David Ignatius
writes in the Washington Post that
President Obama should try to shift the health care argument to
what Ignatius calls the high ground: morality. He says that what
is lacking is the sense that Congress must act because health
care for all is a matter of social justice, “required by our
moral conscience.”
Ignatius cites the debate over “don’t ask, don’t tell” as an
example of a policy debate that was finally decided on a moral
basis. “By treating the issue as a matter of conscience,” he
writes, “the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff altered the
national conversation.”
First: he has misread the “don’t ask, don’t tell” debate. The
point of militaries is to win wars, not to promote social
justice. If homosexuals mess up military moral and
effectiveness by forming sexual (eros) relationships
instead of comradely (philia) relationships, they
shouldn’t be allowed to serve. Whether homosexuals do in
fact mess up military effectiveness is a factual question,
not a moral one.
What actually happened in the “don’t ask, don’t tell” debate was
that a number of military brass said that there were, in fact, no
functional reasons not to allow openly homosexual personnel to
serve in the armed forces. Whether that’s what they really
believed is difficult to know. In this administration it is
almost certain, but at least likely, that any military person
objecting to having homosexuals serve in the armed forces would
be more likely to get a dead fish from White House Chief of Staff
Rahm Emanuel than see another star on his shoulder. Political
correctness isn’t something that afflicts only campuses.
Once the brass could no longer safely articulate a military
reason for not having homosexuals serve, then — but only then —
could they and the politician start grandstanding on the morality
question.
Second: Ignatius says providing basic health insurance coverage
to all Americans is the right thing to do. Of course, by
“providing,” he doesn’t mean just making it available; he means
requiring (on penalty of fine or jail) people to have health
insurance — because that’s the way of socialism. Oh, and also,
it’s part of Obama’s plan.
Implicit in Ignatius’s position is that a significant portion of
Americans is unable to get health insurance today. That is simply
not true.
The number of people without health insurance is said to be 45.7
million. But a little fact-checking of the kind we know Ignatius
to be capable of reveals that many of those uninsured have chosen
not to be insured. Ten million of those 45.7 million have incomes
of $75,000 or more. Eight million have incomes between
$50,000 and $75,000.
Suddenly, Ignatius’s concerns seem less altruistic. Now we begin
to understand why penalties are necessary to achieve full
coverage. Those 18 million people tend to be young and
healthy and least in need of medical care, which is why Ignatius
would have them follow orders to buy health insurance. His
morality hath taken on a strange hue.
The Census Bureau also reports that about ten million of the
uninsured are not U.S. citizens. Raising the question, how
far must our morality extend? Must we cover everyone…
including the bankrupt Greeks?
Fourteen million of the 45.7 million uninsured are poor and
low-income people who are eligible for already existing
government programs (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP), but fail to
enroll in them.
So who’s left? About eight million people, who can’t get
health insurance (the arithmetic is a bit fuzzy because there’s
overlap in the categories.)
So: in order to provide health insurance to less than 3 percent
of the population we must mount a moral crusade to change the
entire American health system?
That’s not morality. That’s madness. But madness is a medical
term.
The political term is socialism. And if the 20th century taught
us anything, it was that there is nothing moral about
socialism.
