6/23/2014
Recently, Utah’s Catholic Bishop John C. Wester released a statement arguing for Medicaid expansion, specifically calling on the Utah Legislature to accept Governor Gary Herbert’s Medicaid expansion plan. His words were direct and, at times, sharp. Bishop Wester’s moral defense of Utah’s poor and needy was on display. I like how he speaks. I appreciate a moral defense of anything. For me, there is no argument more important than a moral argument.
That said, I disagree with his endorsement of Medicaid expansion – and I disagree on moral grounds as well as a matter of good government.
I should add that I am a big fan of Bishop Wester. There are few religious leaders in Utah, if any, outside of my own Mormon faith, who I respect more. I have the pleasure of associating with him on several important political issues such as immigration, marriage and family. I admire his moral courage, his intelligence and grace. We just happen to disagree about Medicaid expansion.
As with food, clothing and shelter, health care is not a moral entitlement. Rather, human dignity and personhood obligate the “haves” to care for the “have nots.” Every human being has a personal moral obligation to care for neighbors in need – a moral obligation diminished every time we rush to have governments fill it. Admittedly, when we freely fail in this obligation nobody should be shocked when some voices call on public institutions to step in and address our personal failures to help the poor. But, even then, we remain bound to seek solutions that respect the full morality of giving and receiving.
Human dignity is meaningless without a working definition of what it means to be a human being. And, while that meaning is debatable, any working definition of human dignity cannot be limited to how we see others. It must include how we see ourselves. Put simply, in this case, human dignity is equals parts giver and receiver. The same morality that uplifts our neighbors in need must equally consider our neighbors who provide for those needs.
Furthermore, we should not imply that social justice is a greater moral priority than limited government. As much as I admire the moral courage of Bishop Wester in behalf of the poor and needy, I also admire the moral courage of Utah legislators who strive to balance the needs of people within the wisdom of limited government. If what is moral is only a function of social justice, we owe Karl Marx an apology. The policy of Medicaid expansion is hardly a moral imperative. On the other hand, providing adequate medical care for our neighbors in need is. This political debate, let alone the moral debate, centers on the best ways for Utahns to give life-sustaining care for our neighbors in need of medical attention and, at the same time, maintain good government.
Like Bishop Wester, I am pro-life, and so are the vast majority of men and women serving in the Utah Legislature. But so far in Utah, pro-life means equal parts mother and child. Providing adequate medical care for people who can’t afford it follows the same recipe. The morality of giving requires the same concerns for dignity as the morality of receiving. Likewise, the process of providing has an essential integrity that must be maintained in a free society – and using Medicaid expansion as a means toward a universal single-payer health care system breaches that integrity.
I’m Paul Mero. Thanks for listening.
