I have a colleague steeped in conservative ideology and religious beliefs. Yesterday he told me that the difference between us was that I believed it was moral for the government to tax you for somebody else’s healthcare and he did not.
He said that it is immoral to take his money by taxation and use it to provide healthcare to others. Immoral. His money is his property and taking it to help others is morally wrong. He is an individualist although he would not describe himself that way.
He accepts paying taxes as part of the social contract with government but he has strong beliefs on the limitations of same. Any confiscation of his money, outside of the social contract with government, is immoral in his opinion. That social contract includes the protection of citzens and their property but does not include shifting property from those who have some to those who do not.
I understand the principles and the moral argument in which he bases his position, namely, property rights. He is firmly convinced that it is not only immoral to take 30% of his earned money every year but that a greater immorality occurs when a government convinces its citizens that a 30% tax rate is acceptable and moral.
Which leads me to an odd conclusion based upon his beliefs. It is acceptable and moral to permit the suffering of others as this is the natural state of man. Although there may be man-made systems and methods to end mankind’s suffering , if the method to achieve that goal is immoral then it should not be implemented. If God created a world in which actions have consequences and in which the eternal soul of man may be damned in perpetuity for beliefs and behaviors, then it should not be wrong for you to permit the suffering of your fellow man in this lifetime. God Himself permits mankind to suffer every day and He will cause most men to suffer eternally for the life that they have imperfectly lead.
This logic is enough reason to turn everyone into a progressive in my opinion. Who can live in a world in which the misery index of Humanity is excessive because an individual’s right to keep his money trumps the life of one’s neighbor? Many of us think that people should die if they fail at life. Others think that lifelines and safety nets are good inventions. In my colleague’s world, mankind’s inequality in talent, ability, beauty, justice, position in life, and health is the natural world. To create another type of world that seeks social justice and the abatement of indigenous inequalities is immoral on the face of it.
My colleague will never understand Progressives that believe in the betterment of all individuals’ lives. He does not see social support systems doing anything except undermining the natural condition of human life. He believes that people must learn to survive the natural world through a value system and work ethic that has proven successful for millenium.
Public healthcare is immoral in his view. Please don’t think that he is not charitable, he contributes his time and his money every year to organizations that better the lives of other people. He is a very understanding man and has great patience for the weaknesses in some men. It is very moral for him to contribute his time and money to help others and it is immoral for others to take his property and do this without him.
In the healthcare debate with our fellow citizens, we should be cognizant of what drives some views of government-run healthcare. The confiscation of property to accomplish noble, progressive, and well-intentioned goals is anathema to many of our neighbors. It is immoral for many people.
I would be interested in specifically what would be considered moral versus amoral.
Under this belief system we could be without:
Social Security
Welfare
Medicare Medicaid
Children’s Healthcare systems (CHAP?)
Education support at all levels – Head Start to college grants
I think we must be careful when comparing our fortunes against others misfortunes. A simple twist of fate can bring any down so quickly.
One measure of a society is how we care for the least fortunate and deserving. I do not want to be part of castigating the less fortunate. A hand up always but also a hand out when it is needed.
Not amoral (without morals) but immoral (wrong).
Yes, he thinks those are immoral.
And the alternative to those who cannot care for themselves without any assistance would be….. a trip to the death panel?
ahhh, clever answer. I have not discussed this with him though.
Government began social programs, because personal philanthropy did not cover the needs of those not deemed worthy. It is easier to personally give to children than the elderly, cancer than mentally ill, cute puppies than dirty homeless, etc., but the need is still there and still a concern of society.
Government provides equality in services and provides a stabilizing force that keep those who feel caring for each other is immoral in the position of safety.
Imagine if we, again, only provided to those we felt “deserved” our compassion. What would our social structure look like? Would it provide a safe stable community? Or would it create a community of anarchy? Individuals not able to do meaningful work or find a legal way to provide for their needs will resort to other undesirable means of having their needs filled.
Ask your friend what type of society he believes he deserves or feels is moral….one that is stable and equitable or one that only the strong (or deserving) can survive?
Healthcare is an extension of the stable society, just like fire/police, unemployment compensation, child welfare and other programs we have come to accept as services provided by government.
I don’t know your friend, but I suspect that his concerns surround taxation more than inequality and denial of services to the “least of us”. I believe that he would not actively support cutting off those who need, but believe he is more concerned about big government, which is a different discussion than proposed above. That is an ideological discussion more than a moral discussion.
Sadly the system is only catering decently to those who “deserve it”, ie have a decent job and good insurance. Stil, If you work hard and have good coverage, you are not completely safe. I had both once about a time, until I came down with MS. Health insurance dropped me almost immediately. I had to leave my job as part of the job requirements entail being psychically about to perform certain tasks. This was all perfectly legal.
Despite my illness I have managed to keep off disablilty… barely and even if I was accepted to the program the amount I’d receive would not be enough to pay off my medical debts let alone support myself.
According to the current “reasoning” amongst the conservatives, this is my problem, not our government’s. If I die for lack of treatment, it is not their problem. If my child suffer it is my fault. Apparently I made a poor life choice. I got sick. As unbelievable as it sounds, I have been called a deadbeat by bill collectors. I used to work a 50 hour a week job. I was always the responsible one in my family and now I get treated like garbage…because I am sick. Worse, I am in an MS support group with a dozen people in my same position.
I am not writing this to gain sympathy from anyone, I don’t want it. I writing this to wake up those who need it. The healthcare system has failed. We can either whine about or do something about it.
Think: what if this happen to me? Would I go broke? I did. I made 60k a year before this. Would my suppose leave me? Mine did after 9 years of marriage.
Is this a moral issue? If honest,hard working tax payers can suffer what I have than the answer is _yes_. I would gladly give 30% of my income to ensure what happened to me does not happen to any American ever again. That conservatives who largely identify themselves as Christians can believe “do unto others” only applies to those who can pay their medical bills is truly immoral.
Thanks for sharing your story.
You and your troubles are one of the reasons I support healthcare reform.
It is my belief that it is noble for the wealth of a country to be spent upon its citizens and in particular upon health, food, shelter, and clothing.
If the money comes from income taxes, corporate taxes, or a special health insurance tax, duties on imports, or whatever, I am okay with that.
If the lazy and indolent among us receive a benefit because we take care of working Americans, I can accept that, too.
I wish you well, Chad. Please come again and join our conversation.
Hi PartiallyBlue.
Thanks for writing your initial blog. It is well thought out and well written.
I realize that I was probably preaching to the choir with the above. The more people start seeing health care as not a privilege, but necessary for a sane civilization the better we’ll be. That worse that people of my own faith have twisted this issues saddens and appals me. Again thanks for speaking up! The more the better.
Take care,
Chad