- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Business
- Politics
- School Zone
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Harris Sherline: Is Health Care a Moral Imperative?
In June, President Barack Obama said that providing Americans with affordable health insurance is “an economic imperative, but it’s also a moral imperative.”
Immanuel Kant defined moral imperative as a principle that compels that person to act, saying it’s a kind of categorical imperative. Later thinkers took the imperative to originate in conscience, as the divine voice speaking through the human spirit. The dictates of conscience are simply right and often resist further justification.
However, the idea that providing affordable health care is a moral imperative raises a number of questions: At what cost, or regardless of the cost? Are there other moral imperatives that are of equal importance to society, such as food, clothing, shelter (housing) or education?
After all, we can’t or shouldn’t allow people to go hungry or sleep on the streets, right? What about transportation? Should the society at large provide free transportation for everyone, with bus or subway fares, or should the government give a car to everyone who “needs” one, including the cost of maintenance and insurance?
At a Sept. 10 interfaith meeting in Tampa, Fla., spiritual leaders from a number of denominations, including Episcopal, Jewish, Islamic, Metropolitan Community Church, Unitarian Universalist and United Church of Christ, united to advocate for health-care reform as a moral imperative. The Rev. Leddy Hammock said, “If anyone is vulnerable to suffering, we are all vulnerable, we all suffer. For the sake of our common humanity, let us call upon our collective intelligence to create a health-care system that is inclusive, affordable, accessible and accountable.”
Unfortunately, the terms “affordable, accessible and accountable” are all subjective. They can mean almost anything to anyone at any point in time.
The meeting concluded with the following statement: “We, the undersigned, serve several religious and spiritual communities ... Our faith traditions teach us that care and compassion for the sick and injured is a basic human responsibility rooted in the foundational principle of affirming human worth and dignity. We believe that the crisis of American health care is not merely an economic or social or political problem — it is a moral problem that confronts us all. As people of faith, we envision a society where each person is afforded human dignity, health and wholeness.”
However, columnist Thomas Sowell recently noted: “What sense does it make to ‘hurry up and wait’ on something that is literally a matter of life and death? If we do not believe that the president is stupid, then what do we believe? The only reasonable alternative seems to be that he wanted to get this massive government takeover of medical care passed into law before the public understood what was in it. Moreover, he wanted to get re-elected in 2012 before the public experienced what its actual consequences would be. Unfortunately, this way of doing things is all too typical of the way this administration.”
What else may be considered a moral imperative? Does fiscal responsibility qualify? What about honesty?
Should we provide health care for everyone even if it breaks the bank? What then? Would that be a case of two moral imperatives coming into conflict?
Proponents of the notion that providing health care for all is a “moral imperative” don’t seem to be bothered by the fact that it may be so costly that it can only be paid for by reducing services to others who have health insurance, such as seniors who are covered by Medicare, or by massive deficit spending, or both. And, if financial solvency is also a “moral imperative” because it affects the entire population, does health care trump when the two imperatives are in conflict? How about taxation?
Writing in the Washington Post on Sept. 14, economist Robert Samuelson said: “Americans generally want three things from their health-care system. First, they think that everyone has a moral right to needed care; that suggests universal insurance. Second, they want choice; they want to select their doctors — and want doctors to determine treatment. Finally, people want costs controlled; health care shouldn’t consume all private compensation or taxes.”
Note that Samuelson uses the expression “moral right” as opposed to “moral imperative,” which seems to be a difference without a distinction. Either way, when it comes to health care, we seem to be caught in a web of moral choices that simply can’t co-exist in the same political policy environment.
At least one “right” or “imperative” is bound to be violated in the process of resolving the nation’s health-care dilemma. What then?
— Harris R. Sherline is a retired CPA and former chairman and CEO of Santa Ynez Valley Hospital who has lived in Santa Barbara County for more than 30 years. He stays active writing opinion columns and his blog, Opinionfest.com.
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.
» on 10.04.09 @ 07:35 AM
Mr.Sherline should look at other countries to see that this is not a conflict between a moral right and affordablility. France, Germany, Austrialia, Sweden, Denmark,Costa Rica, Canada etc. just to name a few seem to be able to able to incorporate all of the issues that he seems to think can’t co-exist.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 10.04.09 @ 10:00 AM
Thank you for an interesting perspective on a key aspect of the healthcare discussion: our societal moral responsibility. Your comments suggesting that imperatives can potentially contradict each other seems to ask for an “either/or” type of decision. Like many things in life, I think there is room for a “both/and” decision. This type of decision requires compromise and searching for win/win solutions—it takes time and effort and requires that we move away from a certain “position” to a framework that addresses all concerns. I believe we have enough alternatives, ideas, and options in the healthcare industry that we can create solutions that are fiscally sound and meet societal moral imperatives simultaneously. Its not quick or easy, but it can be done. It seems that at least some of our leaders are searching for solutions that meet both of these societal imperatives: ensuring that our fellow citizens are treated w/basic human dignity in a way that is also fiscally sound.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 10.04.09 @ 04:40 PM
Get the bottom feeders or lawyers out, and unions—they are just bad for America..
