# Pope calls health care an "Inalienable Right". What's the right-wing spin? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 19, 2010, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262 "2010-11-19T20:34:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/21 "2010-11-19T22:30:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I know you’re joking, but it’s such a common misconception that I’m going to correct it anyway to avoid a reader getting whooshed. > > The Pope is not considered infallible except in very specific and limited circumstances, of which this is not one. I ask this question out of morbid curiosity: if the Pope made an Ex Cathedra statement about UHC being an inalienable right and the duty of every good Christian to support, would you be singing a different tune on these boards about it, or would you just change religions? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/22 "2010-11-19T22:33:42Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Your right to life ends at the arm of someone stronger than you. Our society grants these rights by creating an environment where people don’t kill with impunity. Not quite. Traditional Western legal philosophy takes the view that there are certain rights which we possess by virtue of being human. (Well, in truth traditional legal philosophy views these rights as being granted by god, but saying they are granted by nature works just as well and removes concerns some might have in our more secular, modern 21st century world.) Governments _should_ primarily be concerned with _protecting_ these rights. Governments do not _grant_ inalienable rights. This is very fundamental and actually if you take it in the wider context of history it makes perfect sense. The whole “point” that guys like Jefferson made were that if a government failed in its _duty_ to protect natural rights, or even started to assail those rights itself, that government was no longer to be viewed valid–and that in fact the individual citizens would be totally correct to revolt against said government. If you view government as the “grantor” of rights, it essentially means you’re saying that on a philosophical level the government is the sole arbiter of what rights you have or what rights you don’t have–and that your only recourse to abusive government is through advocating legal change. The major political revolution of the 18th and early 19th century instead argues that since there _are_ inalienable rights, you can go beyond the confines of the state and its legal framework to protect them yourself. These are the justifications American colonists used to justify breaking away from King George and Parliament, and the justifications the French used in deposing the Bourbon monarchy. Your other point, that you only “have the rights that you can defend” does not sync up with the traditional legal philosophy of natural rights. Under said philosophy if I kill you I haven’t _taken away your right to life_, I have _violated your right to life_. Taking it away would mean I had some power to alter the “natural order of things”, that I had to power to deem you “not entitled to life.” Natural law as a philosophy doesn’t really have that view of things. For that reason it is highly suspect to call something that has to be _created_, _funded_, _regulated_ and _supported_ by government an “inalienable” right. Inalienable rights are better seen as the rights we’re born with. Natural law philosophy doesn’t say much about rights like a “right to healthcare”, meaning it’s not a bad or good thing to establish such rights. Of course, I don’t support this view and have _never_ supported this view, namely I don’t really believe in natural law or natural rights. The only law of mankind is the law of chaos and strength. However, flowery things like the Pope’s statement, various things politicians from Patrick Henry to FDR have said, and things like U.N. declarations are all based on the concepts of natural rights and natural law. So we should probably remain internally consistent, since the whole presumption is that “inalienable” rights are rights that no government can deny–and that government must protect to remain valid, it doesn’t make sense to argue that a right that _can only exist inside of a governmental system_ is inalienable. I would also add that rights that some governments _technically cannot provide whatsoever_ are hard for me to accept as a valid “inalienable right” under the concepts of “natural rights.” Many, many countries in the world simply cannot provide universal health care, or if they do it will be in the form of a few clinics which most of the country cannot access because of distance and which is poorly staffed due to lack of funding. Compared to those countries the United States has far better healthcare even if it is not “universal.” (Let’s net even get into the specifics of how vague the U.N Declaration is–the fact that you _can_ get emergency medical care no matter what in the United States could be seen as fulfilling the “duty” imposed by the declaration.) ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/23 "2010-11-19T22:34:45Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > I ask this question out of morbid curiosity: if the Pope made an Ex Cathedra statement about UHC being an inalienable right and the duty of every good Christian to support, would you be singing a different tune on these boards about it, or would you just change religions? As a Catholic I’d just say he was wrong. Catholics have disagreed with Popes before. Catholics have actually waged war against Popes in the past. