Let me make the crucial point to begin with which is that I believe that we have the moral obligation to provide basic medical care to everybody who needs it and who cannot or will not provide it for himself.
Beyond the moral obligation I believe there is also a practical basis for this from the social standpoint as well. As Mr. Trump says -- we can't have people dying in the street.
Furthermore I believe that the overwhelming majority or our citizens, including the overwhelming majority of my conservative fellow citizens would agree with this statement especially in the practical setting of someone who required help.
I would hope that this would help at least to some extent to dispel the argument that conservatives, many of whom are highly intelligent and steeped in Judeo-Christian traditions, do not consider medical care a right because of ignorance, greed or lack of compassion.
I will skip over the philosophical argument that human rights such as those traditionally envisioned by our founders and the philosophers of the Enlightenment were simply freedoms from oppression by the majority and in particular the force of government. These rights are essentially unrestricted except where they impose on similar rights of others. I also understand the argument raised by the socialists of the 30's as encapsulated by FDR's discussion of the four freedoms that an individual cannot be truly free without being free from basic human needs.
The real arguments against calling medical care a basic human right are practical ones, to wit:
The concept has the inherent contradiction that fulfillment of such a right would oblige someone else to provide it, thus imposing on that person's freedom. In addition this right must be fulfilled by material goods and services which are in limited supply and therefore the question arises as to the whether and in what manner this right is to be restricted. But by far the most important practical consideration is how exactly we are to arrange for the enjoyment of this right.
The usual solution for the method of providing this right is for a collective arrangement supervised and regulated by the government. I would say that the main reason that we have not adopted this approach in the U.S. is our deep-rooted skepticism of government activity, not by all, but by a very substantial portion of our citizenry. Time and time again the government in its activities has proved itself to be venal, wasteful and hypocritical. Politicians claiming to be interested in public service are often more interested in self-service. Many government bureaucrats are sincere and hard-working but at the same time inefficient government bureaucracies are notoriously the subject of common humor.
However I think the more important criticism of collective action supervised and regulated by the government is that in society there is no such thing as common purpose and the common good but only individual desires and needs frequently in conflict with each other. Without going into detailed examples or appealing to the great number of authorities who have discussed this subject, the salient point is that it is simply not possible for government to arrange to provide suitably for the individual needs and desires of the individual citizens in the same manner that they would provide for themselves.
I will gloss over the comparative virtues of the market economy vis a vis the centrally planned economy in providing efficiently and appropriately goods and services at the lowest cost except to say that if there ever was a settled argument this is it. One might argue that it is reasonable to accept the waste, inefficiency and progressive regulation of government central control for the sake of equality of outcome. In response to this I will not bother you with the many examples that government control simply shifts the spectrum of those who receive favored treatment. Instead I would argue that the correct approach for the U.S. (which is a substantially different culture from Europe or Australia or Japan, etc) would be to not interfere with the majority who can provide for themselves and limit government involvement to those who cannot or will not make those provisions. In addition government should continue to act as a facilitator of the market to be sure there is no fraudulent activity or inappropriate hindrance of competition.
I understand the argument that some make about the fairness and the undesirability of a two tiered medical system. It is my personal opinion and those of many others that the major adverse tradeoffs inherent in a full centrally controlled system are simply too severe to warrant this purported benefit. I will leave aside any discussion of the fact that no system, especially a government controlled one, exists which does not favor the wealthy and politically connected. More importantly many argue that the efficiencies and substantially lower cost inherent in a market based system would significantly reduce the number of those who would require assistance. Nevertheless I strongly believe that government care limited to those who cannot or will not provide for themselves could easily match the care presently being provided by the advanced countries with centrally controlled systems, especially absent the government's involvement with other segments of our population.
Much of what is wrong in our present system is due to undue government intervention. Time would be needed to reverse the effects of the unfair government subsidies dispensed to those working for large employers or who have high cost cadillac medical insurance. Other problems to address over time would be the large government benefits to the non-needy elderly, costly restrictions on the availability and type of coverage of medical insurance, restrictions on type of practitioners, extensive price controls, hyperregulation and many other similar problems which add high cost or inefficiency.
In this regard if one wishes to propose medical care as a right, we should address those economic rights which government is presently restricting. Should we not have to right to decide in what manner to purchase medical goods and services, what price to pay, what records are to be kept of interactions, what type of practitioner I can contract with, whether or not to purchase medical insurance and what type it should be. All of these regulations and restrictions have been judged to be legal but many citizens consider them to be abhorrent and oppressive.
I lay all this out not to convince you to my opinion but simply to convince you that there are reasoned alternative arguments. You speak of the right to medical care as if it were a geometric axiom, not to be denied by any rational being, so obviously true as to incite frustration at the obtuseness of your adversary.
No comments:
Post a Comment