Universal Health Care would perhaps be a wonderful idea in a society in which people took full responsibility for their lives to the best of their ability. However, the idea is disastrous one in a society in which the vast the majority of people are utterly creative in excusing themselves for being responsible for their own behavior. If there is one thing more than any other that has come to characterize the American society it is that no one seems to be at fault for anything bad that happens to her or his life. The idea has such a grip upon the way we think that commonsense itself seems to have gone by the wayside.
Lest there be any misunderstanding, there are lots of ways in which people have been wronged owing to no fault whatsoever of their own. The case of tobacco stands as a stunning example of the way in which monetary gain was allowed to take precedent of the well-being of the lives of individuals.
By contrast, the inordinate credit card debt that most people have can only be explained by the failure of individuals to act responsibly. This point holds even if one acknowledges, as I do, that credit card companies are often duplicitous. This is because the duplicity pertains to the ways in which the companies raises rates and charge fees. The duplicity has nothing at all to do with people spending more money than they actually have. Hence, the explanation for the massive credit card debt that so many people have has nothing at all to do with credit card companies being duplicitous. Rather, the explanation for that has everything to do with the fact that the very people who claim to be entitled to the freedom to do as they please are the very same people who act most irresponsibly in using their credit cards. After all, it is an indisputable fact that the interest rate does not matter if one generally pays one’s bill off on-time.
Universal Health Care is about the government picking up the tab for the health care of the citizens of the nation. But there is no independent institution, which goes by name The Government, that has its own income. The Government is funded by the people. Accordingly, I ask the following question:
Why should we be held collectively responsible financially for the health care of our fellow citizens if we are not entitled to be collectively responsible for the actual health of our fellow citizens?
I understand, of course, it would be horrendous to have skinny people running around and pointing to heavy-set people and yelling at them: “Lose some weight”. Just so, it is irresponsible and morally wrong to have The Government pay for the health care of Americans while not requiring that Americans do anything to ensure that they are in a healthy or, at any rate, healthier state.
Here is a very simple principle.
I should not be obligated to be responsible for you if you do not exercise sufficient responsibility for yourself.
With the exception of parents and their children this principle applies across the board.
It will be noticed that I have not in effect argued against Universal Health Care. Rather, I made two important points. One is that there is nothing called the The Government which has its own resources to provide health care to Americans; rather, such health care is something to which taxpayers must contribute. The second point is that it is morally wrong to put this burden upon taxpayers and none upon those whose health care will be paid for to care for themselves.
I find it terribly revealing the President Obama has not drawn attention to the responsibility of citizens to conduct their lives in a healthy way. On my view, citizens who do not should have to pay more taxes.
It may be thought by some that I am in no position to complain since I have been blessed to be rather thin. Further, some may suggests that my complaining reveals a deep, deep callousness on my part. Quickly, my response to the first point is that I walk more than most people would ever imagine. What is more, I take the steps just about everywhere I go. In the last 10 years, for example, I have not once taken an elevator to my 5th floor office. As to the second point, suffice it to say that the choice is not between my level of fitness or being entirely unfit. There is quite an array of options in between.
I distinguish between wallowing in the absence of fitness and being optimally fit. Far too many Americans wallow in the absence of fitness. And I hold that they should not get a free ride. I hold that it is morally unfair to obligate me to care for their health problems.
There is a thin, but ever so real, line between being callous and holding others morally responsible for their own behavior, including their health. The callous person is indifferent to how a person should turn out to be unhealthy. I am not that person at all. There are all sorts of illnesses that strike people regardless of how well they take care of themselves. Just so, individuals should not expect me to respect their freedom to do as they please with their lives and also to contribute to their health care, though they have made little or no effort to attend to their health.
I would rather that there be an outright revolution in America than that we should accede to President Barack Obama’s myopic conception of universal health care—one that ignores the morality that people first have a moral obligation to promote their own health before they have any entitlement to the support of the American people. But for the people, The Government does not exist. Time and time again, President Obama passes blithely over this truth.
It seems that the problem with universal healthcare is both a political and moral dilemma. As you so elegantly say, in this country, the very thought of universal healthcare would place a rather unnecessary burden on the American taxpayer, if indeed the government is to assume responsibility for the medical welfare of every citizen. While you argue that the very nature of such a system necessarily demands the allocation of taxpayer dollars to a class of health “unconscious” citizens, I must direct attention to the current system. Medicaid and Medicare are dually supported by the state and federal governments, and use the taxpayer’s money to support a class that you describe. Is our current system ideal? Our medical system rests heavily on the shoulders of independent investors, and of course you, the consumer of insurance. One may make the argument that our current system allows the individual to be in control of the quality of medical care he/she receives. In a sense, it is the American’s right or sense of entitlement to choose and pay for the best medical care possible. I surmise that this thought is correct, as most individuals do not wish to be ill; thus, inspiring one to pay for a suitable insurance plan. Those that cannot afford or whose disabilities prevent such insurance are supported by the American taxpayer dollar. We do not know these individuals who we support indirectly, and nor can we easily prevent our tax money from being spent on these programs. Currently, one-third of those receiving Medicare/Medicaid will be on these programs for the remainder of their lives. The moral predicament here is not necessarily financially based, but rather concerns the question of health. Who is entitled to good health? Certainly we omit the individual who has a complete disregard for health, consuming fatty foods and partaking in unhealthy activities. What about the individual, though, who earns less than 20K/year and who’s insurance plan covers little in terms of advanced medical care? We cannot choose to have an illness such as cancer or congestive heart failure, as the illness is independent of financial standing. Nonetheless though, health in this country is a matter of wealthy or poor. The wealthy individual in need of a kidney transplant or cancer treatment is automatically in a position to receive the highest quality of care. This further extends to the hospital the individual receives care. Heart bypass surgery at a local community hospital or Johns Hopkins? The average American family of two pays $2,500/year for health insurance. Most plans rarely cover the cost of advanced treatments, such as those mentioned above. While it seems foolish to have to pay for individuals who are unhealthy, it seems equally incoherent to have to pay for a spouse’s medical bills twenty years after their death. In essence, current insurance plans cover very little in terms of complex care, even MRI/CT scans. So I ask you, are we not all entitled to a healthy living? While no one can really choose to be ill (with certain exceptions of course), why do we adopt a system that privileges financial standing? Are we not all worthy of health?
