Health Care and Morality
Can anyone explain to me how the Federal Government of the United States of America is morally obligated to provide health care to everybody?
Alas, I cannot, but perhaps I can offer some insight on the issue at hand for those who might be persuaded to believe this. Hillary (and those who would side with her on the healthcare issue) are seemingly confused on multiple fronts: morality, the function of the government, and the definitions of charity and justice.
First, let's start with some definitions:
- Justice - in this context, I would say the most appropriate definition is the forcible redistribution of wealth. There is another possibly definition that could be brought in here, but I'll address that later
- Charity - in the virtuous sense, is the act of selfless giving to those in need.
There are some folks who will argue that, as with welfare, the government should take charitable action on behalf of the poor and destitute as a moral obligation. The problem here is that government action is done via legislation and agencies created to carry out the mandates of related legislation. Because its actions are mandated by legislation, they are not selfless. So by its very nature, the government cannot be charitable in the virtuous and morally obligatory sense.
The next argument that will surface will be that of distributive justice. Let's look at a simplified illustration: let's say someone comes and forcibly, perhaps by holding a gun to your head, demands a $20 bill. Not wanting to be shot, you presumably comply. The person with the gun then walks over to, say, a homeless person on the street and hands them the $20 bill and goes on their way. Are you morally obligated to hand over your money when it is forcibly demanded of you? Is the agent doing the demanding morally obligated to forcibly take the money from you? Would anyone, after having thought this through, consider this action to be of net moral good? I would venture to guess most would say no, and likely quite vehemently when the gun in the example is replaced with the agency of the IRS.
The other spin on the word justice I referred to earlier is that justice is the rightful restoration of something that was taken from someone. Obviously if health care was never one's to begin with, it cannot be taken away. Some might argue that health care is a basic human right to which we are entitled. I don't believe it can be successfully argued that the right to life includes such measures that place burden on one's countrymen, the government, and that the two are morally obligated to ensure such services are provided. A citizen must have in the past been, or show promise to become, a contributor to society to rightfully draw from its benefits.
February 25th, 2008 - 16:36
I can not understand at what point people in America (and in this world in general) began to believe that “health care” was a human right, and especially, that the necessary services should be provided by the state and of course, paid for by others?
With that logic, I am supposed to believe that if I decide or accidentally have a child, that you, my neighbor, and other strangers I don’t know are responsible for it’s health care needs. This knowledge actually gives me an incentive to have more children as it is no additional cost to me, and it encourages me to be less of a responsible parent and adult since if my child becomes unhealthy, I know it will be of no additional cost to me to heal my child.
Just because you are born, does not enslave me by forcing me to care for you. I can not stand the notion of a nationalized health care simply for that logical reasoning. But don’t even get me started about the practical realities of a system like that and the freedoms you have to give up to let the concerns of the collective rise above yours. No thanks!