Universal Coverage vs. Universal Liberty

Photo Credit: mrsdkrebs

We conservatives can support universal health coverage. All that is necessary to do so is that we intend good for everyone, ignore the Constitution, and compromise our principles.

In his article published at National Review, “The Conservative Case for Universal Coverage,” Avik Roy writes:

I argue that no Republican health-reform plan will get anywhere until Republicans come to agree that it’s a legitimate goal of public policy to ensure that all Americans have access to quality health care, just as we agree that all Americans should have access to a quality education:

To credibly advance this approach, conservatives must make one change to their stance: They have to agree that universal coverage is a morally worthy goal. No conservative politicians oppose universal public education; instead, we champion reforms that improve the quality of public education that poor Americans receive.

The author thus makes the case — asserts it twice, in fact — that because conservatives support quality public schooling (“universal public education”), it follows that they ought also to approve of a federal universal health insurance program (“universal coverage”). This is a pernicious line of reasoning that undermines the very concept of limited government conservatives claim to champion.