Justice for All = Health Care for All?

Justice for All = Health Care for All? March 24, 2017

health care
Creative Commons

How just and how advanced is a society that does not provide affordable, quality health care for all its members? Our answer may depend on whether you and I consider human health a fundamental human need and right.

Is the solution to allow market forces to dictate what is right and just? If so, Wall Street and Washington, D. C. have become one. In that event, there would be no recourse to regulating market forces when such forces can’t keep health care costs down (one should ask here: when have market forces ever truly kept health care costs down?).

Affordable, quality health care that excludes a significant portion of the population is only fair if we define an advanced society as one favoring the materially advantaged. The materially advantaged may alone be able to pay for high quality in health care. But can we view health care that is of high quality truly just if we view it as a luxury item? In that case, even justice becomes a luxury commodity—available only to the highest bidder. I would be happy to settle for good quality in place of highest quality, if that meant universal coverage.

Of course, there needs to be concern for economics, as economic vitality also impacts human well-being. On my view, all parties must be involved in cultivating a system that celebrates affordable, quality health care for all its members. We are all stakeholders, even though we are not all shareholders in health care industries. Speaking of economics, I am told that preventative health care lowers costs down the road for all concerned. Thus, proper exercise, proper diet and regular checkups as well as ongoing education are key ingredients for keeping long-term costs down. Provisions for emergency room-only visits will not be sufficient for sustaining people’s lives. In the end, consideration of economic benefits must account for the long-term health of the workforce, as well as those who will someday enter it, and those who have retired after dedicating much of their energies to building our country.

One Christian activist with whom I spoke yesterday indicated that as the federal government seems set to pull back on various health care services for many Americans, the church must step into the gap. While I appreciate very much his heart and rigorous activism, and though I resonate with his claim that the church must always be ready and engaged in providing support, it cannot do it alone. The costs are too great, and the burden beyond any one group’s ability to cope.

Furthermore, I don’t agree with those in my circles whom I hear placing the blame solely on the church. I have heard on numerous occasions fellow Christians claiming that the church alone is responsible for addressing the nation’s health care plight. What would that mean anyway—increasing church budgets to provide the funds for health care premiums for all their attendees? Even if churches were to increase their budgets to pay for all their attendees (which I doubt any church could or would do given the extremely high costs for health insurance), that still would not cover most people in society. We can only face the daunting challenges for affordable, quality health care for all members in our society if there is universal collaboration, including government agencies, public and private health care systems, educational institutions, commercial insurance providers, manufacturers of medical technologies, pharmaceutical companies, and faith-based as well as other non-profit community organizations.

I corresponded with a leading medical doctor and ethicist who reflected upon the percentage of a GNP that can be safely spent on health care. He argued that the U.S. needs to curb costs quickly because we are now up to 16% or more. In his estimation, we cannot curb costs by refusing to provide services, but we can curb costs by reducing what is charged for services. He added that this will be painful for those delivering services, but it will need to be done by someone at some point in the future.

There is a lot at stake in the present and future, not simply politically for Republicans and Democrats, and not just economically either. Beyond the impending vote in Congress on health care, we need to ask ourselves if our society will be known more for working together toward universal solutions, or for continuing down the path of partisan and class divisions. Will our seemingly advanced society be known for advancing the concerns of the advantaged to the neglect of those most in need? If so, we should replace justice for all with justice for some—or $ sum.


Browse Our Archives