North Carolina’s only two-term Republican governor, James G. Martin, endorsed Governor John Kasich for president in 2016. Martin had the clairvoyance to recognize Kasich as one of the few remaining Republicans with a tie to the genteel tradition of business conservatism that had made Martin North Carolina’s chief executive two times in the 80s and 90s. Kasich is not a liberal: he proposed austere spending plans as New Gingrich’s top budget writer during the presidency of Bill Clinton. But even as he remained rock-ribbed on spending and regulation, Kasich advocated a government that took action for the country’s disadvantaged citizens. He was, in other words, a true compassionate conservative.

Kasich returned to North Carolina last week to make the case for Medicaid Expansion. Noting the success of Medicaid Expansion in his home state of Ohio, Kasich implored North Carolina legislators to “open their [hearts]” to people suffering without health insurance. Kasich’s argument was remarkably insistent in its moral character. The policy case for Medicaid Expansion–that it would rescue rural hospitals, that it would improve health statistics–mattered to him. but his ultimate concern was the moral force of the case for bringing healthcare to the uninsured.

My opinions on this matter count for little in comparison to the gravitas of a proven public-sector executive. I am, after all, a humble blogger. But in light of Kasich’s urgent case for Medicaid Expansion in North Carolina, I’d like to add some thoughts about the moral imperative to cover the poor. Medicaid Expansion, first of all, passes the test of utilitarianism. One of America’s favorite moral philosophies, utilitarian thought states that whatever creates the most happiness for the most people is the right thing to do. It’s based on cold calculations and the suppression of sentimentality.

And under a utilitarian rubric, Medicaid Expansion is the right course of action. Very few people will be harmed by Medicaid Expansion; indeed, given that the plan will be funded almost entirely by tax dollars already sent to Washington, it is hard to imagine whose happiness will decline if we expand Medicaid. In contrast, Medicaid Expansion would cause the life prospects and the very health of 600,000 North Carolinians to skyrocket. Long left to languish ignored, poor North Carolinians, the vast majority of them employed and working, would have financial security and access to the health services they needed to ward off physical and psychological ailments. The utility of Medicaid Expansion is positive and inarguable.

The utilitarian case for Medicaid Expansion is, like most utilitarian calculations, a bit mechanical and abstract. The rich tradition of human love may resonate more strongly. Most of the world’s religions emphasize compassion for the unfortunate, but Christianity is particularly emphatic in its command that people care for the stranger. “What thou hast doneth upon the least of these, thou hast doneth unto me,” said Jesus of Nazareth. For those (like myself) who are not Christians, most secular systems of morality likewise put protection from harm at the center of the ethical universe. Compassion is what separates decency from barbarism, and even Ayn Rand acolytes who oppose Medicaid Expansion would surely conceded that providing healthcare to those who have none is the kind and beneficent thing to do.

If you believe fervently that Medicaid is “welfare” and the welfare state is the source of all that is depraved about America, you will find these arguments unconvincing. That’s unfortunate. But polling shows that the vast majority of North Carolinians support Medicaid Expansion and thus on some level, perhaps subconscious, understand that the intertwining of the world’s moral traditions supports expanding Medicaid. North Carolina Republicans have blinded themselves to this truth for too long.