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/24 "2010-11-19T22:36:30Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Nope - you have it backward. Society doesn’t grant the rights to individuals - individuals create society to protect those rights. You know that those words aren’t magic, right? That’s why I used the right to life. That it is a right we all should have I agree. But it is provided by the government. Otherwise anyone who wanted to could take it. Some poor woman in Somalia has only the rights she can make for herself. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/25 "2010-11-19T22:38:03Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Why are you using a stereotypical Italian accent, when there hasn’t been an Italian pope since 1978? Obviously to honor Dom DeLuise in Johnny Dangerously. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/26 "2010-11-19T22:38:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My take: His Holiness is mistaken. > > Or possibly he’s right, but only in the larger context. That is, if we truly had a society that implemented ALL of the Church’s teachings, then health care would be a right. Your position seems utterly bizarre to me. If you can’t get the whole loaf of bread, you may as well go hungry? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/27 "2010-11-19T22:38:45Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Well, medical practitioners have inalienable rights, don’t they? They have the right to be secure in their person, they have the right to their property (including their medical supplies and instruments). Presumably we don’t have the right to force them to work for free or at a loss, or to give away their supplies without compensation. > > So that makes the right to health care not inalienable, but conditional. You could say the same thing about educators (the example I had in my post.) Nonetheless, in the US, everyone is guaranteed a basic education (up to the high school level), regardless of income level. In the same way, everyone should have the right to health care. The only argument is, what is the minimum level of health care that a government (like the US) should guarantee its citizens? ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/28 "2010-11-19T22:40:46Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > You know that those words aren’t magic, right? That’s why I used the right to life. That it is a right we all should have I agree. But it is provided by the government. Otherwise anyone who wanted to could take it. What if the government itself decides you no longer have a right to that life? The idea of inalienable rights are ones that NO government should be able to revoke. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/29 "2010-11-19T22:41:52Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > I ask this question out of morbid curiosity: if the Pope made an Ex Cathedra statement about UHC being an inalienable right and the duty of every good Christian to support, would you be singing a different tune on these boards about it, or would you just change religions? Plenty of (American) Catholics don’t follow Rome’s guidance on birth control, yet they still consider themselves Catholic. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/30 "2010-11-19T22:41:57Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Not quite. Traditional Western legal philosophy takes the view that there are certain rights which we possess by virtue of being human. I’m not talking about Traditional Western legal philosophy. I’m talking about reality. Saying that we have innate rights is silly. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/31 "2010-11-19T22:44:06Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I’m not talking about Traditional Western legal philosophy. I’m talking about reality. Saying that we have innate rights is silly. I agree, that’s why the U.N. Declaration is meaningless. That’s why the Pope’s comment is meaningless. However, in the context of inalienable rights (which conjures up natural law and Western legal tradition, unavoidably) it still doesn’t make sense to say health care is an “inalienable” right. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/32 "2010-11-19T22:45:33Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > What if the government itself decides you no longer have a right to that life? > > The idea of inalienable rights are ones that NO government should be able to revoke. But the government _could_. Not ours hopefully, but if you’re a woman under the Taliban you can talk about rights all you want. The fact is the reason we establish governments that are answerable to the people is so that we can protect the rights we all agree we want to have. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/33 "2010-11-19T22:45:54Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > You know that those words aren’t magic, right? That’s why I used the right to life. That it is a right we all should have I agree. But it is provided by the government. Otherwise anyone who wanted to could take it. > > Some poor woman in Somalia has only the rights she can make for herself. It’s _protected_ by yourself, not by government. Government can kill you just as easily as a brigand. The only real thing you’re entitled to in this world is that which you can defend _yourself_. Buying into the concept that government is capable of omnipotent protective services, or that it is benevolent, is probably one of the more dangerous thoughts one can have. Probably harmless in most first world countries, but deadly for most of the human population. