To the Editor:
Re “The Misguided Quest for Universal Coverage,” by Ramesh Ponnuru (Op-Ed, April 9):
Mr. Ponnuru’s argument against universal health insurance coverage oversimplifies the moral issue involved. Having health insurance in our modern economy is not just desirable but absolutely essential, as matters of both individual survival and collective well-being.
It is morally perverse to favor a system where a bad diagnosis can be a financial death sentence. Given that risks of being uninsured are shared with family members and costs of treating uninsured patients are foisted on society, it is ethically myopic to frame a decision to be uninsured as an acceptable choice “in a free country.” And Mr. Ponnuru overlooks the financial bloat of administrative costs in our market-based insurance system compared with single-payer alternatives that would finance universal coverage.
Health insurance in a civilized society is a collective moral obligation, not a discretionary consumer good. It’s somewhat analogous to national defense: We strive to safeguard everyone from the unpredictable consequences of an unforeseen tragedy, not just those who can find room in their household budgets to pony up for defense spending.
Bruce Barry
Nashville, April 9, 2009
The writer is a professor of management and sociology at Vanderbilt University.
Note from KBJ: It can't be said often enough: Your health is not my responsibility. In other words, health insurance in a civilized society is not a collective moral obligation. I have an idea. Why don't all those (such as the letter writer) who favor a single-payer health-care system pool their money and pay for health insurance for those who can't afford it? Everyone wins. Those of us who provide for ourselves aren't forced to provide for others. Those who are without health care receive it. Those who want to help others get to do so.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 