Community Voices features opinion pieces from a wide variety of authors and perspectives. (Submission Guidelines)

Morally and fiscally, reforming health care is the right thing to do

Having raised a daughter with type I diabetes, our family has been aware of the escalating costs in the nation’s health-care system for nearly 20 years. But my wife’s recovery from nasty injuries due to a fall from a ladder earlier this summer has made me even more sensitive to the deplorable condition of the health care system in this country.

Receiving health-care bills totaling well over $110,000 in the past three months, we are obviously grateful for the insurance coverage afforded us through my employer. However, as we count our blessings we realize there are millions of Americans who would be bankrupted by this situation.
In studying the health-care debate, it is somewhat easy to see the dichotomy that plagued scholars who studied the life of Adam Smith. How could “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” and “Wealth of Nations” have been written by the same man?

Our morality (sometimes referred to as social creed) is heavily weighted by parenting, community culture and religious belief, and shaped by role models, teachers and experience. This morality suggests that all of us should have access to education, food, shelter and yes, affordable health care. These common American beliefs exist in the context of the individual freedoms guaranteed to us in our founding documents, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If we are to live in harmonious community, this common moral doctrine (social contract) must exist. 
However, our economic system is based on a free market that is driven by self-interest, innovation, competition and the desire to build wealth. This has made us the wealthiest of nations. It motivates many to pursue the American dream and find ways to succeed in the marketplace.

Some outspoken advocacy groups bombard us with the argument that we must find a way to make the free-market economics work or we risk becoming a “socialist society.” Is anybody getting tired of this overly simplified portrait of the health-care debate?

Adam Smith was a complex individual, and the health-care problem is too. I applaud the Obama administration for taking it on and understand that what it proposes may not be perfect. It may be version No. 1 of a solution that takes four or five versions to fully succeed. But we must find a way to give affordable health care to all Americans and for reasons that even Adam Smith would agree with: The costs are preventing many American companies from competing well in the global marketplace; and because it is morally the right thing to do. 

To do nothing is to mimic the ancient Roman gesture of giving the thumbs down signal in their famous coliseum, only this time it dispatches the health needs of 45 million or so fellow Americans who are either without insurance or underinsured.
Mark Seeley, PhD, is a professor and extension climatologist/meteorologist in the Department of Soil, Water, and Climate at the University of Minnesota.

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (5)

  1. Submitted by Sheila Ehrich on 09/02/2009 - 08:09 am.

    Mark, thank you for a very cogent argument in favor of healthcare reform based on the documents this country was founded on and the principles of a man who many in this country worship as a god. If people who have insurance would only look at the total for each of their medical bills and see what you have seen, a total that would bankrupt many. Further, your argument that healthcare costs are one of the things keeping many American companies from being competitive in world markets is one that I have made and will continue to make.

    It all seems so logical, but thinking logically is one of the skills far too many Americans seem to have lost, as well as empathy.

    On MPR this morning a lobbyist involved in the healthcare debate commented on how many people are actually downloading and reading the bills as Congress puts them together. He sees this as a great example of people finally getting involved in what goes on in Congress.

    However, this is only great if people are actually reading the the bills and thinking about not only their situation, but the situations of others, and not just looking for “codewords”. This is a very complex issue, what may work for you as an individual and/or your family may not work for someone else and their family. Options are a necessity and not just free market options.

  2. Submitted by myles spicer on 09/02/2009 - 11:20 am.

    There was an excellent op-ed column in the Strib yesterday about a woman whose husband has early Ahlzeimer desease, and because of the cost of impending treatment and care WAS ADVISED BY HER DOCTORS AND LAWYERS TO GET AN IMMEDIATE DIVORCE TO PROTECT HER ASSETS! Shocked and hurt, she did it, because as they noted, in a few years she would be both without a husband AND assets for her to live on as well. Such is health care in America today. Of 30 industrialized western countries, we are now only one of two without some sort of universal health care. We have joined Turkey at the bottom (literally) of the lists. And now the Republican mantra is: “let’s start over again”.

  3. Submitted by dan buechler on 09/02/2009 - 03:42 pm.

    Myles and Mark I agree. To hear/read Durenberger dragging his feet does nothing to help our country go forward.

  4. Submitted by Thomas Swift on 09/02/2009 - 10:01 pm.

    Somehow, and I know it’s wrong, but I can’t help but find it funny to listen to people who consider ripping an unborn child from it’s womb, literally limb from limb, “reproductive health care” lecture others on morality.

  5. Submitted by dan buechler on 09/03/2009 - 07:10 pm.

    Seeley keep writing maybe I’ll see you at the corner grocery or gas station (an appreciative neighbor).

Leave a Reply