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/34 "2010-11-19T22:47:26Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > Plenty of (American) Catholics don’t follow Rome’s guidance on birth control, yet they still consider themselves Catholic. One small aside: I’ve always thought that you can tell much more about a person, not by what religion they claim to be, but by which portions of their religion they think are important, and which ones they think it is acceptable to ignore. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/35 "2010-11-19T22:47:43Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > But the government _could_. Not ours hopefully, but if you’re a woman under the Taliban you can talk about rights all you want. > > The fact is the reason we establish governments that are answerable to the people is so that we can protect the rights we all agree we want to have. Then it’s stupid to bring up the Pope or the U.N. Declaration, no one living today established the Papacy, no one voted the U.N into power. They are both essentially just prominent NGOs, only vaguely accountable to anyone. If your argument is that government protects the rights we all agree we want to have, then it’s basically an inescapable conclusion of that logic that the only countries that should have universal healthcare are the countries that want it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/36 "2010-11-19T22:51:23Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > But Republicans are all too willing to exploit the Pope’s influence on issues where they agree with him, like abortion, so what’s their take on this? Which Republicans would these be? Southern Baptists? Anyway, this is nothing new. See: death penalty. At any rate, an inalenable right is something like free speech. We posses by virtue of our being human, and no one has to lift a finger to give it to us. Not so with health care or diamonds. > [@](#): > > Vice-versa, too. Will Church leaders try to deny communion to Catholic politicians who oppose health care reform? I’ll let \*\*Bricker \*\*explain the difference involved here wrt RC doctrine. He knows it a lot better than I do. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/37 "2010-11-19T22:51:29Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > But the government _could_. Not ours hopefully, but if you’re a woman under the Taliban you can talk about rights all you want. > > The fact is the reason we establish governments that are answerable to the people is so that we can protect the rights we all agree we want to have. I agree that in a practical sense, the power ratio of individual versus an entire government is a bit skewed, so it definately appears as if the government is necessary for rights to exist. Us outsiders consider the Taliban government “bad” because it does not afford (protect?) various rights of it’s female citizens, even though those rights are not even codified in some type of Consitution or legal code. (In fact, the Taliban’s laws state some of the opposite.) Think about that. We call them wrong/bad for not doing something they don’t have codified. Why? Because we assume certain rights as fundamental to a free human even without (or in spite of contrary) codification. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/38 "2010-11-19T22:52:04Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > If your argument is that government protects the rights we all agree we want to have, then it’s basically an inescapable conclusion of that logic that the only countries that should have universal healthcare are the countries that want it. Well, my argument would be that there are some rights that **all** governments should respect (and / or provide) to the best of their ability, and health care is one of those rights. Different regions of the world, at different wealth levels, may not have the same level, but the right should still exist. Same as, for example, education (already mentioned), right to vote, freedom of religion, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/39 "2010-11-19T22:52:18Z")
Health care should be a matter of public policy just as police protection and fire protection is. We pay taxes for that. No one says “I paid taxes for 50 years and never once had to call out the fire dept to put out a fire. I want my money back.” I think this is what the pope is getting at. As for doctors working for a wage? Well so do fire fighters and policemen and the President of the USA. You think Mr Obama couldn’t make more as a private citizen? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/40 "2010-11-19T22:55:40Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > You could say the same thing about educators (the example I had in my post.) Nonetheless, in the US, everyone is guaranteed a basic education (up to the high school level), regardless of income level. In the same way, everyone should have the right to health care. The only argument is, what is the minimum level of health care that a government (like the US) should guarantee its citizens? Nope. We, as a society, decided through the legislative process to provide public education up thru HS. It’s not in the BoR or any other part of the constitution. Same with health care. We can decide, thru the legislative process to provide everyone with some amount of health care, but we can decide not to as well. Nothing in the constitution guarantees the “right” to public education or health care. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262.md?page=3)