RSS
Home
Health care reform bill passes: a moral perspective
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
President Barack Obama, right, talks with House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, and Majority Whip
James Clyburn, D-SC, left, after meeting with
House Democrats about health care on Capitol
Hill in Washington, Saturday, Nov. 7, 2009
(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
Late last night, November 7, by a narrow vote of 220 to 215, the House passed H.R.3962: the Affordable Health Care for America Act.
A key turning point in Democrats’ negotiations to pass the bill was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to allow Democrats to vote for the Stupak Amendment, which imposed abortion coverage restrictions on any insurance company receiving federal dollars. The amendment passed with a vote of 240 to 194.
The passage of the health care bill, which will now go to the Senate for another vote, is being hailed as a defining moment for the Democratic party, with President Obama telling Democrats on Capitol Hill, “When I sign this in the Rose Garden, each and every one of you will be able to look back and say, ‘This was my finest moment in politics.’”
Whether one is for or against the health care reform bill, which includes a public health insurance option among other insurance reforms, it can be agreed that health care is a moral issue. Indeed, there can be no greater moral question than that of protecting and nurturing life. It necessarily precedes even liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The question of how to care for life has sparked passionate debates over the past few months, demonstrating its fundamental importance for Americans.
However, Democrats have not been the most adept at framing legislation in moral terms, even when their moral case is a strong one, as it is with health care.
The philosopher John Rawls suggested that we should approach public policy issues like health care from a “veil of ignorance.” Rawls states, “Among the essential features of this [veil of ignorance] is that no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does any one know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength and the like.”
In other words, if, before you were born, you did not know who you would be or into what kind of family you would be born, i.e., did not know your socio-economic status or intelligence, what policy choices would you make, knowing you would be affected by them?
Rawls’ concept is not entirely new. The Gospel of Luke proposed it over two thousand years ago: “Do to others as you would have them do to you.”
We are all the children of God; we are interconnected in our human family. If there is one person who does not have access to health care, I am not well.
It is our moral imperative to ensure, to the best of our ability, that all people have equal access to that which is needed to care for life, and a public health insurance option is a step closer to achieving that.
Further reading:
Related Articles:
Comments
.jpg)
Last month, I wrote an article about embarking on a challenge – a yoga class every day for thirty days – at a local heated yoga studio. I …
Yesterday evening, November 16, Senator John Kerry announced that the Senate would not be passing climate change legislation before COP15, the UN …
- How to help a refugee family in your community
- Need food? How to ask for help
- How to teach our children empathy
- How to trick-or-treat for UNICEF
- How to be a Columbus: A 21st century perspective
- How to help protect
- How to go Fair Trade for Halloween
- How to give thanks on Thanksgiving: moving and sharing
- How to build a strong marriage: marriage advice from divorce lawyers
- IRIN humanitarian news and analysis
- UN Research Institute for Social Development
- The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life
- GovTrack info on congressional bills & committees
- KPBS San Diego
- Find your local PBS station
- Watch NOVA health programs online
- The Faith Foundation
- Human Rights Watch
- Waging Peace
- Network for Africa
- Article 1
