A Conservative's Call for Universal Health Care

The longer I stay in politics the less I am concerned about how conservative or how liberal a particular candidate is and the less willing I am to accept conventional wisdom about what constitutes a “conservative” or “liberal” policy. Instead, I have begun to care more about whether a candidate has proven to be an effective leader and whether a policy is practical. This isn’t the only way in which my political views have been shifting.

Universal health care is an idea that I have, for many years, abhorred, because I believed it to be so unmistakably “liberal.”

Recently, however, I have come to the view that universal healthcare is neither a despicable idea nor, surprisingly, an inherently liberal policy.

Universal Health Care is not only a practical solution to our health care struggles in the United States, but I contend that it is a conservative solution as well. In 1883, German archconservative Otto Von Bismarck was the first leader to implement a universal health care plan. Bismarck saw, as Americans should today, that access to healthcare, regardless of income, was an important factor in a healthy society.

In an October 2007 Courier Journal (C-J) article I myself lashed out against universal health care, deeming it, “One mile on the road to socialism.” Looking back, I see that this was an exaggeration and a misunderstanding on my part. I mention my previous C-J article to illustrate that I can certainly identify with conservatives’ fear of the potential negative effects that could result from universal access to health care. I appreciate that conservatives are afraid that universal health care will result in more citizens becoming dependent on government handouts; they’re afraid of increasing government regulation and limitation of individual choice. These are all understandable concerns.

Yet an unprejudiced second look at universal health care will reveal that this policy promotes many values that conservatives hold dear: the ability to take care of one’s self and family, the prevention of free-riding, the alleviation of waste and more freedom to pursue entrepreneurial actions. These are all conservative goals which universal access to health care will help to further.

When conservatives shun the idea of universal health care, they are simply overlooking the basic role that health care plays in self-responsibility and individual opportunity. As a conservative myself, I believe that people should, as the cliché goes, “pull themselves up by their bootstraps.” In other words, people should be able to take care of themselves. Rather than entrenching my position against universal health care, as one might expect, this is actually one of the principle reasons I am now in favor of a universal health insurance plan.

Universal access to basic health care is necessary in order to maximize one’s ability to take care of oneself. Without good health, your ability to exercise individual liberty and personal responsibility are compromised; you become dependent on others both physically and financially. In fact, nearly half of all bankruptcies in the U.S. are attributed to citizens’ inability to pay their medical bills. As a single mother, I especially know how daunting medical bills can be.

It should be clear to any thoughtful conservative that basic protection services, such as public police and fire departments are necessary in a society that strives to provide its citizens with equal opportunity to better their lives. Universal access to health care is no exception.

Universal health care is not only a good idea from a philosophical standpoint but from a practical and economic perspective as well. If your goal is to alleviate waste and prevent free-riding, then the current voluntary health insurance system is an unqualified disaster.

Our current health care system requires that anyone who walks into a hospital must be treated, regardless of their ability to pay the bill. Because of this, we have opened the door to massive free-riding and economic waste. Many people never pay their medicals bills and simply dump their debts onto the public system, forcing physicians and hospitals to decide how to work without pay. This is the epitome of free-riding.

Put simply, because hospitals in the U.S. cannot refuse any person care, we are consequently paying more for health care in taxes than any other country – even more than those that do provide universal health insurance. Furthermore, many Americans are paying for private health insurance on top of taxes. In other words, we are paying for universal health care but not getting it. Talk about inefficiency and waste!

Universal access to health care would not only increase individual liberty and alleviate wasteful spending, but would also increase entrepreneurial activity – another value central to conservative thinking. Many entrepreneurs are discouraged from embarking on their new business venture by fears about the high cost of providing employers with health insurance. Small business employers are then forced to make tough decisions about whether to absorb the high costs, pass them on to employees, or not offer benefits at all. A universal health care system would eliminate these concerns and encourage hesitant entrepreneurs to test their innovations and ideas.

Edmund Burke, one is the fathers of conservatism, stated wisely, “A State without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.”

It is time for conservatives to adopt this change. Universal health care should become a basic tenet in the conservative platform. It enhances individual liberty by increasing one’s ability to care for oneself and one’s family. It significantly decreases the current financial waste and inefficiency of the U.S. present voluntary health care system. It also encourages small business and entrepreneurship.

