Responding to the recent court events in Florida that declared federal healthcare legislation unconstitutional, Joe Scarborough, conservative host of Morning Joe on MSNBC, said this:
It got me to thinking and wondering if healthcare should be classified as a moral issue? Also caused me to ponder that old overused phrase "you cannot legislate morality". Of course we in America absolutely do legislate morality. The issue is what ideological morality are we legislating. So I think that the answer to the question will be different depending on what ideology you might embrace."Anybody that goes to an emergency room at 11 o'clock at night and sees the people who have to use that as their primary care providers, it shows two things: the inefficiency and the immorality of the system... There are two Americas when it comes to healthcare -- and it is immoral."
Many years ago congress passed Social Security legislation and years later Medicare was passed. The morality of these seemed to embrace the idea that people in their senior years should be cared for by our country. Later on people with disabilities were added to the roles of those covered by these two programs.
So, when I think about the 11pm emergency room scenario that Joe speaks of, I wonder if there is a moral reason to add other folks to the ranks of Medicare. Remember that legislation both reflects and defines America's morality. And it seems to me that our laws should reflect a consistent morality. Possibly the poorest amongst us should be covered by Medicare for the same reasons that seniors are covered.
Do you think healthcare is a moral issue? Please let me know why you think that it is or isn't.
... originally posted February 2, 2011
I guess it all depends how we feel our society should treat "the least of these".
ReplyDelete@Mike - I am thinking that your answer indicates that healthcare is a moral issue for "the least of these". What about healthcare for those who do not fall into that category?
ReplyDeleteIn some cases, we already have a mandate, Bob.
ReplyDeletePeople who have insurance pay for people who don't have insurance.
The morality has already been decided. When someone shows up at an ER after being in an accident, the doctors don't watch as the person bleeds to death on the floor -- the do whatever is needed to save the life. If they can't pay, those with insurance foot the bill. That's the mandate that exists today.
In terms of day-to-day care, using ERs is just costly and wasteful. Again, everyone pays.
@Ed - Good clarification! On one level the moral question has been decided by the medical community. On another level the morality of coverage has not as some are covered (i.e. seniors and disabled) and some are not.
ReplyDeleteMorality by means of government hardly seems moral. I never get to make the moral choice to provide for the needy if it is being done through forced means at the hand of our government. Also, how moral is it to have money that is earned redistributed to others that do not by force. Also, how moral has it been to have medicare destroy the healthcare system, and how moral has it been for social security to force a paradigm shift in retirement thinking that is bankrupting the nation. How moral has it been to render millions into retirement subsistence living because of a false promise of social security. How moral is it to saddle our children with debt to pay for these programs. Aren't the least of these also our children. Is it moral for us to spend their money before they ever earn it.
ReplyDelete@jrchaard - My thinking from your comment is that you are averse to all social entitlements. If not please offer the social entitlements that you support.
ReplyDeletePlease offer your solutions. And if your solutions include the charity of others please let us know why you believe that this charity would help seniors and the disabled. Also, please let us know why you believe that govt assistance was not needed for seniors and the disabled when these legislations were passed.
@Bob I don't think it's an issue for those who don't fall into that category. If people can afford insurance then they can receive adequate, regular health care.
ReplyDelete@Mike - When I think of "the least of these" I usually don't consider small business owners who have to pay outrageous rates to be insured because they cannot buy in bulk like large companies do.
ReplyDelete@Bob And that's why they should be able to band together and buy in bulk.
ReplyDeleteCorrect, I support no social entitlements through government. #1, we assume that the government is providing for only those that are truly indigent. I say this is a false premise in that the very existence of these programs has ballooned the dependency on such programs. For example, nobody of my generation has an expectation that Social Security will be there when I retire. Therefore, I structure my life and finances with that understanding that I must provide for my own retirement, as it had been done for thousands of years prior. So is it moral for all they younger generations to subsidize the other generations mistakes.
ReplyDelete#2. These programs have ruined family cohesion. By providing the illusion of a government program for seniors, it has absolved families from the responsibility of taking care of their own. "Why should they be inconvenienced when the collective could share that responsibility." This obviously spreads across the board as we look at how most government programs work to destroy families, such as incentivizing fathers from being in the picture.
#3. We assume the government can do a better job at running such programs. I think that if anything, history has shown that the gov is the least qualified to administer any program. Case in point, there is a direct correlation in the increase in gov. spending into worstening results, such as the war on poverty or education.
@jrchaard - Does your #2 include medical insurance for disabled folks and seniors who private companies will not insure? If so then where should these folks go for medical treatment? Canada?
ReplyDelete@ jrchaard. fortunately, we live in a country where we have no social entitlements through government, they are all through the will of the people. regarding your point #3, the christian community in america could end poverty tomorrow, we just choose not to. i think that fact is a lot sadder than govt inefficiency.
ReplyDeleteWe choose not to because we have decided to give government the glory instead of God.
ReplyDelete@jrchaard - no ideas on caring for the medical needs that insurance companies won't cover? To me that is the heart of the issue and at the heart of the morality of the healthcare.
ReplyDeleteNot sure that Christians are about giving glory to the govt but I do think that they are not focused on working together but would rather do something hit and miss (and brag about it) rather than something comprehensive.. and hit and miss just doesn't cut it.. yet it would be great if Christians would work together in major ways.
Imagine if the body of Christ was actually whole.
ReplyDeleteTo non Americans, the whole healthcare debate seems very strange. Here we have had universal healthcare since the 70s. Good, affordable healthcare is considered a basic human right, like food and water, and one that no one should need to go into debt for. what we have is a universal healthcare system, partly paid for by a 1.5% medicare tax levy, and above that, private health insurance (paid for by the individual not the employer) which about 50% of the population uses to gain extras like private hospital cover, choosing one's own doctor in a public hospital etc.
ReplyDeleteTo me (and I suspect most Aussies) the thought of anyone being expected to pay more than they can afford for healthcare seems very immoral
Thanks for that perspective Lynne. I suspect that the choke-hold that mega-insurance companies have on our govt is the reason that healthcare reform has been defeated for over 50 years here in the states. Even the most recent reform was most likely influenced by the insurance lobby.
ReplyDeleteI can believe it. I was amazed to learn from a friend some years ago that US insurance companies have the right to know your diagnosis (here that would be in violation of privacy laws) and can say how much treatment you're entitled to. Here that decision is entirely in the hands of the doctors, who can make decisions on a case by case basis. (OTOH, if doctors abuse the system they're answerable to the government for overservicing)
ReplyDeleteI suppose, that as a Super Power, we have children with cell phones, computers and all the gadgets, yet we have people who cannot afford health care.
ReplyDeleteIf you consider what we, as Americans will not give up to help those in need, it is a sad moral issue. But, it is moral to force those who have these gadgets to pay for those who do not have healthcare? If so, then why would someone work hard?
And, do you force the poor and middle class, who cannot afford healthcare, to buy it? Where is the freedom in that?
@Oscar - It is a complex issue for sure. As Ed previously said one part of the morality question has been decided - doctors do not refuse to help those who come to them in the ER. The flip-side of the moral issue is that many of them come with no intention and/or ability to pay. Many states require drivers to carry liability insurance and no one seems to question the morality of that. I don't really have many answers but I do have a lot of questions.
ReplyDeleteLook at all the responses you got. I really don't know, these things confuse me, so I don't have an opinion on this.
ReplyDelete
DeleteThose were the days before everyone went Facebook Debby.
I am pretty much an inclusionist when it comes to helping people. Wish more people helped people in need through private charities but am glad that our government is helping them. Especially children.
"Boy the way Glenn Miller Played..."
Delete