Mr. Blackwell–
I fullly agree with you that we are all worthy of health. I have only drawn attention to the ways in which we are often irresponsible with respect to our own health. I hold that there is something wrong with a society in which people can be utterly irresponsible with respect to their own health and yet the government is supposed to be fully responsible for the health of its citizens. The problem of obesity in America is for the most part an individual problem — not a government problem. It sometimes happens that people do not get that of which they are worthy preciselly because they do not act responsibly towards themselves. Thank you for your comments.
–Laurence Thomas
Laurence,
Your hatred of liberal doctrine has blinded you. President Obama has never proposed Universal Health Care. His goal is to reduce the cost of health care for Americans by overhauling a system that is full of wasteful spending. Much of the savings will come from creating a more efficient system.
In speech after speech, President Obama has said that health care is an INDIVIDUAL responsibility. Here is an excerpt from June 15:
“The second step that we can all agree on is to invest more in preventive care so we can avoid illness and disease in the first place. That starts with each of us taking more responsibility for our health and for the health of our children. It means quitting smoking. It means going in for that mammogram or colon cancer screening. It means going for a run or hitting the gym, and raising our children to step away from the video games and spend more time playing outside.”
He continues his speech by commending a Safeway’s system of rewarding healthy behavior:
“It will take employers following the example of places like Safeway that is rewarding workers for taking better care of their health while reducing health care costs in the process.
If you’re one of three-quarters of Safeway workers enrolled in their “Healthy Measures” program, you can get screened for problems like high cholesterol or high blood pressure. And if you score well, you can pay lower premiums; you get more money in your paycheck. It’s a program that has helped Safeway cut health care spending by 13 percent, and workers save over 20 percent on their premiums. And we’re open to doing more to help employers adopt and expand programs like this one.”
Laurence, you clearly did not do your research. If this post were just a critique of Universal Health Care from a philosophical perspective, it would be fine. However, you extended it to a critique on President Obama’s health care plan, which you clearly did not research. You’ve always claimed an attention to detail; it amazes me how you could omit such a crucial detail in your post.
Now it took me 3 seconds to find details on President Obama’s health care plan. A simple google search using the terms “obama health care responsibility” showed me everything I needed to see. I wonder, why didn’t you do the same? Where do you get your news? Conservative pundits? It’s really scary how much misinformation there is out there.
Laurence,
You make a compelling argument but I find it troublesome that you didn’t acknowledge the fact that President Obama DID tell Americans to live healthier lives. Just because that might hurt your argument, it doesn’t mean you can just omit it from the conversation. While I agree with the basic conservative principal of personal responsibility that you so ardently and sometimes blindly adhere to in every one of your posts, I just don’t think it applies in this situation. By your logic, there should be no public school system as well in this country. Why should taxpayers be financially responsible for the education of all children in this country when certain (probably most) students don’t take school seriously. I’d be very curious to hear your response to Daniel and myself since we’ve revealed some major holes in your argument and general line of reasoning.
Klein
@Daniel: Sir, you are mis stating facts when you say that “President Obama has never proposed Universal Health Care.”
Here he is saying that he supports a single payer system in his own words => http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE
@Klien “By your logic, there should be no public school system as well in this country. Why should taxpayers be financially responsible for the education of all children in this country when certain (probably most) students don’t take school seriously”
Your analogy doesn’t hold up sir. In fact, it helps to argue the point against public health care. The public school system eliminates choice for most people. Today, you are forced to pay in to the single-payer education system through your property taxes, regardless if your kids attend the public school or not. Since you are burdened with the taxes to pay for public school, most families cannot afford to send their children to private schools. The net result is you have to send you kids to classes that are over-crowded, you have no control over the course matter whereby you have to teach to the level of the lowest common denominator, and ultimately your child gets a worse education than if you were allowed to take that money you pay in public school tax and choose an alternative.
This is precisely what will happen if the public option for health care was enacted. The system will be flooded by millions of new patients so you won’t be able to get the same level of care, hence quality will drop. Like all other government programs, no chance the cost will stay budget neutral as the President has suggested (see the CBO report), so we will be forced to pay more in taxes to support it. Ultimately, you will be taxed to a point where you can’t afford private insurance even if you wanted it and you get to attend the public school of health care.
As for this new moral responsibility marketing campaign, I have serious issues with it. It is difficult to swallow an argument that says you should harm your family to help someone else’s. That’s twisted in my view. I am not saying the system today is perfect, far from it; but you don’t throw away your silver because it isn’t gold.