Week Two SOC 490

“When you’re the victim of the behavior, it’s black and white; when you’re the perpetrator there are a million shades of grey.” – Laura Schlessinger

Where does morality come into play with healthcare? Is it a right that should be provided to everyone on the basis of being human or is it a privilege that must be earned? Initially, it is easy to say that healthcare should be considered a human right because we are all equal and therefore, should all have the same access to the care we need as argued by Redmond. When this issue is examined more closely however, it is actually a harder decision than it seems. It is more complicated than just saying “everyone deserves healthcare” because there are so many exceptions, exemptions, and clauses that could be added to the reasoning for universal healthcare such as, what medical services should be available to everyone and the right of professionals to earn money for their work. The issue of universal healthcare becomes exceptionally complicated and it is hard to say that you completely pick one side without looking farther into the other.

When forced to come to a “black or white” decision though, doing so, means taking into consideration your own personal values as well as your position (or future position) in society. From the position of someone looking to be employed in the medical field in the future, I would argue that healthcare is a privilege. As explained by Boudreaux, universal healthcare essentially means universal Medicare that would ultimately lead to alterations in the supply and demand of care. He also reminds readers that healthcare is “a scarce resource,” meaning that not everyone has the ability, the skill, or the financial resources to go into the medical field. Four years of undergraduate study as well as a minimum of three to four more years for graduate school doesn’t come without a price. When looking at universal healthcare from this perspective, it is hard to say that it should be controlled completely by the government and dished out “equally” to those who are in need of it because of how that would essentially limit the rights of the medical professionals who have worked so hard to earn their degrees and learn their professions. In regards to this right of healthcare providers to charge their fees and be compensated for their services, Peikoff writes, “Nobody has the right to the services of any professional individual or group simply because he wants them and desperately needs them. The very fact that he needs these services so desperately is the proof that he had better respect the freedom, the integrity, and the rights of the people who provide them.” He argues that it is morally wrong to “rob” the professionals of their compensation, or more specifically, to allow the government to determine prices for medical services these professionals provide, thus undercutting the profit that they are able to make from providing their services.

Conversely however, the opposing side argues that it is morally wrong to withhold treatment from a human being due to high costs, thus discriminating against the lower classes and people who cannot afford to pay for healthcare. Redmond writes about the immorality of “the profit-driven healthcare system in the United States” and argues that medical professionals are charging so much for their services that the fees oppress the general population from gaining access to healthcare. What is difficult about these two arguments however is that they are both using morality to supporting their side; what they feel is morally right and morally wrong. But I think it is essential to step away from the “black and white” or as Schlessinger describes them, the “victim” sides of the argument, and look into the grey area of the “perpetrators” (ie: the medical professionals). I do not feel that using morality is the proper way to argue the rights of doctors to charge their own fees for their services as Peikoff does, because it is easy to dispute what one believes to be moral or immoral, hence the deadlock of the opposing sides.

It is crucial to remember that the professionals have worked hard to earn the right to charge what ever they deem fit as compensation for their services, not only morally, but also because of their rights as a working professional and/or business owner in America. The foundation of our country’s economy exists on the success of the individual, the profit, and accumulation of capital. The United States of America runs as a capitalist society and has done so since the beginnings of its existence. Stepping away from morality, Boudreaux gives the example of the government treating the supply of food as a human right. He describes situations that could occur as a result of free food such as people taking more food than they really need, which in turn would mean that “the government would start restricting access to it.” In terms of healthcare, this means the government limiting the amount a professional could charge for their service (the free food) and also maybe needing to limit the amount of care that could be provided to an individual. Imagine the US government forcing all restaurants to charge the same price for a hamburger. In our capitalist society, the restaurant has the right to charge whatever they feel is the proper compensation for their product, why should it be any different for a healthcare provider and their “product” of service? Being on the receiving end of healthcare services is not a right that can be given, it is a privilege that must be earned, a service for which the provider must be properly compensated, just like any other consumer good that we buy and/or sell in America. Peikoff leaves his readers with one final thought as he finishes his argument when he quotes Ayn Rand, “[Doctors] are traders, like everyone else in a free society, and they should bear that title proudly, considering the crucial importance of the services they offer.” With that in mind, our American capitalist society does not include a universal healthcare system because it is not a right that we have a citizens to receive a service like medical care without owing the provider their services.