The truth about healthcare in America is becoming clearer. It is not simply a decision between delivery systems - which one is the best.  It is really about a mix of moral principles, funding and personal freedom. We are gaining insight into the kinds of liberties and moral values at stake. Thankfully our government is designed to be inefficient so that debate on important issues can come out. In this case, a better understanding of the dignity of the human person - the right to life from womb to tomb - has come to the fore.

 

Bishop Nickless unpacks the Catholic position on Healthcare at http://bit.ly/Z9sCV. He is very concerned that the poor and underprivileged have access to good healthcare. He notes, however, that the current House version of the Bill fails to meet two out of four necessary moral criteria. He charges that it is written so as to permit the funding of abortion and euthanasia, as well as mandate preventive medicine. Abortion and Euthenasia are directly contrary to the dignity of human life. As good as preventive care is, governments always end up diminishing the dignity and freewill of their citizens when they attempt to legislate personal morality. This means that the current bill is basically immoral.

What is the specific moral problem? Rush Limbaugh, who acknowledges our current system does not adequately address catastrophic accidents and diseases, is very concerned that the current legislation fundamentally changes the relationship of the government to the citizens. Legislators, he contends, will come to see their constituents as budget items engaged in a dialectic that must be moderated. As a consequence, future legislative battles will pit Americans against one another as each of us scrambles to secure from our elected representatives our own piece of the pie when it comes to healthcare. We will see each other as potential enemies who threaten the quality of health care we think we deserve. The government would have the new role of attempting to moderate this life and death struggle. His point is as soon as a government sees citizens as competing budget items that must be moderated, it sees its role as controlling citizens rather than serving them. Against this dialectic, he is concerned about our right to liberty. Similarly, Hugh Hewitt raises questions about whether we really want government panels making "rulings" over our bodies. See http://tinyurl.com/pk4owq.

On a related point, socialized medicine seems to be dangerous because of the overall moral condition of our society.  Secular governments often apply the most twisted moral rationale to various immoral medical practices. This is because emotions and money rather than reason and sound principles are applied to the questions at hand. When this is the case, whether the plan is managed by private insurance or else by the government, it can only lead to the most unethical of practices.

 

The healthcare debate needs to become a conversation that recaptures solid moral reasoning and sound principles in making healthcare decisions.  Without agreed on principles and the commitment to be morally rational, the panels will be constantly pressured by political voices to choose the most cost effective way of distributing tax dollars to the most aggressive advocates of any health issue.  This could bode ill for the poor and most vulnerable of our society.   In our society, we have disagreements concerning the fundamental dignity of human life.  Many of our fellow citizens look on abortion and euthenasia as human rights that trump life itself. This makes placing healthcare rulings into the hands of law makers or their appointees a naive way to go.