The Injustice of Universal Healthcare

The United States is known as one of the greatest world powers: however it is held back by its weak healthcare system. As of 2010 the US healthcare system currently ranks the 37th best out of 190 countries (Murray). Before the introduction of the Affordable Care Ac in 2010, the United States had an individual insurance market. It was the responsibility of the individual or their employer to take care of their healthcare costs. On top of this, millions of people could be denied insurance by different agencies due to pre-existing claims. Healthcare was expensive, but the costs were nothing compared to the medical bills owed by an uninsured person. Universal healthcare is a basic right not a privilege. Everyone should be given the

The United States is known as one of the greatest world powers: however it is held back by its weak healthcare system. As of 2010 the US healthcare system currently ranks the 37th best out of 190 countries. Before the introduction of the Affordable Care Ac in 2010, the united States had an individual insurance market. It was the responsibility of the individual or their employer, to take care of their healthcare costs. On top of this millions of people could be denied insurance by different agencies due to pre-existing claims. Healthcare was expensive, but the costs were nothing compared to the medical bills owed by an uninsured person. Universal healthcare is a basic right not a privilege. Everyone should be given the opportunity to have health insurance no matter his or her income. Isn’t this the principle of freedom and basic right what America was based on? On half of all bankruptcies in the United States are due to an inability to pay medical bills. These problems all pose a question and the answer Is Universal Healthcare. The federal government has the interest of all American citizens on its mind and universal healthcare is a perfect way of highlighting that fact. The Affordable Care act provides low cost healthcare to the previously uninsured and guarantees continued healthcare in the case of job loss. Many people are still opposed to this act. This new system of universal healthcare will lead to improvements within the lives of American Citizens. There are many

Without our health, we have nothing. Money, friends and family, happiness--all are afterthoughts without our health. As such, both as individuals and as a society, maintaining our health must be an indispensable priority. Despite the many faults of our healthcare system, Americans realize this. Healthcare is undoubtedly a major concern in the United States. The recent implementation of the Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as “Obamacare,” the heated debates on healthcare across the nation, and the over one trillion dollars spent per year by the government on healthcare, all show our prioritization of health ("Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go"). Furthermore, a strong majority of

John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice holds that a rational, mutually disinterested individual in the Original Position and given the task of establishing societal rules to maximise their own happiness throughout life, is liable to choose as their principles of justice a) guaranteed fundamental liberties and b) the nullification of social and economic disparities by universal equality of opportunities, which are to be of greatest benefit to the least advantaged members of society , . Rawls’ system of societal creation has both strengths and weaknesses, but is ultimately sound.

The question of Universal Healthcare in the United States has valid and non valid arguments with supporters on both sides of the issue. Millions of Americans do not have affordable health care insurance. The main question is who is responsible to provide this? Is it feasible for government to pay for the lack of health care by taxpayer’s dollars? Should you be responsible for yourselves or should you be compensated by the government?       Unemployment is at record high making health insurance less attainable or affordable than ever. In most cases, additional restrictions or

Rawls strive to determine how we can make a society as just as possible. Rawls derives two principles; liberty principle and the difference principle. He also gives a theoretical device that he calls “the original position” and “the veil of ignorance” this device is meant to help us in the way that we picture our self behind a veil. We do not know the basic things about ourselves like our sex, age, financial status etc. This device is to help us be totally neutral in the sense that we do not know our status in society. After putting our self in a status quo if you will, we can now decide on what us just for the whole society. Rawls derives then the difference principle. To put this is Rawls own words, the difference principle is: “Then the difference principle is a strongly egalitarian conception in the sense that unless there is a distribution that makes both persons better off an equal distribution is to be preferred

The ability of U.S. organizations to be able to compete on a global scale is hampered by lesser developed countries providing workers with the same efficiency at lower pay rates. Working to fix the problem is essential to the future success of U.S. organizations and the success of U.S. citizens. The question is how to address this issue in a way that is ethically representative of our country and those who lead it. According to Princeton economist Paul Krugman one such solution is to provide Universal Healthcare in the United States in turn lessening the financial burden on organizations and the workers they employ. The dilemma this raises is around the ethical boundaries of Universal Healthcare.