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 10.04.09 @ 08:11 PM
National health care is essential in a free market such as the USA, and many European countries. All those other countries have decide that since no possible contract is feasible with the disease carriers and it is bad for public relations to allow accident victims to lie in the streets that they needed to protect their citizenry with a minimum program of health care.
Therefore, a public mandate issued that provided health care to all. Most countries provided such care by using tax money , which was collected from their taxpayers. Here, in the USA, there is an attitude that we should make our taxpayers provide health care for themselves through private insurance companies and announced that those who didn’t have health insurance chose not to have that coverage.
Of course, that assertion is as believable as the one that says that our elected officials are casting their vote for programs that are not in the national interest but are owned by their campaign contributors because they came to that decision because they reviewed the facts(read the list of campaign contributors) independent of that fact.BULL
Good health benefits nations simply because a healthy population is a more productive one, just as an educated population benefits all. On the other hand, those who wish to prevent a national health care program will be asserting that if we provide this for all citizens , it would mean that we are now going to also provide the citizenry with free autos or some other far-fetched item. RIDICULOUS.
President Obama has defined a public need and even the nay sayers agree, they just want to avoid the responsibility of offending their campaign donors, and they don’t
want to give up that cash cow. There is no rational basis to prevent a national (read public option) health care unless you are opposed for trumped up political reasons.
And if you are hung up on the possibility that your taxes might go up, then compel every tax payer to pay a premium, which incidentally, will be substantially lower than the excessive premiums we now pay.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 10.05.09 @ 07:18 AM
Of course Harris Sherline is going to split hairs over the definition of affordable… he made his millions as a hospital administrator, and wants to make sure his buddies end up with millions too. Frankly, hospital administration jobs should be either eliminated or shipped overseas to India for better performance at lower cost.
Funny that Japan and Germany, whom we defeated in WWII at great loss of life, have way better health care and other portions of the social contract, largely because of the American post-war management of their governments. Meanwhile, back in the US, greedy and heartless money grubbers like Harris Sherline make sure health care is super expensive so they can live the high life. Guys like Harris Sherline detest and disrespect all the deaths of our soldiers in WWII.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 10.05.09 @ 08:11 AM
Local. Allen, move to another country if you think it’s so great there, you’ve apparently been local too long and need to go see the world, then maybe you will appreciate and want to retain what we have here. Ask people in those countries why they come here any time there is need for an advanced surgery that only our system offers, and what they think of waiting in line for substandard healthcare.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 10.05.09 @ 08:52 PM
That is the biggest problem—More compition from other states would be great also.
Who’s against this?—Democrats—Why—paid off puppets of the lawyers & unions—
Time to change parties—-
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 10.05.09 @ 11:12 PM
way to go ‘Another local’, you tell ‘em! Hey Allin if you love those other countries so much why dontcha marry them? Ha, I love gettin those commies with a good one like that. Yeah and how come all our hospitals are so full of French and Danish people getting surgeries, huh? I guess that proves we don’t need no commie-nazi hand-holding health care! Some people just don’t know how to think right.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 10.06.09 @ 04:57 AM
Did it ever occur to anyone that the reason the USA has had the medical advances it has had is due to capitalism?
Under the socialised medicine that is common in other developed nations, the advanced procedures Americans take for granted are not available. The governments, not markets and money, control the health care system. In effect, life becomes a privilege for the young and healthy.
In other parts of the world, not even delebrity status counts when it comes to getting medical care. Among the famous people who died under socialized medicine: Guyana Prime Minister Forbes Burnham, Canadian pianist Glenn Gould, Princesses Diana of England and Grace of Monaco, actress Natasha Richardson.
I have read that Forbes Burnham, a friend of Fidel Castro, flew to Cuba to be treated for heart trouble. He died shortly thereafter. The princesses and the actress died after serious accidents in places that did not have trauma care. If If these accidents had happened in the USA, they would have been taken to teaching hospitals with the equipment and personnel to treat trauma injuries.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
More Local News »
Harris Sherline: Obama Administration’s Contempt for Law at Core of Energy Policy
White House's worst offense has been to ignore a ruling denouncing the restriction on offshore drilling
Harris Sherline: Asset Forfeiture Laws Amount to Legal Theft
Forfeitures should be treated as cost recovery for law enforcement agencies, not as a revenue source
Harris Sherline: Outsourcing Is Simply a Part of Doing Business
In the long run it's a good thing in our ever-changing world
Harris Sherline: Let’s Hear It for the Good Kids
Meeting with Santa Ynez Valley Union High School students restores faith and respect in today's youth
Harris Sherline: Zealots Take Beliefs to Ill-Guided Extremes
Violent fanatics are nothing more than spoiled brats who use their particular cause as the rationale for temper tantrums
Weather: Fair 44.0º
Search Noozhawk »
