Sunday, November 29, 2009

Health Insurance: Moral Imperative or Risk Management?

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff takes conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer to school regarding the latter's assertion that "[i]nsuring the uninsured is a moral imperative." Paul's thesis is that, while this is a lofty goal, it doesn't rise to quite that level. I would suggest that the serious student of this debate read Paul's post in its entirety; I have a sympathetic, but slightly different, take.

There is, surprisingly, little to be found on the web viz: defining a "moral imperative." Wikipedia identifies it with the work of Immanual Kant, defining it as "a principle originating inside a person's mind that compels that person to act." I find this to be wholly unsatisfying: what differentiates this from any other urge? What, in fact, is the moral dimension to this definition?

I would argue that morality has no place in the lexicon of "insurance." Over time, we've re-defined the nature and purpose of insurance away from its primary use as a tool to help us manage, and perhaps mitigate, risks, and toward the funding of routine items. Take, for example, one of Bob's favorite aphorisms: how much would auto insurance cost if it covered wiper blades and oil changes? Of course these are properly identified as ordinary and expected "wear and tear;" the true purpose should be to protect us from losing our assets if, for example, we're responsible for a major accident with serious injuries or even loss of life.

Health insurance is similar to auto insurance only in that it is rooted in the same underlying principle: indemnity. In this case, "indemnity" means "to make whole." That is, to put us back, financially, as closely as possible to our condition pre-accident. In the case of health insurance, it means to protect our assets if we face an expensive course of treatment (for example). No one confuses auto insurance with the actual vehicle. Unfortunately, it's become fashionable to conflate health insurance with the actual care received.

And thus, the idea that providing everyone with health insurance is somehow a moral imperative: some folks believe that our ethics require that we provide everyone with insurance because then everyone has access to health care.

But this is a false conclusion, based on a faulty premise: no one in this country is denied health care based on economics (and when they are denied care, it's a big deal). It's true that some folks have access to (arguably) better health care, but that's not the same thing. We take it as a given that we should all have access to food and shelter, as well; some folks live in mansions, and others in homeless shelters. Do we have a moral obligation (imperative) to give everyone in a shelter a new home? Likewise, some folks eat at fancy restaurants, while others shop at Aldi's. Are we obligated to provide the latter with steak every evening?

Some time ago, our own Mike Feehan (commenting under a pseudonym) proposed a "national, single-grocer plan." It's well worth re-reading that gem, because it offers an excellent insight into why health insurance is no more "morally imperative" than groceries.

There may well be solid economic arguments supporting the principle of "universal coverage" (although I have yet to see a convincing one), but there is no "moral" argument to be made.
blog comments powered by Disqus