GibburtObamacare and the banality of the health insurance discussion
Health care is both a complex and an emotional topic. On the one hand one life is all we have and as such it should be protected and nurtured but on the other hand each one of us is responsible for his own life, both in terms of rights and of consequences.
In this light I was reading up on the discussions surrounding the Obama care program. But what really bothered me on many of the blogs, newspaper articles etc. that I read, was the banality: health care is being treated like yet another consumable and a major part of the discussion is only economic. Here for example health care is compared with a choice of food. But should the decision on these matters really be made on economic grounds, or should we first decide what we think is right and then use economics to determine how to accomplish whatever that is?
As you may know from some of my other articles (here and here) I am a strong believer in taking personal responsibility for and bravely suffering the consequences of our own actions. Nevertheless I see a big difference between a person who wants to buy a BMW but is sent way because he lacks the required funds and someone who has cancer and is sent away from medical treatment because he lacks funds. Isn’t there an inherent value in being human that requires us to help someone in need of medical attention no matter what? Or do we need to examine someone’s life first to see whether he deserves to be helped at all?
Of course there are resources to consider: unfortunately we do not have unlimited resources available and as such these resources need to be distributed. In health care this is no different. So the question becomes then: how are these resources going to be distributed? Do we base this distribution on the fact that we are all human and thus have a right to the same level of medical care or do we base it on our differing ability to acquire things and as such those of us who have higher acquisition skills have more right to care than those of us who have not?
If the answer to that last question would be that we do decide to distribute the care we have available based on our equal value as humans, then we can look at the economic reality and decide what would be the best way to accomplish this. Obviously doctors are highly skilled professionals who deserve an appropriate salary. Furthermore we cannot deny the fact there will always be the so called free loaders who, also having read the above, will assume they will be taken care of when needed. So maybe a system with a mandatory basic components seems like a reasonable place to start after all.
Interesting post,
and I aprreciate your insights but dont you think the healthy will end up paying the bill of the unhealthy?
To answer one of your questions: no, there is no inherent value in being human. I’d say there could maximum be an intuitive value to being human, but nothing inherent or a priori.
When I moved to Germany, before being admitted by the health insurance, I had to take a medical test. Smokers and fat people, people who ever visited a shrink, age, sex and I don’t know what else, it’s all adding up to your monthly insurance bill.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/politics/15health.html?_r=3&hp
First of all I do not agree with you, I am convinced that there is inherent value to being human (you could look at the work of Alan Gewirth). But I do not think that teh difference between inherent value and inituitive value has mmuch influence on the point I am trying to make here namely that due to the value (either inherent or intuitive) of human life speaking of healthcare like it is just another television/car etc.is vulgar.
Furthermore when I moved to Germany I had none of these testing before I was admitted into the health insurance programm. Were you in the public or private health insurance programm?
I agree with your critique on utilitarianism: it’s impossible to foresee what the consequences will be and it doesn’t recognize the meaning we attach on events or acts.
Oh, and I’m in the private programm.
Lisa,
sorry that the discussion between our two ‘house intellectuals’ prevented a proper answer to your question earlier, but dont you think that insurance in general means that the general popuilation pays for a few and in return the general population gets some security?