Any State that sees its founding Declaration (of Independence) invested in the protection of Life (among other things, of course) and has no comprehensive health care system is shaky, at best, when it comes to moral credibility, to me. However, in this post, I want to make a comparison that should, at the very least, argue for consistency across what we already have.
There are no provisions for a State compulsory schooling system in the Constitution or elsewhere, in fact, the very issue was borrowed from Prussia in the mid-1800’s. However, most take it that schooling is something the state ought to provide for free. I have heard it argued that by providing comprehensive schooling (which is presumed to be the same thing as ‘education’) the State makes good on its promise to provide for the Creator-endowed right, “the pursuit of happiness” (a very odd and nebulous right as I see it).
Regardless, if the State were to say that it was going to abolish the compulsory requirement to attend school and stop taxation to fund that program, our society would be in an uproar. We expect schooling to be free, if people choose to excercise that option. We also expect, of course, our roads to be paved, libraries to be free as long as we get the book back on time, police to come over without charge if we are not being cited for a violation, and so on.
If it is so uncontroversial that the State ought to provide a free, comprehensive, and mandatory schooling option to its public, then, why is the same approach to healthcare so controversial? It seems that ‘life’ and ‘health’ are closely related, if not the same exact thing. And it seems straightforward that Life is the most explicit right we have—it is this very point that fuels much of the legislative activism against abortion.
So, given that the right to a free school is widely seen as acceptable—even when it is not a particulary clear right the State owes us—and that Life is such an uncontested right: Why would healthcare be any different?
Here is my proposal for those who oppose a free, comprehensive, healthcare system: You should first work to abolish the compulsory school, since, after all, health seems to be a much more explicit right to provide than schooling. And after compulsory schooling is abolished, you need to justify having libraries, police, and roads.
After all, we hear plenty of horror stories of poor libraries (where you wait for months for one mediocre book), bad cops (who abuse their authority), and terrible roads (goes without saying). Make no mistake these stories canresult in a great deal of suffering and even death. And, of course, the schooling system wrecks havoc in many ways on grand display in the absurdity that is No Child Left Behind. But we still find them all acceptable and part of what the State can and should do for us. So, horror stories of healthcare should not deter us in the very same way to want that too, in fact, it seem more fundamental to our right to Life than the other three I have mentioned.
If one is willing to argue for the abolition of all other State niceties, then, I think she can credibly make an argument against a free, comprehensive healthcare system. Until then, there is a lot of explaining to be done.
(By the way, this argument is without even considering the implications of such issues within a Catholic ethic of charity.)
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In