Today, 23rd March 2010, something historical is going to happen. Namely, the president of the United States, Barack Obama, is going to sign a health care reform legislation. All Republicans in the House of Representatives voted against the bill and there are 11 states –all Republican- who continue to fight against the reform. Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alabama and Washington want to go to trial with this new law because they think the obligatory health insurance is contrary to the constitution of the United States and desecrates the sovereignty of the fifty states the country consists of.
Is it morally wrong from the Republicans to vote against the bill, or is it morally wrong of the health insurance companies to exclude or expel chronic or long lasting sick people? The health insurance companies exclude those people because they are trying to maximize their profit within the rules of law. Are they disobeying the moral discourse? Did they had to voluntary accept those people because these people should be helped? Or is the task of the Republicans to vote for the law because there is necessity for doing that? Who of them was morally wrong and disobeyed the moral principle: help other people?
I think the Republicans are against this reformation because they have motivational problems. They are not interested in the collective perspective but go for what suits them, as a person, the best. They act against the commandments of morality. Fraternity and solidarity are core values within western liberal thinking, and the Republicans disobey the morality principle ‘help other people among you’. Republicans do not have any concern for other people, and do not care if a sick person cannot gets a surgery because he or she cannot pay it. The health insurance companies did not do anything wrong, because they were maximizing their profit within the law and it is not their responsibility to keep everybody insured.
s971638
2 comments:
I think that the Republicans considered this to be a morally hard case they have to choose between the negative duty of helping others pay their medical bills (thus helping them survive) and the negative duty of the state not to limit the (in this case financial) freedom of US citizens. Because of their capitalistic nature, the Republicans see every government intervention (e.g. paying taxes) as a way of limiting this freedom. As this bill is not beneficial for those who get their health insurance paid by their employer it became a morally hard card for them.
Although one could claim that this is a particularly shady way of thinking it does lead to a morally hard case. Both are negative duties, the Republicans are free to choose which of them they deem more fundamental. That is why their resistance to this bill was so fierce.
U1236311 / S169300
The recent health care reformation forces every inhabitant to pay for everyone's health expenses. This neglects every individual's freedom, as freedom of choice on this matter is abandoned. As everyone is obliged to take insurance, the government bureaucrats will decide on which healthcare is best for their inhabitants. This is clearly a characteristic of socialism and not liberalism.
Of course people have motivational problems concercing this bill. Fraternity and solidarity are exactly liberal core values. Forcing people into healthcare, however, does not respond to liberal values and neglects the rights-based theories as the freedom of the individual is harmed.
To help really everyone, one has to respect the individual's rights, as that is the smallest minority.
Helping is good. Stealing from your neighbors to help, is not.
As result is it wrong to say that "republicans do not have any concern for other people".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWIW3ueUjSo
s901648
NB Republicans are not necessarily liberal in the classical sense. Classical-liberalism is more to be found at the Libertarians.
Post a Comment