it says this:

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Here’s a paraphrase of what they list as human rights….

  • life, liberty and security of person
  • no slavery or torture
  • equal as persons before the law
  • no arbitrary arrest/confinement
  • impartiality in determining rights and before tribunals
  • presumed innocence
  • no arbitrary interference with privacy
  • freedom of movement into and out of their country
  • right to asylum in other countries and a right to nationality
  • marriage
  • right to own property individually and in association with others
  • freedom of though, consciousness, and religion; expression and opinion
  • peaceful assembly
  • participation in government
  • social security (here’s the full text of article 22: Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.)
  • right to work
  • right to leisure
  • standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family (again, full text: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.)
  • right to education
  • right to participate in cultural community
  • social/international order

The declaration finishes by saying that we all have duties and responsibilities to the communities in which they live and that these rights are inalienable.

Now, I don’t necessarily agree that all of these are rights necessarily – I think privileges at some point come into effect.  I don’t know that we have the “right” to leisure necessarily – it may be more of a privilege of being able to work and earn resources.  But I think this is an excellent jumping off point for the rest of our discussion.

I will say this: while I don’t necessarily believe that “free health care” is a human right, I do believe that  affordable access to sufficient health care is.  I also believe a couple of things about how this affordable health care should be provided, though granted not with any particular solution.  I believe that we have a responsibility to contribute to the improvement of our communities by giving out of our immense, incredible, unprecedented wealth so that others who are otherwise unable can be taken care of.

To this point, I’ve not spoken much of faith – though, as “everything is spiritual” I don’t think it’s hard to see the parallels.  Helping others live healthy productive lives makes the world a better place – which is what Jesus’ peeps are supposed to be doing.  I think there is a good case that the Bible teaches a lot about the responsibilities of of individuals and nations alike to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves.

Now, I know where this leads…. what about those who choose to not provide for themselves.  I don’t want to ignore that, but I don’t want to deal with it right now.  Next time: more about nations ensuring that human rights are taken care of. Decided against this…I’m not a theologian and there’s so much about nations in the Bible that I don’t understand…probably wouldn’t be responsible.


faith / health care / politics — Comments Off
2
Sep 09

human rights?

Before we can really discuss the higher-level health care issues, we have to determine what are human rights? Perhaps who determines them? Maybe even most essental . . . what does it mean to be human?

Yes, I’m aware these are philosophical questions that may or may not have an easy answer.

Let me start with the latter.

What does it mean to be human?

I approach this answer following a history in traditional Christian theology and that certainly colors my perspective but not in the scary “turn-or-burn” sort of Christianity.  I know that not everyone will approach this question with any sort of Christian worldview to which I say “Fantastic!”  I think truth can be gathered from a lot of perspectives so please share them with me.

Now, my first notion is that humans exist and have a character modeled after that of God.  Despite what you may have heard, God is more about relationships than stand-off-ishness.  He is more interested in interaction with us than damning us to hell.  The earliest poems (e.g. Genesis) that discuss God’s first interactions with humans also point out that it was not good for humans to be alone.  Relationships are the basis for life.

My slant is that to be human is to be engaged in and value relationships.

Secondly, I would say that the self-actualized human being is also interested in improving humanity.  Part of this can be seen in wanting the best for self.  It is not that far of a jump to go from wanting best for self to wanting best for all.  Christians would say that this involves restoration (putting things back the way they were meant to be) or bringing heaven to earth (by acting how Jesus would act).  But even without a Christian approach to life, this is still true for many people.  Given the question is it “better” to be selfish or to be selfless, most people would likely choose the latter as the most admirable character trait.

Mature human beings are interested in making life better.

Finally, purpose.  Long story short we have purposeful actions often backed up with rationale.  That’s pretty uniquely human.

Obviously there are many other things that we’re not delving into here . . . humans should be logical, self-aware, capable of dreaming dreams, engaged in culture, etc, etc.

Thoughts or philosophies on any part of life must first be framed by these core perceptions about humanity.

So, what about human rights?

health care / politics — Comments Off
27
Aug 09

human rights

An interesting question for me that has come out the very pervaisive and oft-wayward debate on the affordable health care for all americans legislation that is currently being considered is this:

is health care a human right?

I’d never given that any thought. Growing up in Canada it was never, ever a concern. Was it a right? Was it a privilege? Irrelevant. We had health care just by the fact that we lived in Canada. There was never a hint of anyone taking away our right/privilege. I never thought about it.

Turns out that Canada does not express anywhere that health care is a legal or constitutional right and in Canada there continues to be extensive debate about that fact.

Wasn’t expecting that.  I gotta admit.

However, I do believe that equal access to health care – at some basic level – is a right.  I’m OK with an “if-I-have-the-money-I-can-get-the-best-of-everything-now” because I believe that people are free to make money and/or be greedy.  But comprehensive, affordable or free health care ought to be available for everyone.  Consequently, I believe it’s criminal, appalling,  and evil that it currently is not.

But a more fundamental question now exists for me and it comes from the Declaration of Independence…

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

I have never understood what that last bit means…

What is the pursuit of happiness?  Either it’s a completely arbitrary statement or they knew something we don’t – what is happiness?  It’s almost like reading scripture in a way.  What are the other rights that aren’t mentioned here?  I wish they would have just listed them all.

The discussion is much bigger than does everybody deserve health care and should I pay for it.  The questions are more what does it mean to be human and am I my brother’s keeper?

We may need to break this down more a little later.

note: I’ve got a lot more on this that I want to share; particularly as it relates to apparent priorities, realities, and differences between health care in the US versus the rest of the industrialized world…stay tuned.