on Obamacare, justice, and the public good

[marta_bee]

I've been following the debate over health care mandates, freedom of conscience, and religious exemptions pretty closely. It's really very interesting and (for me at least) very personal.

For those of you who aren't American or, you know, have lives to live that don't involve watching the news, the new health care bill basically requires everyone to

Comments

[marta_bee]

Excellent question, Roh. (And thanks for reading!) You're right about the upper/middle/lower class distinctions, btw; I mainly used them to try to get across the fact that I wasn't going after just the "one percent" here.

I guess my starting point is the idea that no one is entitled to satisfy their wants until everyone's needs are met. That of course raises the question of wants vs. needs. I'd say that needs would include the kind of things that people cannot survive without (physically), along with the security of knowing you could depend on them into the future. For starters, that would include basic housing, basic food, enough heat and coolness to prevent health problems, basic clothing suitable to prevent injury, access to basic mental and physical health care, and enough left over so you don't have to worry about not being able to provide those things in the future (e.g. in the event of injury or old age). I'd also include reliable but basic transportation in some locations (though not if public transportation is available), because I think people have a legitimate need for human contact.

We could argue over just what "basic" means here. I can see room for legitimate disagreement over how good of food needs to be included. (Do you need meat at every meal? Fresh veggies, or will frozen/canned do? etc.) But I think we can all agree on the situations where the basic level isn't met. THis is basically any case where someone is homeless or isn't sure of where there next meal is coming from, either because there are no jobs available (or available to them, as in the case of disability) or they don't pay enough to provide the things that need paying.

I'd say that if there are a substantial number of people who can't meet the basic threshold, then the rest of us are probably getting too much of society's resources. That makes me think that whatever society decided I was worth, it overpaid me because it didn't take into account some obligation it had. I'm sure some people were overpaid more than others, and I suspect it's more or less in proportion to how much "want" a person with that income can afford if they manage their money more. This doesn't mean people aren't entitled to their wants or that everyone's wants have to be met at the same rate. But I think if society or the market or whatever gave me more money than it takes to meet my needs but at the same time there are other people whose needs aren't met, then at least some of the difference is really owed to the starving, homeless, etc.

As for how much and who decides, I'd say it's best to start with the experts - economists mainly, but also all varieties of social scientists who have expertise that bears on this issue. I can see some legitimate disagreement over who needs to pay and how you tax people (or otherwise collect the money if taxes aren't the best way). I have no problem with people having that debate. I'm mainly going against the basic idea I encounter a lot, that we should just let private charity provide for the poor. As I tried to explain above, that gives people who have money power over the choices of those that don't have the money, which I don't think is fair (or particularly liberty-oriented, come to it).