I have a friend on Facebook who posted a question on his personal page. He asks, “Health care…right or privilege?” It is a very good question. It is a question that should be answered as part of the current debate over healthcare reform.
One of the responses to my friend’s questions reads:
a community cares for the sick because the sick are human beings, and because those who care for them are human beings. to deny care is inhumane, and the denial dehumanizes both parties. health care is a function of human nature, not of human diligence. it’s a right.
This seems reasonable to me. We care for others because it is the humane thing to do and it would be inhumane to do otherwise. However, another responder states:
define health care
Hmmmm…. If you really think about it, this is where it gets extremely difficult. How much care qualifies as sufficient healthcare? Where is the line? Who decides where the line is? What is my responsibility towards others in caring for them (since it is my tax dollars that ultimately will be used for their healthcare)?
What are your thoughts? Is this as complex an issue as I see it?
Theologically Speaking 
“Don’t Tread on Me” is my motto lately. I think a State should have a health care system in place. I don’t see why the federal gov’t thinks that they should give it to everyone. Especially when we can’t afford it (they say we can, but seriously, we can’t).
Ben:
I think I agree with you. We should have a plan, but it does not need to be for everyone. However, if we keep making things available only for those who qualify (low-income families), will it cause people to think it is better to keep a low income and qualify for the freebies rather than work and pay for things out of pocket?
Also, what needs to be included in a health care plan for those who do qualify? What is sufficient?
I agree. We cannot afford a national plan that covers everyone. Neither can Canada, which is why they are looking to reform their own.