And by "Universal" Health Care, What We Really Mean is Health Care for Some...

J+M+J

As the debate over the Obama administration's proposed universal health care bill rages on, many advocates of this governmental overhaul of medical affairs are feverishly playing the morality card. “How could any decent person,” they ask, “be opposed to universal health care? Do we not have a moral obligation to help the less fortunate in their basic medical needs?” Against such rhetoric, opponents of socialized health care are suddenly thrust into a menacing light; they are cast as villains, who are forever thwarting a benevolent and responsible government from acting on behalf of the suffering masses. However, for all their talk of the importance of compassion, it is interesting to note the actual lack of tenderness, especially toward the extremely old, young, or infirm, which marks the self-proclaimed attitudes of Obama's top advisers and the key proponents of his health care agenda. As one delves deeper into the mentality which drives the bill, along with its stipulations to ration health care according to the expected usefulness of the patient, one should quickly realize the hypocrisy of this initiative, whose supporters have the audacity and deceitfulness to label as “universal.”

While the Obama administration continues to rally the masses with cries of “universal health care for all,” it is crucial for Americans to carefully question how a government, which itself is ludicrously in debt, will be able to live up to such an expensive promise. One way, socialized health care advocates argue, to achieve the impossible is to ration health care. “Ration health care? Wait, how does one fairly choose whom to care for, and whom, in turn, to deny?” To many in government as a whole, and the Obama administration in particular, one of the primary criteria seems to be that of utilitarianism. According to Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Special Advisor for Health Policy to Peter Orszag (Director of the Office of Management and Budget):

“...services that promote the continuation of the polity - those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations - are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia (Emphasis mine).1”

Dr. Emanuel continued along this vein in a 2009 article he co-authored with Govind Persad and Alan Wertheimer, entitled: "Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions" in the journal The Lancet. Emanuel and his fellow authors proposed that: "Allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines is a persistent ethical challenge. We evaluate eight simple allocation principles that can be classified into four categories: treating people equally, favoring the worst-off, maximizing total benefits, and promoting and rewarding social usefulness.2” And while the authors admit that, “No single principle is sufficient to incorporate all morally relevant considerations and therefore individual principles must be combined into multi[-]principle allocation systems,” they also stress that “When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.3” Now, the question becomes: who exactly determines what constitutes as “social usefulness”? If the question is left up to the partisan bureaucrats in Washington, both democrat and republican, is it really that absurd, given the extremely ethical and sound judgment which marks political history, to assume that maybe, just maybe, considerations of an individual's political or social leanings might prove paramount in determining whether or not he is worthy of medical care? And if we are attempting to construct a system in which utilitarianism is a top priority, what has become of true compassion? If we seek to stack patients up against a list of criteria before deciding whether or not it is efficacious for us to serve them, and subsequently, we deny care to the most destitute, the most sickly individuals among us, all in the name of perceived societal preservation, to what have we reduced charity? In fact, if “indulgence or forbearance in judging others,” is a definition of the word “charity,” how can we only bestow charity upon others after they demonstrate their supposed “worthiness” of such a gift?

Additionally, the question of sincerity arises when considering socialized health care's “mandatory charity.” Supporters of Obama's plan, most notably from religious camps, cite the parable of “The Good Samaritan” as an indication that universal health care, under any and all guises, is the moral standard. Yet, it is important to note that “The Good Samaritan” was moved to compassion and assented to this inclination of his own volition. If this same Samaritan had somehow been forced, cajoled, or authorized to treat his suffering fellow with kindness, particularly at the behest of ever-watchful, ever-intrusive government, it would inherently detract from the merit of his actions. Furthermore, it begs the question: if a man is obliged to demonstrate compassion, is he really compassionate?

Government mandated health care bespeaks nothing of true compassion. As a virtue, compassion cannot be legislated or imposed upon anyone. To be sure, governments are often able to deter individuals from evil actions, namely, by the laws enacted which impose consequences for immoral or dangerous behavior. But a governing body is not able to instill virtue in its citizens – virtue must be obtained through the free act of an individual's will, inspired by the grace of God. It is utter folly to believe that men and women can be forced into a compassionate spirit, when the idea of compassion itself necessitates the freedom to love. “It is the very essence of love that the person in love offers himself, with full freedom, to the loved one; love has to be exercised with such freedom that absolutely no one can be constrained to love”4.

Though politicians may try to convince citizens otherwise, compassion is a fruit of charity – not a result of government mandates. In a society that values and respects all life, not merely the lives of individuals whose presence is either useful or desired, a genuine spirit of charity naturally evolves. In trying to artificially “instill” a spirit of compassion through the use of a complex web of vague legislative language, Americans will simply succeed in creating a health care system, which not only provides mediocre care, but is administered with hollow devotion.

M.K.

1.Emanuel, E.J. (1996). "Where civic republicanism and deliberative democracy meet". Hastings Center Report 26 (6): 12-14. http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf
2.Persad, G., Wertheimer, A., & Emanuel, E.J. (2009-01-31). "Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions". The Lancet 373 (9661): 423-431. http://www.lancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60137-9/fulltext.
3. Ibid.
4. Galvez, Rev. Alfonso, SJCP. “Theology: Love For the Truth.” Latin Mass Magazine Vol. 18, No. 3., pgs: 40-43.