Blessings and Rights

Before the 20th century, if you had certain heart conditions there wasn't really anything you could do. Your life was most certainly going to be cut short (perhaps even as a child) and that's just the way things were.

In modern times, though, advances in medical technology have allowed previously fatal conditions to be treated with surgery, including even complete heart transplants and artificial hearts, which allow many people who would previously have been condemned to an early death to have the blessing of an extended life. Modern science and medicine has provided a large number of blessings for mankind that human civilization in previous times could only have dreamed about.

Notice I used the word 'blessing' twice. This is an important word, because I've noticed that the word 'blessing' often gets replaced with the word 'right'--often with serious consequences.

First, defining our terms:
A right is something that's given to you that in a sense already belongs to you--it's something that you should have had from the beginning and should always belong to you now and forever.
A blessing is something that's given to you that's above and beyond the things you already have--something extra, not something that you were obligated to receive in the first place.

A right is like a government giving its citizens the ability to choose--a religion, for example--without having the government make choices for you--something that fundamentally all people should have all the time.
A blessing would be like receiving a birthday gift from a relative--something extra that they were not obligated to give you.

The problem is: what happens when the words 'right' and 'blessing' get confused?

Example: Young Mary has a congenital heart defect since birth. In previous decades, there would have been no hope for her, but with modern technology there is a newly developed procedure by which her heart defect can be overcome.

Now...does Mary have the 'right' to the procedure, or is it a 'blessing'?

If Mary had lived 200, 50, or even ten years ago the question would have been moot because the procedure didn't exist. Now that it does, though, does Mary now have an inalienable right to have it performed? Certainly, she would have the opportunity to have it done...if she has the money. The question is does society have the obligation to give it to her regardless of cost simply because it's possible? Does Mary now suddenly have a 'right' which everyone else with her condition throughout all the previous years of human civilization did not have?

Or...is the procedure a 'blessing'--something that Mary can obtain for herself (if she can afford it) which will give her a life benefit above and beyond what everyone like her was able to obtain in previous times? If not, well she's lost nothing since she's no different than any of the others throughout history who had her condition, right?

This is a key issue, because universal health insurance is a big debate topic in the US. But look at what health insurance is, though...it's someone else who's willing to pay your hospital bills for you.

Through my work, my family and I are covered by our company health plan, which means I only have to pay for about 20% of my family's health expenses. In other words, someone's willing to pay 80% of my medical bills. That's a wonderful blessing for my family, but it's hardly a right--how could I sit there and say, "It's my right that someone else pay most of my hospital expenses..."

Yet, that's what a lot of people are saying: health insurance is a 'right' of all US citizens--that everyone should have their medical bills paid by someone else.

(Now, if they said: medical costs should be lower so they're more affordable to poorer people--that would be completely different--and very reasonable. Very few people phrase it that way, though--it's almost always 'everyone should have their bills paid by someone else...')

Note that I'm not against universal health care by any means. If there's a universal health plan that's financially feasible--I'm all for it. I'm just objecting to the notion that health care--even life-saving health care--is a 'right' of mankind, rather than the 'blessing' it is.

In a sense it all comes down to attitude. When you look at things as 'blessings', you're not only happier and more thankful when you get them, but it doesn't bother you as much when you don't get them--since they were above and beyond what you "normally" have anyway. When you look at things as 'rights', though--you're not thankful or happy to receive things because you think you should have had them all along--and you're much more likely to complain when they're not there. In other words, 'blessings' people naturally focus on the extra things they have, while 'rights' people focus on what they don't have. 'Rights' people are much more likely to compare themselves to others and think "It's not fair that he/she has {something} and I don't. I should have that also since it's my 'right'" whereas the 'blessings' people don't care what others have since they themselves already have more than they expected.

I think more people need to develop a 'blessings' attitude--an "It'd be great if I got that, but if not, it's okay. I'm lucky enough as it is" attitude--then there would be less focusing on what we don't have (and others do) and more on what we do have (that many others don't). That would mean less complaining and less jealousy--and greater happiness for everyone overall.