The great thing, among others, in American democracy is that it sometimes
knows how to turn a stormy politician debate into a constitutional debate of
the highest caliber. And budgetary issues have provided some very good
excuses.
It begins with the founding fathers of the U.S. Constitution, who in the
late 18th century, had an argument over whether or not to inscribe in the
American Constitution the obligation to finance government expenditure by
the generation who benefits from it (Jefferson, then ambassador in Paris,
before becoming president, supporter to repay any debt in less than 19
years, opposed Madison, then a member of Congress in the beginning, before
becoming president also, convinced that public debt is a normal financing
cost of spending for the future).
This question is relevant today, with a passionate debate aroused by the
health care reform of President Obama.
Refusing to lay down arms, after the Congressional vote, Republicans have
undertaken several maneuvers to ruin the plan of universal health coverage
(which covers 32 million Americans under age 65 still deprived today of any
health insurance, while the elderly are already covered by the system of
Medicare / Medicaid). The most interesting criticism comes from 14 states
Republicans, led by the former governor of Florida, by the name of Jebb
Bush, son of one and brother of the other. They claim they can show that
this reform is unconstitutional because it forces American citizens to
purchase insurance. But they say insurance is a private good and no one can
be forced to buy a private good. Magnificent debate. It is even the main
debate between what we can still call the left and right-wing.
In any democratic society, the unique role of the state is to provide
citizens with security, and for that, make them pay for insurance, known as
tax or social contribution. The safety of lives and property requires, for
all supporters of democracy, armies, police, judges, prisons, diplomacy. It
also requires, for some, public transport, energy and communications
networks. It requires finally, still for others , public resources to be
trained to find a job, to be protected against the risks of life that are
illness, dependence, old age.
The question is whether a society can force its members to consider these as
public goods. And particularly in regards to health, so it may decide that
the insurance premium is required. This is the only issue that defines the
scope of public expenditure.
In my opinion, an insurance premium may be required if the person who
decides not to pay would hurt others and himself. A citizen who does not pay
his share of taxes spent on defense affects the quality of defense for all
without being able to ensure his security alone. Similarly, by not paying
his share of taxes for health, a citizen, even if he can finance his health
alone, harms the health of others by placing himself in a position of not
being treated and for being contagious.
In France, the rise of needs and deficits will soon force us to ask
clearly the same questions.