Universal Coverage Not the Only Way to Show Compassion

Tens of millions of Americans lack health insurance. Extending coverage to them has been a core goal of health reform proposals since the 1960s. President Richard Nixon offered a universal health plan in his first administration, but since then Republicans have hesitated to commit the nation to so costly an undertaking. Is it time to rethink? Should Republicans accept universal coverage as a goal?  We posed this question to NewMajority’s contributors.

Republicans are rightly skeptical of a universal "right" to anything positively provided by government (as opposed, of course, to negative liberties, such as those enshrined in the Bill of Rights).  Why should we be entitled to healthcare but not, for instance, to a certain level of income, amount of food, or wardrobe of clothing?  That said, our society has made the judgment that all Americans -- including those visiting our soil, for the short- or long-term -- do deserve some basic level of care; no one is ever turned away at the emergency room doors for failure to have health insurance.

The challenge for Republicans, then, is to channel this compassionate impulse into appropriate policies that makes coverage available (note: not compulsory; we shouldn't be in the business of forcing people to buy insurance) at low cost for all Americans.  In my opinion, this requires reducing onerous mandates, opening state insurance markets to out-of-state insurers, reforming our awful medical malpractice regime, and decoupling coverage from employment. We need to focus the terms of the debate on creating opportunity for Americans to be covered, securely, at low cost; those terms have traditionally been hospitable to Republican arguments.

To read other contributions to this symposium, click here.