Of Health Care and Human Rights
Democracy, Editorial, Family, Social Justice — By M. Morford on May 25, 2012 at 5:16 am
Words swirl around the issue of healthcare in the USA as if it were some kind of arcane medieval discussion along the lines of discerning how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.
But healthcare, like love, is no abstraction. It matters, and makes sense, only when it directly touches – or doesn’t touch – an individual in a specific situation.
If songs were written about healthcare, they would have the same themes as love songs; we either have it or don’t have it, we’ve lost it or we’ve found it – or we’re glad we have it.
And, like every cultural argument, this is not a new one. But, also like every other argument worth having, we bring our own contemporary biases, assumptions and confusions. Which is why a key premise of legal documentation is the principle of precedent; what had been the concerns and decisions in previous, similar cases.
As we look back, we just might learn something from how previous generations framed, defined and dealt with these same situations.
I grew up near a private, religiously based university. At that time there was a fierce debate over GI benefits and how to best support our returning troops as they returned to school and civilian life.
The most heated dimension of this argument was over whether tax-dollars should go to a religiously based institution. Was this, or was this not, a violation of church/state separation.
The solution to that debate was elegant in its clarity and simplicity; financial aid is for the student, not for the institution. The student was a free-agent in a competitive education/career market.
In the same way, healthcare is for individuals, not institutions.
One difference, of course, is that not everyone pursues higher education; everyone certainly does – or will – use healthcare.
Healthcare, like education, should be based on the requirements and preferences of the particular individual.
Can you imagine the chaos if it were not this way?
We currently have some Catholic organizations lobbying to be exempt from contraception as an element of healthcare programs. Will we also have Jehovah’s Witness organizations demanding that transfusions and hip, knee or other organ replacements not be covered? Or Christian Science organizations demanding that no medical interventions at all should be covered?
We have the choice, and I believe, the moral obligation, to do the right, fair and equitable thing for individuals.
The Constitution guarantees rights to individuals. To allow organizations more rights than the individuals they exist to serve is ludicrous as well as a violation of common sense – and legal precedent.
There are two primary arguments against the proposed healthcare changes.
Both fall apart upon close inspection.
First, the ever present issue of the expense. The USA already pays vastly more per person than any other developed country for health care.
I used to work with homeless people. One of the mathematical realities of the expense related to homelessness is that it is vastly cheaper to pay for housing than to pay for the entire related social, legal and health complications that arise from being homeless.
Every parent knows that regularly scheduled dental care is far cheaper, less painful and less traumatic than the neglect that leads to catastrophic intervention.
Every car owner knows that basic preventative maintenance is key to long-term care. The same is true of health care; it is far cheaper to provide routine care than to respond to catastrophic health complications.
Second, there is the hysterical fear of government intervention.
Does it really make sense to argue that the government could make us buy something we wouldn’t already buy?
To point out how ridiculous this argument is, I simply propose that those who make this statement make a pledge to hold to their beliefs; they should promise to never use health care. Denial of resuscitation and emergency medical intervention should be a small price to pay for ideological purity and consistency.
Tags: Christians and Health Care, government, Health, health care reform, homelessness, Justice
13 Comments
I don’t get this. At the beginning, you complain that there is too much bickering about this topic. But arguing is only a result of people having two or more viewpoints. You presented yours. Others have a very different viewpoint. You apparently have no problem presenting your view, but if anyone who sees it differently says so, according to the logic you give us in the opening paragraphs, an argument would ensue.
In fact, your last few paragraphs are, in fact, an argument with the positions held by those who oppose yours.
So which is it? Cannot a person have a viewpoint that’s different than yours? And if so, do you allow them to express it?
By the way, you have several inaccurate or misleading statements in this piece. For example:
“We currently have some Catholic organizations lobbying to be exempt from contraception as an element of healthcare programs.”
Not, they want to be exempt from contraception being *mandatory*. Not just “an element”. This is a huge difference. This is a matter of an institution being *required* by govt to provide something that goes against the core beliefs of what that institution is about.
Feel free to argue against whether it’s OK for govt to do that, but at least make sure you tell the whole story when doing so.
James, Morford was actually right, since contraception IS an element of healthcare programs, regardless of how Catholic university’s “feel” about it. Contraception is used for a large variety of issues, some life savings, or incredibly medical, so if you’re going to provide healthcare, as the university’s do, you can’t pick and choose what you “morally are opposed to”, otherwise, like Morford said, we could have institutions “opposed” to traditional medicine, only providing prayer and homeopathic remedies.
Emily, then why didn’t he include the fact that it is mandatory? If one is going to argue an issue, and they leave out the part that is the most important part of it, then they lose credibility.
I don’t understand your argument James. It’s “mandatory” in that, it’s an element of healthcare that women need, and require, so it’s as “mandatory” as anti-biotics, or blood transfusion, etc. He didn’t have to say it’s “mandatory” because there are a multitude of things that are “mandatory”, because they’re standard services that need to be offered by healthcare providers; but the Catholic church isn’t protesting these others. I think you’re unfairly focusing on semantics here, because you disagree with his position.
