Tens of millions of Americans lack health insurance. Extending coverage to them has been a core goal of health reform proposals since the 1960s. President Richard Nixon offered a universal health plan in his first administration, but since then Republicans have hesitated to commit the nation to so costly an undertaking. Is it time to rethink? Should Republicans accept universal coverage as a goal? We posed this question to NewMajority’s contributors.
Should the Republican Party endorse the concept of universal coverage in health insurance? No, of course not.
To insist upon guaranteed universal healthcare for every living person in America is to insist that healthcare is a universal right, which it is certainly not. If it were, then all Americans (especially conservatives) would be moved by the Declaration of Independence—which reminds us that government was instituted to “secure these rights”—to demand nothing less than socialized medicine. But, once again, it’s not.
Begging the main question also invites a brief reflection on (among other items already covered in this symposium) the difference between the Republican and Democratic parties, and American conservatism and liberalism. It will help to explain why the right should not champion—or necessarily deride—the concept of universal care.
In general, the GOP is the party of liberty; the Democrats are, more or less, the party of equality. Freedom is our alpha value, fairness is theirs. It is the conservative movement’s deep commitment to human freedom and the conditions that preserve it that animates and binds Republicans. Thus, we wholeheartedly endorse the idea of equality of opportunity as strongly as we oppose forced equality of outcome.
But when conservatives frequently and proudly brandish the GOP as the party of small government, they are actually a bit mistaken. After all, the United States government is very, very large and is (rightfully) not challenged by conservatives with the animus of say, libertarians or anarchists. It would be far more accurate for the right to describe themselves as defenders of limited government.
This truth requires Republicans to fulfill two roles. First, the right must be a firewall, standing athwart the flames of liberalism yelling, “Too big,” “Too expensive,” “Too intrusive,” or simply, “No!” The second role is that of superior manager, commanding restraint and demonstrating expertise where the left would otherwise parade excess and clumsiness. Either function can be achieved even while out of power or in the minority ranks. In the current healthcare debate, the right can and must serve both.
Conservatives are right to totally oppose the public option, which even the left admits is an inevitable road to a single payer system, which itself is an outright affront to free enterprise, the Constitution, and much more. David Frum recently called it our “line in the sand” which, now judging from the chatter here in Washington, appears unlikely to be crossed. Thus, now on the brink of the collapse of President Obama’s health care hopes, Republicans must responsibly rise to the occasion.
We on the right can still win the healthcare debate, and we can do so without retreating from all that we stand for. Getting behind a co-ops plan is one such way to do this. The left’s attack on the free market (via the public option) would be averted, and our values would indeed be the major foundation of a plan that exhibits conservative openness toward powerful but principled government aid.
Whether a health insurance co-ops plan ala Romneycare in Massachusetts materializes and is able to pass through Congress remains to be seen. But if it does, it will be because conservatives chose to be proactive in defense of the free market, a primary obligation, of which scratching for universal coverage is not.
To read other contributions to this symposium, click here.
11 responses so far
1 debs // Aug 24, 2009 at 12:55 pm
So you favor equality of opportunity. Good to hear it! And you think a child who lacks health insurance has equality of opportunity? Let me know when you’ve worked that one out….Wondering also whether Medicare, Social Security, the VA (public hospitals and publicly paid dr’s., like the British NHS) is also an affront to “the Constitution”, the way you claim the “public option” is. Hard to see how–none of these things are discussed in the constitution. Nor is the idea of socialism, one not in common parlance until at least the early 19th century.
Query: Should the Supreme Court rule the Veteran’s Administration health care division unconstitutional–the one that covers all veterans, the one that independent health analysts argue provides the best health care in the United States?
While you’re thinking about whether that kid without health care has the same “equality of opportunity” you did when you were kid covered by your dad’s insurance–you know, just in case you got childhood Leukemia, hey, it was a darn good thing to have, wasn’t it?–maybe you can ponder that VA question, too.
2 Should Republicans Endorse Universal Health Coverage? // Aug 24, 2009 at 1:01 pm
[...] Qualtere, Universal Coverage: Not a Right, Nor a Conservative Obligation To insist upon guaranteed universal healthcare for every living person in America is to insist that [...]
3 haloagain // Aug 24, 2009 at 5:37 pm
haha, this is rich. NM is really on the upswing.
you meant “inevitable,” right? because if democrats were admitting the public option was an “evitable” road to a single payer system, you’re scare-mongering really loses some of its veracity.
4 haloagain // Aug 24, 2009 at 5:40 pm
and of course, I meant “your.”
5 ottovbvs // Aug 24, 2009 at 7:50 pm
……Yep you have the liberty to die if you can’t pay the insurance company premiums…..the double talk in this this little masterpiece of obfuscation is a joy to behold
6 lasulasu // Aug 24, 2009 at 9:45 pm
I would like to see your argument laying out how access to health care is not a right, as well as how unequal access to health care demonstrates “equality of opportunity”. Certainly, as far as minors go, I would think access to health care should be a right. If you have the misfortune of being borne to an uninsured family, your ability to pay for your health status is in no way related to any of your actions as an individual. If a child’s family does not feed, clothe, shelter, or follow medical advice to treat serious health problems, they an be charged with abuse, and the child becomes a ward of the state. Why should less serious health care issues be ignored? A child’s mental and physical development can be seriously impacted by unnoticed and/or poorly treated health problems. As for adults, why should some individuals be given special federal dispensation in form of employer supplied insurance, merely as a reward for working for a large corporation? It seems some have rights, and some don’t. This may seem like an equality argument, but I am not sure, as not everyone realistically has equal opportunity to be employed by a large corporation.
