How Not to Argue Against Universal Health Care

If your goal is to invalidate universal health care as a solution for the U.S., and your case involves comparing national health care systems, then please understand this before proceeding: There is, and will never be, a perfect health care system (and this is because the humans who manage the system are imperfect).

When you point to the presence of poorly-paid doctors in Germany, under-funded hospitals in Britain or Japan, or long waiting-times in Canada, you're effectively presupposing one of two things: (a) That, whereas other countries' health care systems have problems such as these, ours is perfect (not even the most hard-line conservative opponent of universal health care argues this); or (b) That these problems are less tolerable than Americans having no or inadequate access to heath care (to paraphrase one prominent journalist, I'd rather suffer the danger of hospitals going broke than see people going broke because of their health care costs).

In short, as I've always argued, the question we should be debating is not which health care system is perfect, but which ones are less imperfect.

Roman Catholicism and Health Care as a Moral Issue

Once, as I was driving to work, a man shot me a dirty look while speeding past me. Presumably, this was in response to my bumper sticker that read, “Health care is a moral issue.” I had learned to expect such disapproving glares from time to time. On one occasion, a driver mouthed the words, “You’re wrong” as he angrily drove past me. I thought to myself, “Now, what did that do for him? Did he expect that his thought-provoking two words would prompt a 180 degree shift in my thinking?” Of course, being the child that I am, I then said to myself, “Oh no you di’int!” and pressed the gas. Having caught up with him, I responded with an equally persuasive, “No, I’m right!”

Although I am accustomed to such hostile responses to my “radical leftist” propaganda, what surprised me about this particular encounter was the fact that the driver’s own bumper sticker suggested that he was Roman Catholic. “But doesn't the Catholic church acknowledge the moral relevance of health care?” I asked myself. After a cursory review of Catholic social teaching throughout the past century, I feel like I can confidently answer in the affirmative.

For instance, Pope Pius XI noted the need to protect rights he considered “sacred”, including – alongside others – the right to health. Similarly, Pope John XXIII expressed support for social and economic rights which pertain “…to the necessities of life [and] health care,” to name but two areas. In specific reference to workers, Pope John Paul II believed that “the expenses involved in health care, especially in the case of accidents at work, demand that medical assistance…be easily available for workers, and that as far as possible it should be cheap or even free of charge."

Now, what exactly is a “moral issue”? I define it as an issue concerning beliefs about how something should or should not be. Regarding health care, it is clear that the pontiffs referenced in this brief review of Catholic social thought acknowledge that people should have access to health care (indeed, health care is explicitly described as the object of a sacred right). Thus, the fact that many millions of Americans are without adequate health care should, from a Catholic perspective, be morally troubling. In other words, no Catholic should be scandalized by my old bumper sticker.

I don’t doubt for a second that there are many Catholics in the U.S. who agree with this claim. Yet it appears equally obvious that many don’t. For better or worse, such prominent issues as abortion have led many Catholics to abandon the Democratic Party and join the GOP. I fear that many among them have jettisoned other Catholic teachings in the process. Yet regardless of one’s party affiliation, and however much I commend the Catholic church for its pro-life stance, I hope that all Catholics will come to press politicians to adopt platforms that are consistently Catholic.

How Long is the Affordable Care Act?

Opponents of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (i.e., "Obamacare") continue to harp on the law's length. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) famously said that it's longer than Tolstoy's War and Peace (actually, it isn't). I began to wonder whether the PPACA really is that long (in comparison to other legislation) and I stumbled upon an article published back in 2009 by OpenCongress. In it, Donny Shaw discusses findings from an analysis of legislation appearing in Congress over the previous 10 years. Here are some revealing snippets:

...the Democrats’ health care bills in the Senate and the House are, comparatively, very long. In fact, at 314,900 words, the House version is the longest bill to move through Congress since at least 1999.

But long bills are written by both Democrats and Republicans. The second longest bill to appear in Congress...was authored by Republican Rep. Don Young [R, AK-1]. It’s a mere 68 words shorter than the House health care bill. Of the 10 longest bills in the past ten years, five were written by Democrats and five were written by Republicans.

Thought bubble: One question worth exploring is whether laws generally become lengthier over time. Perhaps an extra credit opportunity for a student...

In short, yes - the PPACA is long...incredibly long. In fact, it was found to be over 100 times longer than the average congressional bill. Yet if Republicans are going to oppose a law on account of its word length and wish to be logically consistent, they must be prepared to withdraw support for legislation that they've championed.