A Question
Consider two healthcare systems.
In country 1, people are covered by a single-payer system system. All pay a dedicated contribution that, for most, is deducted from their pay packet. The single insurer is a public entity. It allows for legal directly-procured abortions permitted under the law to be covered.
In country 2, people are covered by three large private health insurers. All pay a premium that, for most, is deducted from their pay packet. There is no government involvement in health insurance. All three private insurers cover directly-procured abortions as permitted under the law.
The question: is the provision of health insurance for directly-procured abortion more morally grave in country 1 than country 2? If so, why?
Comments are closed.
It is not morally more grave in country 1 than in country 2. But the cooperation of taxpayers in the evil of abortion is more direct in country 1 than in country 2. Therefore, the system in country 2 would be preferable because it does not compel the taxpayer to the cooperation with evil to as great an extent.
Thanks, Ben.
But why do you think the cooperation with evil is more proximate with a taxpayer than it is with somebody contributing to a private sector collective funding source?
Can’t speak for Ben but I think it’s different because the state as an entity represents “the people” in ways a private company can not (especially in a democracy).
Is participation in either system required as a matter of law? If either system offers at least the possibility of opting not to pay for abortions, it would be the more just system.
The philosophical ponderings are of little utility.
The citizens of country #1 should work through the legislative process to remove the abortion funding while preserving universal health care. They are not morally obligated to dismantle the whole system (I would believe they are morally obligated not to dismantle it). I would expect the Catholic Church and the RTL Movement to be in the forefront of these efforts.
The shareholders of companies providing abortions in country #2 should work to remove abortion coverage without denying the company’s workers health insurance. Since this describes the status quo in the United States, it is not a theoretical assumption but a fact the Catholic Church and the RTL Movement has been largely silent on any moral obligation of shareholders and have done nothing to upset the cozy alliance of Big Business and social issue conservatives.
the state as an entity represents “the people” in ways a private company can not (especially in a democracy)
Is this not an idolization of democracy? Both are forms of collective action where the person’s contribution funds activties that violate the moral law.
I’ll say up front that I’m not Catholic and I’m pro-choice. But I think I can contribute to this discussion anyway.
Actually, I would say that country #2′s system is morally worse than country #1′s system in at least two respects:
1. In country #1, people have no choice but to pay into the system that pays for abortions or to use that system for their own health care. In country #2, people have a choice whether or not to obtain health insurance that pays for abortions. It could be argued that people in country #2 who opt for such health insurance are more morally culpable than people in country #1, who have no options.
2. Whereas country #1′s system is not-for-profit, country #2′s system is a for-profit system. This means that country #2′s health insurance industry is profiting from abortions while country #1′s public health system is not. In my mind, profiting from abortion would add another layer of moral gravity for those who believe that abortion should not be available.
I don’t think it idolizes democracy… regardless of the form of government the apparatus of the state is usually used to enshrine the values and culture of a people, to administer justice, ensure the public good etc. In contrast, private companies do not exist for the same purpose, they exist only for profit. Thus a government-sponsored arrangement is more odious – when the state pays for an abortion it lends its moral authority to the act, while a corporation has no ethical approbation to bestow.
This, Magdalena, I think is the source of much confusion and disputes.
I simply don’t accept the theory of the enactment of legislation is anything more than that. Administer justice and ensure public good, yes. Enshrine values and culture and make a moral statement, no.
I know this matter has become tense between me and some conservatives on the issue of sodomy laws where they take offense when I point out to them that their position is that gay people should be locked up in jail. But that is what the law says. It is not a “values” statement.
I do accept your proposition that corporations have no ethical approbation. That is why the common good requires a certain regulation of corporations.
“Is this not an idolization of democracy? Both are forms of collective action where the person’s contribution funds activties that violate the moral law.”
This is the crucial point, isn’t it? Libertarians and anarchists assume that the State is essentially coercive, whereas a corporation is not. That sounds good on paper, but in practice, it is less clear that there is a meaningful distinction.
As your example is intended to bring out, if I’m not mistaken.
Libertarians and anarchists assume that the State is essentially coercive, whereas a corporation is not.
Anarchists and libertarians differ on this. Anarchists do indeed believe that the corporation is coercive, which is why most anarchists oppose capitalism and not just the state.
MM:
I don’t believe Matt’s question was addressed which would be determinative to some extent. In Country #2 is there the option of not participating in purchasing health care at all? In addition, are the three insurance companies government mandated monopolies or is there the possibility of establishing a 4th insurance company that is pro-life? If you have to purchase insurance from one of the three and the government has granted those three companies an exclusive franchise in the market then for all intents and purposes Country 1 and Country 2 are the same and this entire exercise is a sham.
MI:
Unless you can show me otherwise Corporations can only act coercively when aided and abetted by the State. The State either grants exclusive monopolies or enacts laws and regulations that benefit those companies that already exist. Without the State a Corporation would lack the means to coerce.
awakaman, no doubt corporations and states need one another. The power of corporations surely has increased because of the support of states. The question now is who is really in the driver’s seat. When corporations can sue governments for the supposed violation of free trade agreements, it’s clear who is in the driver’s seat. The state and global capitalism are the two faces, or the two heads, of empire.
In my view, states have merely become the police for for global capitalism. Sometimes corporations are even able to sidestep the state in the case of Blackwater, mercenary “security” forces, paramilitaries, etc.
There is a third reality that is worse than either of the other two. The passivity and weak faith of Catholics who have the option to develop an alternative plan that would provide coverage for all but seem unwilling to even consider this option because it is too complicated or not enough resources, etc. So we are left with the other two choices because of weak faith.