A society of selfless, altruistic beings governed by a similarly minded state is one surely doomed to fail. The notion of universal healthcare runs contrary to the morally selfish behaviors by which society should function. Just as in all other facets of life, a person should be responsible for their and their loved one’s well-being. To be held accountable for the healthcare of all other members of their society would be to put their well-being at the same level of importance as their own; to sacrifice their own earnings for the sake of another.
From a governmental standpoint this as well shows a lack of faith in civil society to maintain a level of individual self-worth and care for themselves. For the state to mandate this proposal would create a sense of altruistic obedience that would damage the laissez fair economic and social culture that has helped the United States achieve enormous success. One man does not owe a thing to another stranger, be it money or healthcare, who is outside of that man’s own interests, they are two separate entities with their own non-crossing paths. If one man has not accumulated the capital to maintain his own health, he clearly has not met the basic necessities for his own life, and would be psychotic to expect someone who has achieved that success to assist him in receiving care.
Taxation on civil society to implement universal healthcare is also quite unjust and tyrannical. While maintaining proper health in a need for individual members of the society to function, to tax each member of such for the benefit of all members is completely undermines the individual worth of each citizen to maintain their own health and puts the weight of it on the shoulders of each member of society. This then forces civil society to become altruistic in believing that the must depend on one another instead of themselves for their own haleness, the most basic and essential of individual concerns.
To have each person commit to the welfare of each member of society would be also to diminish their commitment to themselves and to their loved ones. Similar to an assertion I made in my work “The Virtue of Selfishness,” if a man were to act selfishly, as he should and has the right to, regarding his and his family’s healthcare, he would travel to all ends to pay for essential surgery for his wife. If he were to act selflessly, and in this case altruistically, he would pay for surgery to save the lives of ten other women while leaving his wife to die, being that he would save the lives of ten member of his altruistic society rather than one. Does the second proposal not sound absurdly ridiculous to you? Does it not entirely disregard the natural state of human condition and allocation of importance. If so, you may be beginning to understand the importance and necessity of selfish virtue.
One should provide for the well-being of another if and when that other being is incorporated into the hierarchy of values of one’s life. A man provides money for surgery for his wife because she provides happiness for him, and the loss of her directly corresponds to the loss of his selfish interests. Whereas when one provides for the well-being of a stranger, it does not correlate to the man’s values of happiness, and the man believing he should give his own money to cover the costs for a stranger’s health shows a lack of self-esteem and self-worth essential for one’s own survival and achievement.
To expect civil society to bestow their own earnings for the sake of another’s welfare is a notion of selflessness, sacrifice, and altruism that would destroy the fabric by which this nation is sewn.