Universal HealthCare’s Key Arguments

Running a website and writing for multiple newspapers, I receive a tremendous amount of feedback on a weekly basis. That feedback ranges from positive to negative, rational to emotional, and from conservative to liberal. Of all the posts and articles I’ve written, however, no single topic has incited as much reader response as healthcare. It is something that Americans are clearly passionate about, and may define the next decade of reform and legislation.

As such, I’ve compiled overriding themes from reader responses, and addressed the arguments here (quotes are from actual reader voices):

1. The rich think that healthcare reform is unnecessary because they can already afford quality care.

“The rich and well to do will always have whatever care they need – what about those hardworking middle class families who need it and don’t have it. Maybe we should just keep breaking their backs.”

This is a classic class warfare argument, attempting to give the moral high ground to the poor while demonizing the rich. In essence, the reader is saying that the rich are invalidated because they do not feel the same impact as the poor. The argument, however, is grossly misdirected.

Everyone agrees that healthcare needs reform—the costs are as high for the rich as they are for the poor. The root issue is the same for both groups, but the relative impact is different. For a wealthy person, high cost means less discretionary spending. For a poor person, high cost means no healthcare at all.

While it is true that the status quo impact is different, the impact of reform most negatively affects the 80% of the country with healthcare. Should that 80% dismiss the opinions of those without healthcare because the impact of reform differs greatly? If you apply the logic of the reader’s argument, then discussions of reform should remain only with those who already have healthcare. Just because status quo impact is different, it does not mean the rights of either group are invalidated.

The truth is that both sides have a powerful stake in reform, and the rights of both groups must be respected. The real question, then, is whether or not healthcare is a fundamental Constitutional right.

2. As the richest nation in the world, we have the moral responsibility to provide healthcare for our citizens.

“I like to believe that we live in a civilized society in which all citizens are concerned for the health of the society as a whole. A civilized healthy society should include healthcare for all its members to insure that everyone has access to and is treated equally when it comes to basic needs.”

This argument again attempts to legislate morality from the seat of government. It forgets that liberty is the historical linchpin of the American experiment. When government intervenes in society, it necessarily strips liberty from its people—it decides for you. When the government spends a dollar, it spends your dollar. It is simply deciding on your behalf where your money should be spent. If President Obama wants to pay for healthcare for all Americans, he must take your money and pay for the healthcare of those who cannot afford it. In other words, universal healthcare is forced charity.

If you believe that healthcare is a moral issue, then you have the right to give your money to help those in need. But government should not be the legislator of that charity. This does not mean that healthcare is unimportant, or that the nation is uncompassionate. It simply means that you have a right (in liberty) to decide where your money is spent.

America may be the richest nation in the world, but that does not mean that its wealth should be forcefully redistributed. You cannot trade one value (government welfare) for the most essential value (liberty) and claim a moral high ground.

3. Those without healthcare are not responsible for their lack of coverage. They are the victims of an unfair system.

“My job was outsourced to Manilla…I’m stuck until I’m able to find a good paying job because of THE RECESSION THAT GWB AND YOU gave to all of us.”

“In all likelihood, you are lucky enough NOT to have any chronic conditions and assuredly have not had to avail yourself of the high cost of medical care, I have and know that other Americans have…it is unfair.”

Our Founders believed that the greatest sin of government was to strip its people of liberty. This belief spurred the Revolutionary War, and has defined our nation since its founding. Liberty, our Founders said, was found in the pursuit, not the guarantee of success, happiness, and wealth. That distinction is critically important, because the ability to pursue those things is present without government control. The American Dream is that anyone can become anything by the power of personal will and industry, not government provision.

The Founders’ hope was that Americans would be responsible for their own outcomes. When the government attempts to force those outcomes, it infringes on the liberty of its people. Certainly, some people face difficult uphill battles while others are privileged. But that is the reality of a free society. The beautiful reality of freedom is that anyone can succeed; the harsh reality is that many will not.

The alternative to freedom is a government controlled and regulated society, where freedom is disdained because of its unequal results (see China; Russia; North Korea). There is no utopian middle ground between liberty and tyranny.

On healthcare, each individual must earn quality care through hard work and industry. Otherwise, we face socialist policy that has failed so many nations before our own. The fact is that in America you are given the opportunity to succeed, and to succeed enough to have health coverage. There are exceptions to this rule (disabled; children etc.), and we largely provide for them. But to apply that exception to the whole is to soil the American Dream of industry with the socialist notion of casualty.

-Matt Benchener from TruPolitics.net