It seems that conservatives never tire of reminding us that if it isn't explicitly written into the Constitution, we are on our own, and the Sutherland Institute's Matthew Piccolo is no exception.
Ensuring the public welfare, including public safety and health, does include taking advantage of the "opportunity to give" to charity and help our brothers and sisters on this planet. However, charity alone cannot meet the needs of a large, complex and vibrant society and never has.
Piccolo points out, correctly, that Utahns are incredibly generous people, giving large amounts to charity and spending more time than most volunteering for causes they believe in. I join him in his praise for our level of giving in both time and money.
However, in spite of the huge hearts and open wallets of so many Utahns, our state has up to 300,000 people living without health insurance. Piccolo and other conservatives would have us believe we are to blame for these individuals having no access to affordable health care.
While Utahns take more "opportunities to give" than most, we apparently still don't take enough of those opportunities.
All Americans agree when conservative think tanks like the Sutherland Institute parrot the words of our founders, conceding that all people have a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." My question is: How exactly does allowing a health insurance company to price me out of my health insurance because I am "high risk," or allowing them to deny coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition beyond my control, enhance my "right to life," not to mention "liberty" or the "pursuit of happiness"?
Why is it reasonable for me to expect the fire department to show up if my home catches fire, a right I can't find anywhere in the Constitution, but not reasonable for me to expect access to insurance that can help me survive burns caused by that very same fire?
Piccolo argues that it is unfair to force taxpayers to pay for everyone's health care. Apparently, in his view it is fair for hospitals and doctors to pass on the cost of uninsured patients they are morally or legally obligated to treat to me and my employer when these uninsured patients enter bankruptcy as a result of a health-care crisis.
Forcing people to carry the burden for others' health-care costs is fair when these costs are passed on through the private market, but not when passed on through government? This argument seems to be the conservative version of the placebo effect: There is no pain if you can't see it on your tax bill.
Finally, as with other government services such as roads, public schools, fire and police departments, and garbage disposal, ensuring that every Utahn and every American has affordable health care is in our common interest.
We all benefit when a TB patient receives timely, effective treatment for his illness. We all benefit when children receive appropriate immunizations, and common diseases do not spread throughout our communities.
While I would like to think that everyone contributes to charities doing good work in the health-care field, I know that many can't afford to donate, and some put their limited resources into other worthy causes.
Furthermore, no one wants a volunteer fixing a broken bone or treating their cancer, no matter how well-intentioned or well-trained they may be.
At some point in our lives we have to rely on experts when it comes to our health. and this costs lots of money, even in cases where the health-care system requires everyone to share the expense. Arguing that charity can carry the burden is just naive in the extreme.
---
* CRAIG AXFORD has worked as an environmental activist, ran for Congress in 2002 and currently works for the Democratic National Committee as party organization director for Utah.
