My Thoughts On The Healthcare Debate

Decidedly so it is, it seems we have come to a great rift and divide in our nation over health care and whether or not it should be provided at the expense of each and every individual taxpayer. Whether one chooses to take advantage of said health care plan is expressly up to them, but each individual will allegedly be paying for it.

However, I do not feel this is the case and that we must also take into consideration theories of government which serve decent testimonial to properly run government organizations. Chiefly, I seek to provide a decent claim based on John Locke and his Theory of Government, mostly attributed to his Second Treatise of Civil Government.

Locke, as were most people of his time, was a rather deeply religious man who held onto the most fundamental aspects of the Bible. Yet, in order to better clarify his position of humans as individuals and the society they represented, he often referred to a “natural state” expressing the birth rights of each individual person. What was trying to be convened by this was typically in reference to some sort of Biblical understanding but was also used to explain why our individual freedoms upon being born would be sacrificed in lieu of civil government and/or civil societies. We are all free to do as we wish the moment we are born. To clarify this point, Locke stated:

"To properly understand political power and trace its origins, we must consider the state that all people are in naturally. That is a state of perfect freedom of acting and disposing of their own possessions and persons as they think fit within the bounds of the law of nature. People in this state do not have to ask permission to act or depend on the will of others to arrange matters on their behalf. The natural state is also one of equality in which all power and jurisdiction is reciprocal and no one has more than another. It is evident that all human beings – as creatures belonging to the same species and rank and born indiscriminately with all the same natural advantages and faculties – are equal amongst themselves. They have no relationship of subordination or subjection unless God (the lord and master of them all) had clearly set one person above another and conferred on him an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.”

It doesn’t take long to perform a careful reading of the aforementioned quote to realize what Locke is specifically talking about. In fact, we can really see where he is headed with this and how since all humans are created equal, we should be asking ourselves, at this point, the futile question of “Why do we elect representatives to take charge of parts of our lives?”

To further go on, Locke would state precisely that point.

“IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? Why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.”

Here we receive a smattering of clues in regards to the things in life that would provoke us to give up certain individual freedoms and to join a society with others “who are already united, or have a mind to unite” for the general name of what he refers to as “property.”

Now that we have received a quick dose of what Locke was referring to, Let’s focus in on the word property and, more specifically, the things Locke used to comprise of property - life (or lives), liberties, and estates… It was Locke’s suggestion that we enable governments to have certain tenures of jurisdiction over our lives for the overall protection of our property. In the finest state of freedom, in a completely natural setting, only the strongest truly do survive. A simple reading of Lord of the Flies might indicate to us what happens when mankind finds himself in the truest state of “nature.” Nevertheless, we come to the conclusion in Locke’s writing in which we find ourselves at the ephemeral point of debate. At what point do we allow ourselves the luxury of government interference and jurisdiction in our lives?

To this end, there seem to be many compelling theories in our modern day society. Many will charge the government with too much interference while others desire and demand more personal protection of their Lockeian property. Locke would go on to state the necessary components in order to make those decisions. In all of this, those reading should think back to the previous quote of “life, liberties and estates” and project that onto Thomas Jefferson’s uncanny similarity in the Declaration of Independece in which he states “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as being the unalienable rights of man.

Is there any doubt in anyone’s mind that the chief element of “property” that exists in our lives, is simply put, our lives? We have police forces, fire departments, militaries, and disaster-aid organizations such as FEMA on standby in order to protect the things we have charged the government with protecting. In fact, we are greatly outraged when we find these “personal protection services” disorganized and poorly managed. Case in point: Hurricane Katrina.

Most people, when fleeing a fire are devastated at the loss of personal property, or as Lock would put it: estates. However, most if not all people are thankful to have their lives despite the disastrous outcome of their personal effects. People may say, “I am so thankful just to be alive. The fire department saved our lives.” Sometimes you may hear the victim of a bank robbery say, “All I wanted to do was make it out of there alive.” These statements are of course nothing new. None of the above should shock anybody. Given a five-alarm fire that takes all of ones’ personal belongings or death, one can hardly imagine a sane individual willing to opt for the latter.

The question that continues to press on my mind is why we are so apt to welcome the police forces into our homes and neighborhoods, why we gleefully pay for the fire departments in our area and yet why we are so stubborn to protect our lives with something such as universal health care. The main talking point seems to be outrage that we must pay for those who don’t work in order to nurse them back to health. However, I do not hear arguments about why the fire departments are putting out fires in the ghetto. I don’t hear arguments about why detectives pursue a murderer. More noticeably, I never hear outrage over detectives pursuing a murderer who killed a drug dealer or a gang member. We have no problem with those detriments to society. Why do we have a problem with doctors pursuing cancer or diabetes for the good of common man and our societies’ right to “property?”

Ultimately, it seems to boil down to money. If health care were cheap, say the cost of what it takes the fire department to put out a fire, I imagine there would be little to no debate over the issue. What is turning out to be the greatest debate of our times is nothing more than how much our societies’ health is worth. In many corners, it would seem the health of parents, loved ones, friends, and yes, a few miscreant hoodlums from society isn’t worth the time of day much less a nickel. So much for our unalienable rights to life, huh?

Thankfully, as Locke stated in his beautiful Treatise, governments and the representatives of the people should be put into office by the majority of the people based on what they desire. Last November, the people spoke and declared they wanted health care. The debate will be ardent, it will be fiery, and it may even get bloody. Yet, it's something I feel we as a nation must get done as not only a priority of an exceptional government theory partially provided by Mr. Locke and reiterated by Thomas Jefferson, but also as a moral one.