Proponents of a universal health care system claim that the policy is morally superior through an ethical ideology that was articulated by Churchill when he stated that "You can measure the degree of a society's civilization by how it treats its weakest members", and argued by Ghandi when he said that "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members".  It is the belief that a just and fair society would be not only willing to, but feel morally compelled to care for its weakest members.  This is indeed, a morally sound ideology and there can be no fault found in the desire to provide for those incapable of providing for themselves.  This is true concerning the necessities of food and housing, and it is true in the necessity of health care.

This is the moral basis for the claim that health care is a right.  A country (seemingly) capable of providing health care for all its citizens is morally compelled as a good and honorable society to provide that care.

On the surface, single payer proponents seem to be presenting a morally superior system. This is false. The desire for a universal government health care system is the product of a morally inferior society, the willingness to implement such a system represents that ethical inferiority, and the presence of such a system serves to further lessen the moral fiber of the society that implements it.

Why desire for a single-payer system is the product of a morally inferior society

In the society spoken of by Ghandi and Churchill, individual members feel the moral obligation to assist the least within a society, and that ethical requirement manifests in charity and service.  When certain members of that society do not feel that obligation, they do not believe that it exists in others.  Their unwillingness to help others in their time of need leads to a belief that if they fall on hard times, help in the form of charity from unknown members of society is simply not realistic.

Left unchecked, this fear of being one illness or accident away from complete financial bankruptcy leads either to hopelessness, or to anger directed at those in the society not at risk of the same fate (whether the risk is perceived or real).  The end result of this fear and anger is the willingness of individuals to subject the entire society to what is possibly an overall inferior medical system in exchange for the assurance that they themselves are guaranteed the same level care as anyone else; albeit a lower level than most could obtain on their own.  They become willing to accept that those who can afford superior heath care may be prevented from obtaining it, in exchange for guaranteed health care for themselves. 

The desire for a single-payer style system is therefore the result of a less moral society because an honorable community would not subject those capable of paying for superior care to an inferior system only to establish what is "fair" from the standpoint of those unable to provide themselves the absolute optimal care. 

This is not to say that the current insurance system is the most ethically sound one possible.  The willingness of this society to allow the creation of the current system shows what is at best a laissez-faire attitude towards the health care of the working poor.  Still, the level of charity and service which exists in the American people represents a quality of character which, even in the most dire of financial times, has no equal.  This is why we are the only developed nation which has yet to implement a single-payer system. The belief that those who can achieve the highest quality of health care are entitled to the products of their labor, combined with the charity of those same higher achievers, keeps the number of people within our society willing to resort to such a system at a level below which it can be voted into place.  It is charity which prevents the necessity of a single-payer system in this country, and it is a lack of greed which dissuades the desire for such a system.  Note that it is not greedy for a man to keep the product of his labor, but rather greed is defined by the belief that you have the right to the product of another man's labor.  

The actual meaning of the opening quotes is that judgement passed on a society is done so based upon the individual acts of those that make up the society, and not on the structure of their government.  The measure of a good and moral people is in how they respond to the needs of those in their community on a daily basis.  Does a man step over the homeless, or does he assist them when possible.  Do families contribute what is possible to the needy, or do they purchase things they do not need.  The government produced by these people is judged not on those actions or choices, but on how well it maintains the freedom and liberty of its people - how well it allows those people to make those choices. The role of government is to maintain a sound fiscal policy which creates a consistent economic environment for the generation of wealth.  What the individuals choose to do with that wealth is how the society is to be judged. 

There are those that say that government is merely the tool to be used to implement this more just society.  Indeed, we cannot overlook the fact that governments are formed by societies and the structure and function of that government reflects the morals and values of the people within that society.  However, to secure liberty, the distinctions between society and government must always remain clear.  While a society is judged by how it treats the least among it, a government that allows the least within it to dictate fiscal policy fails all its people. A government which attempts to establish moral justice within a society through legislation is in actuality establishing a place without liberty.  The use of government to impose religious or moral views on an entire society in an effort to force what some believe to be equitable or "fair" does not make a society more honorable, it makes it less free. 

This is where the moral argument for a single payer system is no longer substantiated by the quotes above: universal health care supporters seek a society forced to do what is "right" by the government; the men quoted above sought a society that chooses to do "right" and forces its government to remain neutral in those decisions.  The fault of those supporting universal health care is not in their desire to provide health care for all, but in the manifestation of that desire in government policy and not in personal action. This lack of personal action is the clearest indicator of a less moral society.

Why a Single-Payer system is less moral

We have within this country a given number of doctors and nurses, a given number of hospital beds, and a set amount of available medical supplies.  To acquire the services of a doctor or nurse, payment must be provided in return. The consequences of this fact can be demonstrated through the use of two people, Person A and Person B.  Both people are "guaranteed" health care in a single-payer system. If Person A is capable of paying for health care, the government will not only ask that he do so, but also require that he contribute to the bill for Person B, who cannot pay for health care.  Person A is therefore indebted to the doctor as a result of Person B. Person B is therefore entitled to free health care, and person A is not; Person A must pay for his health care, and the health care of Person B. Person A is financially responsible for the actions and lifestyle of Person B, yet obviously has no control over Person B.  

The unfortunate fact is that health care is a service, which requires personnel and equipment.  That service and equipment must be paid for by someone.  Anyone claiming that they or their children have a right to or "deserve" health care is in essence claiming the right to pay for that service through the subjugation of other members of the society via the power of government.  

The common understanding is that those who would be classified as Person A in the above scenario have a moral obligation as just and honorable people to contribute to the health care of Person B.  If this is true, why is the same responsibility not placed onto person B? Person A has a moral responsibility to support both himself and Person B, and yet Person B has neither the obligation to provide for others nor the responsibility to provide for themselves.  In truth, Person A does possess a moral obligation to assist Person B when capable.  However, Person B possesses no moral or legal right to require Person A to do so.

A single payer system is therefore less moral in that it divides the society into providers and accepters.  It cannot be ethically justified as the same people who assert a moral and legal requirement on one set of people to contribute to others, assign no such obligation to another set of people within that society.  This is known as the Wilkow argument.

How a Single-Payer System contributes to the moral decline of a society

The use of government to take funds from one man and use them for the sole benefit of a second man can never be a moral system.  The reason for this is that the decision as to who receives and who pays for health care is taken out of the hands of individuals, market forces, and charity, and placed into the hands of elected officials and voters.  The end result is that the cutoff of those who will not pay for healthcare will always trend not to poverty, but to an income level that provides the politician with just enough voters to secure his position.  Health care changes from a financial commodity to a political commodity.  Diseases with the best organized political activists will garner the most research money, and drug companies that have the most expensive lobbyists will find their drugs covered by all plans.  A rising cost of health care will be met with increasing amounts of taxes on those who already put in far more than they take out.

A universal system contributes to the moral decline of a society by making health care an easily manipulated voting block.  Voters can choose to perpetually increase the financial obligations of some with the justification that their health depends on it.