7 Bette // Aug 25, 2009 at 1:04 am
The Constitution of The United States of America guarantees you the right to; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution does not guarantee “equality of opportunity” . There is no way to ensure such a right. Simply being born with great intelligence or with a superior talent or with a physical ailment rules out “equality of opportunity”. You are equal under the law. You own your life. No one can take away your liberty without just cause. You have the right to pursue your own personal happiness in any way you wish (barring infringement upon another’s rights). You do not have the right to force another to pay for your pursuit of happiness or your pursuit of health. Would you make slaves of your fellow Americans to keep yourself secure? Will you hold a gun to head of a doctor who does not agree that you have a” right” to health care? You have the right to purchase health care on the open market. You have no right to enforce a demand for such a service.
Answer to debs query: Veterans get their health care paid for, by a grateful nation, as part of a compensation package (which, let’s face it, has a pretty poor pay scale) for services rendered.
8 lasulasu // Aug 25, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Bette, not sure if your comments are directed at my query on how Health Care is not a right, but I’ll take it as such. The quote “right to; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is derived from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Don’t think that document holds relevance, but note that health care can directly impact life and pursuit of happiness. Your examples are a bit over dramatic, so I guess you have strong beliefs on the issue. I wouldn’t hold a gun to a Doctor to force treatment for myself (though I could see doing it to force treatment of my child). I also wouldn’t hold a gun to the head of a radio station manager to force my right to free speech. I would reasonably expect to be arrested for such actions. I don’t have to force anyone to pay for my pursuit of health. That is covered by employer supplied insurance, which is subsidized by Federal tax laws. Others get health care supplied by the Federal govt. through Medicare and Medicade. Therein lies my philosophical and ethical question. A persons health is a basic right, as evidenced by laws protecting health from harm (food and water safety and sanitation laws, pollution regulations …). Obviously, you can’t legislate or guarantee equal health for individuals, but you can legislate equality of access under the law. Current law favors a subset of the population (government tax law, those w/o pre-existing conditions…) in pursuit of a basic necessity.
9 brutus1791 // Aug 25, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Ottovbvs: this little masterpiece of obfuscation is a joy to behold
Well Otto, if you enjoyed this, you’ll certainly enjoy the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. May try reading them. Both do a fine job of eschewing obfuscation…
10 Bette // Aug 28, 2009 at 10:54 am
lasulasu; Yes, you are right about the Declaration of Independence but our Constitution is what guarantees our rights, so that is the spirit in which I wrote those words. My rights must stop at your door. Which means to me that I can have no “right” which requires infringement of another’s rights. A federal subsidy requires that the government step in as the policeman and force compliance as well as use tax dollars to “subsidize” the activity. Laws protecting us from harm are laws that enforce all of our rights (to life) against someone else’s pursuit of happiness (or wealth). Such as; your right to farm your land as opposed to my right not to drink pesticides.( You can farm using different and safer methods.) I don’t believe enforcing food and water safety implies a right to health care.
Yes, others do get health care supplied by the Federal govt. and it creates exactly the type of argument one would expect. Which is, that the people next in line want to be subsidized. The president was asked recently if he thought it was fair to tax the rich to pay for others’ health care and he said: “we have to pay for it somehow”. The government believes it is okay to take away our rights to the fruits of our labor to pay for someone else’s health care.
I believe, strongly, that we need free market solutions. Individuals are always the best judges of what they need. A health care market freed of the government restrictions which are presently imposed upon it combined with free market ingenuity (with, of course, legal safeguards) would bring about many of the needed changes.
Your last line was interesting. Yes, government tax law favors large corporations over smaller ones simply because of the write off of employee health insurance benefits. How about we change that so as to tax employees for that benefit? It is a part of their compensation package. Current tax law also favors about 40% of the US population with no tax liability at all. Current tax law goes so far as to give people who earn below a certain amount who also have children “earned income credit” which means they might get money from the feds which they did not pay in the first place. Nice system, unless you are someone who has to pay taxes but has no children. Whenever the government uses it’s tax laws to “favor” one subset of the population over another it creates a situation of winners and losers. More people will want to be on the “winning” side. In the health care package now being discussed, ” winning” will mean more people going on the government” option” and more tax dollars needed to subsidize it.
11 Why Talking To Conservatives is Difficult « blueollie // Aug 29, 2009 at 4:39 pm
[...] There is truth here as well: In general, the GOP is the party of liberty; the Democrats are, more or less, the party of equality. Freedom is our alpha value, fairness is theirs. It is the conservative movement’s deep commitment to human freedom and the conditions that preserve it that animates and binds Republicans. Thus, we wholeheartedly endorse the idea of equality of opportunity as strongly as we oppose forced equality of outcome. [...]
You must log in to post a comment.