Despite the Senate's recent failure to pass the initial Republican repeal-and-replace, the Trump administration is undermining both Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act in other ways. That threatens all of us. It undermines the common good. And it defies both global moral consensus and the promises made in America's Declaration of Independence. Let's look at moral arguments in support of universal health care (that is, some version of "Medicare for everybody").
Our Founding Fathers talked about three inalienable rights: to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (commonly understood at the time as personal fulfillment or human thriving). A right to life without a right to health care seems hollow.
The world community seems to agree. In 1946, when the world order had come to the brink of collapse threatening the liberty, health, and lives of entire populations, the United Nations established the World Health Organization, arguing for “. . . the highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental right of every human being.” Health as a human right (a right by virtue of simply being human) has been reaffirmed in Article 25 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and subsequent human rights documents.
For rugged individualists and others who do not believe in the language of human rights, there are other compelling moral arguments. It’s hard to dismiss research demonstrating that other industrialized countries with universal health care cover everyone, spend less, get better outcomes, and have greater satisfaction rates than the US. In other words, these systems are driven by prudence, pragmatic outcomes and fiscal stewardship.
When we tolerate a society that does not ensure access to health care, we engender not only poorer health status, but also loss of human potential and more problems— including social instability and violence, substance abuse, bankruptcies and unemployment. Indeed, a committee of the National Academy of Medicine estimated that the “benefits in terms of the value of healthy life years gained by providing coverage to those currently uninsured are likely greater than the incremental societal costs of the additional health care services that they would receive if insured.
Most countries figured this out years ago. They treat health care as part of the social contract based upon the common good . Healthcare is an essential service in which all of society has a stake, just like clean drinking water, emergency services, public education, safe roads and bridges. Health care is fundamental to safety, preservation of life, human thriving and equality of opportunity. The international community, speaking through the Constitution of the World Health Organization, has unequivocally said that “governments have a responsibility for the health of their peoples which can be fulfilled only by the provision of adequate health and social measures.” The U.S. is now the ONLY industrialized country without universal health care.
Indeed, sixty percent of Americans agree that health care is an appropriate responsibility of government. Even those who disagreed still overwhelmingly favored keeping Medicare and Medicaid—which are, of course, government insurance programs.
And finally, religious mandates provide another source of moral guidance. Essentially every religious tradition tells us to care for the sick. Each has a version of the Golden Rule, i.e., to treat others as we would want to be treated. These obligations to one another are not meant to be empty words, optional only when convenient. They are serious moral obligations we owe to each other.
In short, the moral arguments in favor of universal health care are robust and plentiful. How about those against? I am at a loss to come up with a single moral argument against it, or conversely in favor of health care as a privilege. Can you?
By Amanda Evinger | “Let us bring true feminine charm back into our world. Let us promote motherhood instead of fashion-hood. Motherhood is truly a noble and proud profession. Let us do our best to preserve the grace.” —Rosie…
The US Supreme Court has ruled that a California law requiring crisis pregnancy centres to post notices about nearby abortion services violates the rights of free speech enshrined in the constitution. Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York praised the ruling as “an important victory for the free speech rights of pro-life organisations”. He said it allowed pro-life centres to continue providing support “without being forced by governments to provide free advertising for the violent act of abortion”. The court found that the law changed the content of clinics’ speech “by compelling petitioners to speak a particular message”, and that it went further than being a mere “regulation of professional conduct that incidentally burdens speech”.
Mexico’s bishops have congratulated leftist leader Andrés Manuel López Obrador on his landslide presidential election victory. The new president, known as Amlo, has promised to tackle corruption and crime. During the election campaign 100 candidates and their staff were killed. Amlo is a former altar server who describes himself as a “Christian in the broadest sense”. In a statement, the bishops said a better future was only possible if every citizen worked towards it. “No ruler by himself has all the ideas and all the solutions,” they said. As the votes were being counted, Amlo said: “The changes will be profound.”
This article appears in the Catholic Herald magazine - to read it in full subscribe to our digital edition from just 30p a week
The Catholic Herald is your essential weekly guide to the Catholic world; latest news, incisive opinion, expert analysis and spiritual reflection
US abortion law is based on a great lie. But the new Supreme Court Justice could help to strike it down
Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador toned down the rhetoric during the campaign, but what will he do in office?
ADRISER ONLINE SL - CIF B54546171 Grupo Cobratis España Asistencia jurídica Esther Sánchez Hellín Abogado Alicante ICALI 5795 Blog Facebook Google+ Ir a web móvil