I knew there was a catch. Peter Singer opined that broadening health care coverage is an important public good. (I agree, but it is not a “right.” Nor, is Obamacare the correct approach. But those are not the subjects of this post.)
Being a utilitarian who advocates valuing the lives of some over those of others (“quality of life” ethic), Singer doesn’t really support “universal” access. First, the give with one hand part; From the Daily Princetonian story:
There are many benefits to universal health care besides saving lives, Singer said. Universal health care, in the long run, would “reduce overall expenditure on health care by covering everyone.” U.S. companies would also be able to compete in a global market better, as the burden of paying for health care would be lifted, he explained. Currently, “virtually half of the U.S. population has their health insurance through their employers,” Singer noted, and such health care would also be morally uplifting. “If you are living in a community where whether you live or die depends on how much money you have ... that produces a different sort of society.” Although opportunities would never be exactly the same for the poor and rich, if a life is saved regardless of a person’s socioeconomic status, it promotes unity within the society, he added.
Unity, if you are not disabled or seriously ill, that is. Because Singer supports limiting health care for those who are not of utilitarian value:
However, there remains the problem of what kind of care the country should provide. “We should get ... the health care that provides the greatest benefits for the resources available,” Singer said. This issue becomes complicated, however, with issues such as end-of-life care and saving disabled people over healthy people. For example, in prolonging life, hospitals spend high amounts of resources that could be used for saving lives. “We should only be spending on health care that actually benefits people and that benefits the patients,” Singer said.
In other words, Singer supports medical discrimination that would take away coverage from people based on health or disability—just when they needed it most. Add in his support for non voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide, and you have a perfect storm for health care to be a destroyer of human exceptionalism and equal justice under law.
And what about animals to which (not whom!) we are, according to Singer, to give “equal consideration” when measuring utilitarian outcomes? Should necessary veterinarian bills for chimps, primates, and pigs, take precedence over health care coverage for people with lower quality of life measurements than these and other animals? I know. I know. Don’t over think this, but if you take Singer’s anti-speciesism philosophy seriously, why wouldn’t we?
That point aside, in a Peter Singer world, stay healthy because if you lose your utility, it could be adios muchaco.