The conservative case for universal health care is much more compelling than for other public services such as roads, schools, libraries, and parks. For me, the question used to be: how can any conservative support a universal health care system? Now, the question has become: how can any true conservative, with a true appreciation of conservative values, not support universal access to health care?

Conservatives should be ready with an answer.

The Injustice of Sex Laws

Same sex relationships are illegal in more than 70 countries. In nine the penalty for engaging in such relationships is death. Here in the United States, nearly half of the states — 23 — have some form of law that prohibits sodomy.

I believe that homosexuality is immoral. However, my private religious beliefs are irrelevant to the larger question that these statistics raise: Should any government have the right to punish its citizens for having consensual sex?

The obvious answer should be no.

Laws prohibiting same sex couples or any consenting adult from engaging in sexual activity should be repealed with one exception — incest — which I will discuss later.

Nothing is more personal than the way people choose to shape their sexual relationships. Government has no business intruding into people’s bedrooms or private intimate relationships.

This doesn’t mean everyone must consider all sexual acts acceptable. It simply means that as long as the participants are consenting adults, then the government has no right to use force to try to prevent such behavior or punish people for engaging in certain acts. There is no justification for executing, or imprisoning, peaceful citizens because of their sexual choices.

For sex to truly be considered “consensual,” two conditions must exist. First, everyone involved must willingly agree to participate in the sexual acts. Second, those who agree must understand what they are agreeing to participate in.

The second requirement — that they understand the nature of the act or acts — is why a legal age of consent is necessary. I would propose 16 as a proper legal age of consent, but that is a debate for another time.

Though incest may be consensual sex between two adults, there is the risk that a third party who did not consent to the act will be negatively affected. I am talking, of course, about the child that may be created as a result of the act. The child is highly likely to be born with significant mental disorders, physical defects, or both. Because the non-consenting child is at such a high risk for experiencing such harmful effects as a result of the adults’ actions, incest is an exception to my thesis that all laws regulating sex between consenting adults should be repealed.

In short, as long as the sexual acts between adults are consensual, and do not place a non-consenting third party at a high risk, then the government has no right to regulate or prohibit the actions.

The most common cases of non-traditional (i.e. not between one man and one woman) sexual relationships are homosexual relationships and polygamous relationships. Both types of relationships are punishable by law in many countries, including the United States.

This is an abuse of government power in any society, and particularly in one such as the United States that claims to offer freedom for its citizens. With the exception of those who believe in authoritarianism or anarchism, most people believe that the proper role of government in a free society is to protect individuals’ rights to life, liberty, and property, and not to abrogate these rights. It is accepted that it is fair to have laws against murder, assault, rape, and theft, but that actions that do not intrude on the rights of others should not be restricted.

When a government imprisons or in any way punishes peaceful consenting adults for having sex, that government has stepped outside of its proper boundaries and is acting unjustly.

The debate over government’s proper role in its citizens’ sex lives prompts us to consider what the government’s role is in any private relationship, such as marriage or friendship. I would argue that the government has no role in any peaceful, private relationships, regardless of whether those relationships involve sex, friendship, or marriage.

Any government that presumes it has the power to deem which peaceful human relationships are good and which are bad is acting outside of its proper limits. All people deserve equal treatment under the law, and the easiest way to ensure that this occurs is not to grant marriage licenses to homosexuals or polygamists, but to remove government altogether from marriage and private sexual relationships. Consensual sex, marriage, and friendships are private affairs. The government should have no right to regulate such matters.

Some claim that the government should have the right to deem some consensual sex acceptable and some consensual sex unacceptable, and should also have the power to punish anyone who engages in the “unacceptable” kind of consensual sex. If this were the case, it’s difficult to imagine what the government wouldn’t have the power to regulate and, thus, punish.

The government should not have the right to tell its citizens how to have sex. Nor should the government have the right to decide which sexual positions are legal, or when sex can legally occur. Punishment should not be imposed for engaging in consensual sexual acts.

Everyone has a different concept of morality, and the government should not have the right to impose on its citizens its version of morality. The poet T.S. Eliot once wrote:

They constantly try to escape
From the darkness outside and within
By dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good.

However, no government system can make someone good, and legislating morality doesn’t make a society moral. An act can only be truly moral when someone has the freedom to act immorally, but chooses otherwise.

As stated earlier, same sex relationships are illegal in more than 70 countries and are punishable by death in nine of those countries. This is clearly an injustice and an abuse of government power. Any law regulating sex between consensual adults is wrong and should be repealed.