It can be argued that establishing Universal Healthcare would be a drain of government resources and would necessitate subsidization by taxes. A Universal Healthcare system provided for all citizens would create an extra tax on

The subject matter of universal health care is important because the current system of health care in America is economically and morally wrong. The United States spends more than double on health care and still millions are left without coverage. During the Progressive Era, AALL (American Association of Labor Legislation) proposed a bill which provided coverage to those making less than $1200 and would be provided services such as physicians, hospitals, and nurse which would be shared between workers, employers, and the state. This system was opposed by the AFL (American Federation of Labor) because it felt this movement would weaken unions. Furthermore, Bill Clinton proposed a system of universal health care which would provide health coverage

John Rawls states that the principle of fairness is important as it applies to individuals the principle of fairness are a link between the two principles of social or political justice and individual obligations to comply with specific social practices (Pogge, 2007). By expanding the scope of what one considers to be an ‘end’ to include both aspects of nature as well as future generations, one can transform the implications of Rawls’ theory (Pogge, 2007). Rawls advances his theory of justice through what is called the Original Position which is a hypothetical situation in which all individuals are granted perfect equality and are asked to choose a principle of justice behind a veil of ignorance, which eliminates their biases (Pogge, 2007). The hypothetical persons in the Original Position, ignorant of who and what they will be in society and perfectly equal to one another, are able to truly come to a consensus as to what a just society would be (Pogge, 2007). Justice

On March 23, 2010 the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed by President Obama, raising the question for many of whether this new law was going to be more helpful or hurtful. With universal healthcare, healthcare coverage would be increased tremendously, costs would be reduced, jobs would be created, and consumers would be protected. Conversely, it will also raise taxes and wait times, lead to a smaller number of doctors, and infringe on some employers’ 1st amendment rights. Presenting both arguments for and against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act allows one to draw a conclusion on whether the new program will benefit or hinder the citizens of the United States.

John Rawls wrote several highly influential articles in the 19950`s and 1960`s, his first book, A Theory of Justice (1971), revitalized the social-contract tradition, using it to articulate and defend a detailed vision of egalitarian liberalism. In Political Liberalism [PL] (1993), he recast the role of political philosophy, accommodating it to the effectively permanent “reasonable pluralism” of religious, philosophical, and other comprehensive doctrines or worldviews that characterize modern societies. He explains how philosophers can characterize public justification and the legitimate, democratic use of collective coercive power while accepting that pluralism. (Richardson)

John Rawls was an American political and moral philosopher. Rawls attempts to determine the principles of social justice. In this essay, I will elucidate John Rawls’ views on forming a social contract, the counter-arguments against Rawls’ theory and finally the state of debate on the counter-arguments. John Rawls set out on his discussion on justice and fairness in his book A Theory of Justice 1971. Rawls theory describes a society with free citizens holding equal basic rights regardless of the social status (poor or rich). Each society has its way of attempting to bring about equality in its political and economic systems. The tenets of distributive justice, therefore, act as an ethical guide to the

Thus, we return to the first order intellectual tool: principles of justice. There are many possible principles of justice; however Rawls tests the following two principles of justice in hopes which are theoretically capable of achieving institutional reform. The first principle of justice is that “each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic rights and liberties” (5). Moreover, this is the translating of rights into real possibilities to guarantee that one really does have freedom. And this is a fair and concrete value which society does, in theory, guarantees. The second principle of justice is that “social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first they are to be attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they are to be the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society,” (6). Thus, there is no exclusion of any group.

Views on social justice are highly important to defining the roles of the state within society. The perspectives presented by John Rawls and Robert Nozick demonstrate two extremely different views of societal justice and the roles that the state should have in society. Each of these philosophers give their own principles of justice, which are sets of rules society must follow in order to be just. In this paper, I will analyze the views of each of these thinkers. I will also argue that the Rawls’ principles of justice are preferable to Nozick’s due to Nozick’s lack of focus on societal inequalities.