I recently had a conversation with a person who earnestly believes that all entitlement programs are unconstitutional and should be eliminated.
The constitutional arguement is based on the notion that since nothing in the constitution specifically provides for federal social welfare entitlements it is forbidden to provide them. The counter arguement is that not being specifically permitted does not mean that these entitlement programs are forbidden.
An arguement over the finer points of the constitution offers little comfort to the parent of a young child newly diagnosed with a lifelong disability or to the aging parent still struggling to care for an adult disabled child. It offers little comfort to the husband or wife unable to provide a spouse with the best possible care for cancer or heart disease.
That same person who would have all entitlement programs stopped believes with apparently equal sincerity that charitable giving could and should take the place of these programs.
But how realistic is that? And even if it could be done, how palatable would it be for the recipients to live their lives, as Tennessee Williams famously said, depending on the kindness of strangers.
Could it possibly work? I put the question to several people involved in one way or another with either the health care reform debate or with providing assistance to individuals with disabilities. As it turns out, it seems that depending on such kindness is, at best, a stop-gap measure.
Individuals and organizations alike immediately point out that even now, with entitlements or with good insurance, not all needs can be met nor can all those needing help get it. As for resorting to charities, again none of them have proven to be complete solutions either. They are both needed to provide stability for the individuals in need and for the organizations caring for them.
For a healthy person with a healthy family, I'm sure it makes perfect sense to think that privately funded philanthropic organizations and facilities would and could fill the gap. And we all know that in some instances this is indeed the case.
But when we are talking about catastrophic illnesses and injuries, chronic conditions, and permanent disabilities, it is not realistic or kind to expect our brothers and sisters and their families to live out their lives hoping every day that a charity which has no obligation to care for them will do so.
Charity is a wonderful thing and it has a place in a society that considers itself moral. No system of entitlements will ever be perfect. There will always be those who slip through the cracks and there will always be unexpected new challenges to be met. There will always be a need and a place for charity and for the fortunate to experience the joy of sharing their abundance with those less fortunate. But what is moral about having a significant percentage of the population live in daily want and constant fear that because of some illness, accident, or disability they will never be able to move past the need to depend on the kindness of strangers?
That is not what I consider to be a moral society. The 19th century German philospher Arthur Schopenhauer took the position that compassion is the basis of all morality. For those of us who agree with Schopenhauer, it is an immoral society that fails to be compassionate.
A compassionate society incorporates and encourages charity but it does not demand that any of its members sacrifice their security and dignity by depending solely on charity. A compassionate society gladly and unbegrudgingly guarantees and affirms that access to health care and related support is a basic right. Access to health care and related support are not privileges to be dispensed by the wealthy to the poor. They are essential components of a compassionate society. Both the right to have them and the obligation to provide them are shared by all.
Health care and disability entitlements fulfill that obligation.
It is the responsibility of those of us who believe that we have that obligation as a society to a act accordingly.
We can act to improve the delivery of charitable giving or we can act to ensure the continuation and improvement of entitlement programes.
Doing nothing is not an option.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You criticize charity for being "the kindness of strangers." But recipiants of government benefits are also funded by strangers, not because they are kind, allthough most of them are, but because government has the power to use force.
ReplyDeleteIt is not more moral to use force to extract resources from strangers than it is to ask strangers to voluntarily donate.
Nobody has the right to take someone else's labor or goods or income. Therefore there can be no right to the services of a doc or to drugs or to medical equipment.
A right is a perogative that cannot be banned or curtailed by government. Exercsing a genuine right doesn't involve using force against someone else. You have the right to speak freely but not to force anyone to listen to you. Your right to speak freely doesn't involve forcing someone else to part with her property, or labor, or life.
To claim that it is immoral to NOT use government to seize cash or medical services by force from strangers betrays a truly bizarre conception of morality
The federal government is wasteful and corrupt. Politicians use the power of incompetent, wasteful government to seize the resources from strangers to fund one's medical services. then those politicians claim THEY are to be thanked and worshipped, even as they demonize the very strangers from whom the most resources are seized, the reviled rich, and the owners of small businesses.
You're free to advocate continued and expanded seizure of resources so the wasteful, incompetent, government, run by corrupt politicians can be the master of more and more people who have to vote the "correct" way in order to receive medical care. But don't claim to be of superior morality.
You advocate IMmorality.
You said:
ReplyDelete"But what is moral about having a significant percentage of the population live in daily want and constant fear that because of some illness, accident, or disability they will never be able to move past the need to depend on the kindness of strangers?"
perhaps you have not read the legislation but you should understand that government supervised rationing is Inevitable. It WILL happen. Period. There is no possibility of providing every medical service every last person needs.
Thus, borrowing some of your words, "a significant percentage of the population live in constant fear that because of some illness, or accident" they will become disabled or even drop dead because they are not deemed worthy of treatment under the government rationing scheme.
If the system is set up the way it is in Canada or England it will be ILLEGAL for private charity to provide care, outside "the system."
You said:
ReplyDelete"A compassionate society incorporates and encourages charity but it does not demand that any of its members sacrifice their security and dignity by depending solely on charity."
Based on what philosophy or religion or moral code do you make this assertion?
You've substituted the word "society" for the word government. As you know "society" doesn't have the power to use force against citizens. Government does. That's how government works: it uses force.
