Subsidiarity and health care reform

Over at the Hastings Center they’re attempting to tie in American values with the broader policy implications of health care reform.  I have a piece on solidarity and subsidiarity and the oft-competing values which help inform the debate published there now.  A taste:

Subsidiarity found its first articulation in Catholic social teaching. Basically it’s the investment of authority at the lowest level of an institutional hierarchy possible, essentially relegating centralized authority to a secondary or subsidiary role. In other words, the group closest to whatever task or problem should tackle that problem first, and only when they’re not able to should a higher authority step in. In social terms, this might break down something like this: first, individuals are responsible for their own social welfare, then families, then communities, then local governments, then state governments, and finally the federal government.

In many ways, subsidiarity flies in the face of the more universalist notion of solidarity. Subsidiarity requires that small groups and individuals tackle problems, while solidarity demands that we all band together.

Nevertheless, if we’ve learned anything from the health care debate, it’s that for any meaningful reform to take place, we need to find ways to make competing ideas work together. More people need to be covered for less money. Somehow more government involvement in the health care industry also has to lead also to less of a financial burden on federal and state budgets.

If you’re interested you can read the rest here.