Imagine a particular type of congenital heart defect that strikes children from birth and dooms them to an early death, usually before they are a year old.   Suppose every year throughout human history about 100 children worldwide are born with this defect and pass away within a year, with really nothing anyone can do about it.

Then, in 2008, new advances in medical technology allow the development of a new surgical method that can solve this heart defect, allowing the recipient to live a normal life.  Due to cost and the limited availability of the technology, however, only 25 or so of the 100 children born with this defect in 2008 will be able to receive this surgery and avoid an early death.

There are two ways to look at this: one, where it is an absolute tragedy and a black mark on human society that 75 children worldwide have to die when a procedure exists that could save them.  Or, alternately, where previously 100 children died every year due to this congenital heart defect, now only 75 children do--an accomplishment worthy of praise, rather than scorn.

Rephrasing: is life-saving surgery a blessing or a right?  Does a kid born in 2008 or later have a fundamental right to this life-saving procedure, a right that (apparently) hundreds of children born in every year of human history previous to 2008 did not have?

Or perhaps it is a blessing that at least a handful of kids--those who live in the right country, and/or whose families have enough financial resources to make that procedure a possibility--are able to avoid an early demise.

(Questions: Would it be more or less 'fair' to have the ones that live and the ones that don't be determined by nationality and financial resources, versus, say, a random lottery, instead?  What about the 'fairness' of some children being born healthy and some children having the defect in the first place?)

There's a fine line between something being considered a 'blessing' or a 'right'.  A right is something that you should have--that the society you live in is obligated to provide.  A blessing is something that's great if you do have it, but not an absolute requirement or a necessity--no one owes it to you.  The difference often comes down to 'obligation' or 'entitlement'--and, of course, whether something is viewed as a 'necessity that is owed' or a 'nicety that is appreciated' often comes down to personal opinion.  (see gay marriage debate, for example...)

Universal health care has been a hot topic in the US for the last few years, especially in the run-up to the presidential election.  To be sure, I have no objection to universal health care on principle, but I don't quite understand the implication from universal health care supporters that health insurance is a right, rather than a blessing--that US citizens have a fundamental right to have someone else pay their medical bills for them.  Really?

(The definition of 'insurance' seems to get lost in these kinds of debates:   Insurance is a service--something one (or one's employer) pays for.  Insurance is paying money up front for the express purpose of avoiding potential expenses sometime in the future.  All insurance--health, car, life, homeowners--works this same way.  What we are really talking about is lowering medical costs...and it is strange that it is very rarely phrased in that way.  Most politicians with universal health care plans say it *might* lower costs as a side-effect, but not necessarily, and regardless, the important part of the plan is that someone else is paying for your medical expenses.)

(Question:  If health insurance is a 'right', shouldn't life insurance also be a right?  Not everyone will end up needing health insurance, but everyone's going to die eventually, after all.  Isn't it 'unfair' that some families receive $500k or so in benefits when a family member dies, while another family does not?  (Leaving aside the obvious fact that the former family pays for that service)  Shouldn't there be a push for government-supported life insurance for all citizens?)

To what extent does attitude play a part in how things in the world are viewed, whether related to health care or not:  are personal events and circumstances 'rights' or 'blessings'?  Are we entitled to have someone else pay our medical bills?  Or provide food and shelter to us if we lack?

 Is health insurance a 'right'?  Is good health a 'right'?  Is living beyond 60, or 40, or even your first birthday a 'right'?  (God and/or cold evolutionary processes clearly say 'no' to these last two...)  In a glass-half-full or half-empty standpoint, the difference between viewing things as blessings versus rights can make a big difference in how accepting one is with what one has, versus always expecting more from others.  Maybe there's a reason the hymn says to "Count Your Blessings, See What God Has Done", versus "Count Your Rights, See What Things God Should Have Given You But Hasn't"...

What 'rights' do we have from God's perspective?  Are there any?  Or is everything a 'blessing' that God may provide, but certainly doesn't "owe" us.  Does this distinction matter in how we view what we have and what we don't in mortality?