ObamaCare calls for government to use force against almost everyone, forcing you to buy an insurance plan written by government, forcing you to pay additional taxes, forcing you to pay higher insurance premiums if you're young, forcing you to go without care because you fall outside the rationing guidelines, etc.
Why is it "dignified" to receive medical services funded by government applying force against others, but not dignified to receive those same services out of the voluntary generosity of others?
I regret that you chose to be so personal and unpleasant in your response but in the interest of a free and open debate I choose to publish your comments.
ReplyDeleteI will respond briefly.
I did not criticize charity at all, I described it as a necessary and good part of a moral society.
I did not claim moral superiority, I simply defined morality as I see it. I do not need to provide you with an authoritative source when I am clearly stating my own opinion.
You make a number of unsubstantiated and incorrect assertions yourself about both my position and about the legislation under consideration. And you make several assumptions about what you think I think needs to be done.
Your notion of government and society leads me to believe that you advocate anarchy. Good luck with that.
Finally, you completely missed my ultimate point. I believe that those of you who think charity is the best way to deliver health care and related services to those who cannot otherwise obtain it should be out there working just as hard to improve the delivery of charitable services as you are to resist health care reform.
I would support you or anyone else in an endeavor to improve the delivery of such services.
I regret that your personal disdain for President Obama causes you to take an opportunity for discussion and turn it into a diatribe.
to HCASAP - thank you for keeping a calm head both in your blog entry and in your reply. It shows true intelligence.
ReplyDeleteI left you a present on my blog - I've nominated you for the Lemonade Stand Award! To accept, you must comply with the following conditions:
- Put the Lemonade logo on your blog or within your post. You can lift it off my blog (http://jonsmomblog.com).
- Nominate at least 10 blogs with great attitude or gratitude.
- Link the nominees within your post.
- Let the nominees know they have received this award by commenting on their blog.
- Share the love and link to the person from whom you received this award.
I find it amazing that people can so blindly quote the constitution when referencing entitlement programs. To say that they're illegal because the consitution doesn't provide for them is completely myopic. The constitution doesn't provide for free and unlimited porn on the internet yet that's not illegal. While the consitiution is an admittedly imperfect document, it does form the backbone of a civilized society. What it does not regulate is how a moral society should behave. Thankfully, this isn't something that has to be regulated because, for the most part, we all know how to behave.
ReplyDeleteI can understand the outrage from some people when it comes to government handouts to people who need it most. Why should my own hard-earned money go to help out some total stranger? Anyone reading "Atlas Shrugged" would probably feel the same way. It's my money and I should choose where it goes. If that were the law of the land, we would have a class war leading to revolution in a few short years. We would have an aristocratic class of "haves" laughing and sneering at the "have nots." As Americans, we have chosen to live in a society that doesn't act this way. The very same constitution entitlement opponents quote states that all men are created equal. That goes beyond race, creed and color. It goes to social status as well. We are a society of human being who have it in our nature to take care of our fellow human beings. When tragedy strikes, we step in. As someone who volunteered down at Ground Zero in 2001, I saw the countless people who just wanted to help out in some way. The sheer amount of money donated to victim's families was amazing. In this instance, charity works very well.
It works very well beyond our borders, as with the outpouring of support after the tsunami a few years back. Every time there's an earthquake somewhere, people chip in to help out.
But as good as charity is, it's completely unreliable. People really only give in large amounts in the face of catastrophic tragedy to large groups of people. They don't give to organizations that only help one person at a time. Because of that, many Americans go hungry or, even worse, lie dying somewhere because they can't afford to pay for the basic care that every human being deserves. The role of government is to protect the society it governs. Making sure we don't suffer needlessly is part of that responsibility. Communities that are destroyed after a hurricane get millions in federal dollars to rebuild. Don't the indiviual citizens of that community deserve the same consideration? If not for the legality of it, then for the basic compassion any person must feel when a husband has to watch helplessly as his wife suffers from a disease. I am fortunate to count myself as someone who has not had to deal with this but I can't imagine what it must feel like to have a sick child and be completely unable to do anything and have nowhere to turn once charity runs out.
We're not just Americans. We're human beings. Compassion is what sets us apart from the animals. This is the way it must be if we are to have any moral high ground over any other civilization which we oppose. A government that doesn't care for its citizens is an immoral government and that simply cannot be allowed.
Lieboblogger: I agree with you about the fallacy people "quoting" the constitution, while entirely misinterpreting it as "proof" of their own self-serving theories.
ReplyDeleteSaying that something is unconstitutional and illegal because it's not specifically outlined in the constitution is hardly logical. To fight so hard against having your tax dollars used to help people less fortunate is a rather sad use of our precious human intelligence and energy. It is saying, "What is mine is mine, and if you don't have any money or resources to take care of yourself, then you probably don't deserve to be taken care of. Period."
As you say, we are human beings first, then Americans. We are compassionate at our core. Only fear and ignorance drive us to the selfishness that resists making sure that everyone is cared for.
So true, Virginia. After having emergency surgery last February and seeing how much we paid even with corporate health insurance, I live in fear of not having adequate health insurance. I also have epilepsy, so insurance companies won't cover me privately except with the most expensive plans. If that becomes the case, it wouldn't take much to seriously compromise our finances.
ReplyDeleteI guess what I'm saying is that perhaps members of my family weren't really created equal. But I certainly didn't choose to have epilepsy, nor for my son to have autism.
And there are certainly people in worse circumstances than us.