James,
Forgive me if I misunderstand your argument, but you do not seem to be making sense here. Contraception is not “mandatory” for any individual in that they must take it. It is simply mandatory that health care programs offer it as part of a spectrum of available (and optional) treatments. In this sense Morford’s argument is perfectly valid as-is. The Catholic Church is required to provide Health Care that includes contraceptives to the employees of its for-profit enterprises. It is then up to the employees whether or not they choose to include the contraceptives or any other treatment as part of their own health care regimen. If their employees are devout Catholics who would be morally against the use of contraceptives then they would not have to take them. Similarly if a nurse employed at a Catholic hospital were a practicing Presbyterian with no moral qualms about using contraceptives wanted to use that, it would be available to her through her for-profit employer, the Catholic Hostpital.
I don’t understand why you think Morford’s argument is discredited and nothing that I saw in his post seemed misleading. Are you sure you are perfectly clear on the facts yourself?
I guess I’m not being clear. My apologies. Let me try again.
Under the new law, an employer must provide coverage (that is, pay for) contraceptives for their employees. there is no exemption for an employer which has beliefs which inform them that such a practice could be murder.
Now, I’m not Catholic and don’t agree with the idea of birth control pills being murderous. But my beliefs aren’t the point. The problem is that this is a government telling a religious organization that they must violate their core beliefs.
I’m not going to get into arguing whether the Catholic church is right on this; my point was that those who argue for such a requirement, including Morford, present it with wording that makes it sound like not such a big deal. But the bigger issue–a government telling a religious organization to go against their faith–is abhorrent. By failing to mention that the government is mandating this (Emily, that’s the “mandatory” part; I never said anyone was required to take the pills), and saying it’s merely an “element” of the new law, Morford is casting it in a light which is favorable to his argument. That’s his right, of course. It’s his article. But it strikes me as missing the most important part of why I, and many like me, are against such a law.
He then followed with his cherry-picked reasons sometimes given for why some oppose this attempt at healthcare reform, and, because those arguments are fairly weak, he’s able to diffuse them in short order. But he never addressed the main thing, and that’s what makes his piece lose credibility.
I don’t get how narrow-minded people are. A 700-billion bailout granted to the banks is something worthy, a 1.4 trillion army as well, but giving happiness to people thru a cheaper healthcare system (that would lower the insurance company benefits, and inevitably their lobby power) is very socialist and dangerous. Where are your balls, États Soumis de l’Amérique?
Textbooks strawman. It’s as if I said “the sky is blue” and you say “no it isn’t. The grass is green.”
Many of us are against the govt bank bailout and against the current govt healthcare reform law. Your comment implies that we accept one while being against the other. Not that there aren’t some people who believe that, but I’ll bet they’re in the minority.
In Australia, we have a dual health care system where free public health care is provided for all Australians, but those who wish to can elect to pay for private health insurance and then have the option to choose providers, specialists and hospitals. Some use a combination of both. Except for the issue where varying amounts are budgeted by the incumbent government for health care, the system works very well, and its generally considered that Australian health care is amongst the most equitable and most accessible in the world. I find it very difficult to understand why many people equate access and equity to the best quality healthcare to be a socialist ideal, and why people would think this was “dangerous”. The general perception of Australians to US healthcare is that it doesn’t seem to work for the most disadvantaged, and we can’t really understand why you don’t do things like we do. If universal access and equity to healthcare is socialism, bring it on.
Religions need to adapt and accommodate.
Jehovah’s Witnesses blood transfusion confusion
Jehovahs Witnesses take blood products now in 2012.
They take all fractions of blood.This includes hemoglobin, albumin, clotting factors, cryosupernatant and cryopoor too, and many, many, others.
If one adds up all the blood fractions the JWs takes, it equals a whole unit of blood. Any, many of these fractions are made from thousands upon thousands of units of donated blood.
Jehovah’s Witnesses can take Bovine *cows blood* as long as it is euphemistically called synthetic Hemopure.
Jehovah’s Witnesses now accept every fraction of blood except the membrane of the red blood cell. JWs now accept blood transfusions.
The fact that the JW blood issue is so unclear is downright dangerous in the emergency room.
–
Danny Haszard
It looks like we’ve got a solid debate underway here. I’ll add a couple of thoughts:
I think it’s fair to question mandatory contraceptive coverage for Catholic institutions (as James argues here) and certainly the Obama administration botched that part of the roll-out. But it might be helpful for everyone to remember that healthcare coverage is, essentially, compensation for labor performed. I’m not saying it’s exactly like cash or a paid holiday, but certainly we can agree that our employer cannot determine what we do with our cash or what we do on a 3 day weekend. So, I suppose my point here is that employers should be required to distance themselves from how their employees manage the compensation they receive. It’s better for both parties.
Also, I think it would be helpful to think about an analogous hypothetical: let’s substitute Catholic hospitals with a Jehovah Witness university. Could the Jehovah Witness university deny coverage of blood transfusions because, according to their doctrine this is not permitted? It sounds kind of funny, but is it really that different?
And finally, here’s my partisan rant: I would argue that when you run a hospital or university that accepts any form of federal aid (medicare patients, medicaid patients, federal tuition subsidies, tax exemption) then you run an institution that must first serve the public good and then serve your religious doctrine. Where these two things are incompatible then you must defer to the public good. That’s the deal. That’s the exchange. If you don’t like it, then open a hospital or a school or a non-profit that accepts absolutely no federal funding or subsidies and you can do whatever you want. Is that unfair?
P.S. I have to apologize for not reading the entire post before commenting (Re: Jehovah Witness example, which was already used).