A question about the moral obligations of the American government...?

Question

I understand the financial objections to providing a Universal Health Care system to America. My question is: Does the government have a moral or ethical responsibility to provide a means for citizens to recieve the best healthcare possible? If yes, what other moral obligations do you believe the government has to it's populus? If no, does the government have any moral obligation to it's people? Please answer the question without talking about money. Thank you.

Answer 1

The Federal, State and local governments are acting in a caretaking capacity. While their is much argument lately about whether the Judeo-Christian Anglo laws upon which this country is built are representative enough (if they are described as such) is usually based on disagreement by those U.S. citizens of other faiths.

A majority of people today support a national health care system of some kind due to exhorbitant medical costs. Sick people can't work. Many people today are without insurance because of its cost. The bill for hospital care with very little overnight or longer admission is out of control. Our hospitals have changed from being a nonprofit, privately funded source of medical care over time to a for profit corporation, allegedly to cover their costs. Costs of machinery and fees charged for lab work and other work are disproportionately high for many people's income who would pay if they could pay, and so are creating a debt problem for themselves and the hospital or doctor. Medical malpractice insurance for the doctors is too high also.

One might argue that the moral responsibility could have begun for the nation on this issue, as with others, before it reached a crisis proportion. We are a 'crisis oriented' society and often seldom seem to solve a problem until it reaches maximum stress, allegedly because we are "too busy doing something else" or it costs too much. The delay usually costs money also. That is a moral issue in the sense that it is irresponsible to knowingly create human suffering by these delays or knowingly supporting legislation due to lobbyist interest that is counterproductive. Our elected officials are people who have completed six years or more of post high school education. They are some of the best educated minds and most moral people we could find to do their jobs, yet when they are lacking in supervision by the citizens of this country they can fail in completing a moral or just decision making process within the time frames needed in many cases (i.e., the environmental policies have been too lax on the business community for years and we the people always pay for it).

The objections are by those who perceive a Federally subsidized health care system as 'socialist' in nature, undermining the capitalist system in some way. This is not a moral position.

Answer 2

The answer about the American governments obligations boils down to what the US Constitution frames. As it is today this keystone document does not incorporate universal health care.

Within the American government there is authority to help facilitate efficient health care by establishing common standards, insuring effectiveness of drugs and medical practices, licensing providers and other health care practitioners. In short, much of what is being done today.

However, should the people want something like a Universal Health Care system the Constitution provides the road-map in how to make it happen.

I would, however point out, that models of universal health coverage in France, the U.K., and even Canada do offer some down sides that are not often represented by advocates of such a system. Unfortunately, with health care, no matter where or how it is provided it does have an immediate cost attached to it (cost of drugs, equipment, facilities, supplies, even training to remain competent as a provider). Free speech, the right of assembly and other rights framed in the Constitution also have costs, but they are not often immediate or financial.

Needless to say, a good question but one not easily answered in a few paragraphs.

Answer 3

The 'government' has a moral obligation NOT to spend the people's money for anything other than defense of persons and property. Period.

Healthcare is a personal responsibility, and a moral obligation of the head of household. If the U.S. government did not steal over 40% of the people's income, everyone could afford healthcare.

Universal Heathcare run by the government will be the end of good healthcare...go visit any VA hospital. Socialism has never worked. Free enterprise works every time.

Answer 4

YES!!! YES!!! YES!!!
There is no country on Earth worth living in where the government doesn't supply universal care.

And in a historical view, if people's health is not taken care, the gap between poor and rich increases to a point where it tears apart the country and throws it in a spiral down to the ruin.

I also think that the government has the moral obligation to provide secutrity and education, otherwise, if those three things are not supplied, the governamnet is useless and worthless in my opinion.

Answer 5

Where is the personal responsibility of the Americans.
It isn't gov job to oversee every aspect of life.
I'll take care of myself and family I can act and think for myself and need not the gov thinking and acting for me.
I have access to health care as does everyone else in the USA. Just have to pay that's how things work. Nothing is free.
Taxes are too high now. Why should I pay the bill for others to sit on their a$$ and sponge off the gov.

Answer 6

Under the US consitition, the gov't has the right to provide for the common welfare. It's in the preamble.

55 million Americans don't have health insurance, and it's a national shame. We need to do something for those without. If everyone was covered....then health costs would fall and become affordable.

Answer 7

Well to answer by asking another question.

If a government is not able or willing to "protect" its citizens, then what on earth do we need a government for?