Written by: Amber Zeng
Edited by: Isabel Angres
Edited by: Isabel Angres
The answer to this question seems to continue to divide Americans, with universal health care always being a divisive issue on the ballot. However, the United States seems alone in this struggle, being the only developed nation without universal health insurance. In order to understand the ethics of American healthcare, we should first examine what a right is in the first place.
If asked what a right is, many people might respond that rights are “god-given” or using the words of our constitution: “that [men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (U.S. Const. 1787). This idea refers specifically to natural rights which are not contingent on laws or culture. It’s important to note that natural rights and rights given to us by law are two separate definitions. However, what constitutes a natural right vs. rights given to us by law is not clearly defined. In the United States, freedom of speech is considered a natural right but in other nations is not guaranteed by law.
With this distinction in mind, we are better able to understand the central conflict regarding universal healthcare. If we think of healthcare as a natural right, rights are all-encompassing and unable to be taken away. They are things we have simply from being born. However, this definition is extremely strong, and may rub people the wrong way when presented in the question: Is healthcare a right? For many Americans, there are people who do not deserve access to healthcare. For example, people who don’t work or contribute to society. Thus, they may argue that healthcare isn’t a right because there are individuals who shouldn’t be guaranteed those rights.
Delving deeper into the reasoning behind this thinking, the central issue people take with the idea of universal healthcare may be more related to the burden and responsibility it places both on others and on the government. Universal healthcare would have to be funded by the government which in turn is funded by individual taxpayers. To evaluate the validity of these concerns, we must ask two questions: Is it morally justified for the government to be responsible for universal healthcare? Is it morally appropriate for people to place responsibility for their health on others?
Whether it can be justified that the government should be responsible for universal healthcare depends on the government’s responsibility towards its citizens in general. While there is still much discourse on the concept of social contracts, its basic ideas can be helpful in evaluating the government's obligations. Generally, social contracts are agreements between a government and its citizens where citizens agree on certain rules (ex. stealing is a crime) and have certain obligations as part of the society (ex. not committing crimes), and the government has certain obligations to their citizens (D’Agostino et. al 2021). This definition does not provide a specific list of governmental responsibilities, but American citizens generally have some expectations of what the government should provide. For example, US citizens have an expectation of public safety domestically and internationally which is the government’s responsibility. There is a strong case for the expectation of public health as well. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many people expected the government to provide testing kits and create a vaccine for the virus. Thus, there is a strong argument for the idea that the government can be responsible for the health of citizens, potentially in the form of universal healthcare.
The other important question is whether or not it is morally appropriate for people to place responsibility for their health on others. In this case, responsibility can be taken to mean financial responsibility through funding from taxes or mentally placing responsibility on other people. We will mainly be examining the former definition as it is more often used in the issue of universal healthcare. Note that this question also presupposes that the hypothetical individual is not contributing financially, thus leaving the financial burden to others. In our current society, we already place responsibility on other citizens to fund many projects like public infrastructure and public education as the average individual cannot fund them alone. However, to many, the difference between those projects and universal healthcare is that in the former everyone contributes, and everyone benefits. In the latter, like in the case with the hypothetical individual, not everyone contributes, so it is unfair to place the financial burden on other citizens. While this is a reasonable train of thought, it isn’t always accurate as while everyone may contribute, not everyone benefits from projects like public infrastructure. For example, a repaved street doesn’t benefit someone whose main transportation is the train or metro. However, generally, these projects are thought of as a public necessity and an overall good, even though they may not benefit everyone. Since universal healthcare would also fall into these parameters, a strong argument can be made for the idea that it is morally appropriate to place financial responsibility on other taxpayers.
Much of this discussion is centered around the idea of healthcare as a right. However, it might be misguided to consider whether or not people deserve healthcare at all. Oxford political philosopher Henry Shue “held that what we really mean by “basic rights” are those which are necessary in order for us to enjoy any rights or privileges at all” (Gawande 2017). Rather than a right being an undeniable thing that people have a claim to, rights can be something that we as a society deem to be important and necessary for human flourishing. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN declares that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person” (1948). The US constitution also states that we “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (U.S. Const. 1787). It seems undeniable that the right to good health is a basic right that all humans should have. If we start with this premise, the best way to guarantee this right is affordable and accessible healthcare. So to answer the question: is healthcare a right? A strong argument can be made that yes, healthcare is a right.
References
D’Agostino, Fred, Gaus G, Thrasher J, Zalta EN. 2021. Contemporary Approaches to the Social Contract [Internet], The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; (ed.), Available from: www.plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/contractarianism-contemporary
Gawande A. 2017. Is HealthCare a Right?. The New Yorker [Internet]. Available from: www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/02/is-health-care-a-right
United States Constitution. 1787.
1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights [Internet]. United Nations. Available from: www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
If asked what a right is, many people might respond that rights are “god-given” or using the words of our constitution: “that [men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (U.S. Const. 1787). This idea refers specifically to natural rights which are not contingent on laws or culture. It’s important to note that natural rights and rights given to us by law are two separate definitions. However, what constitutes a natural right vs. rights given to us by law is not clearly defined. In the United States, freedom of speech is considered a natural right but in other nations is not guaranteed by law.
With this distinction in mind, we are better able to understand the central conflict regarding universal healthcare. If we think of healthcare as a natural right, rights are all-encompassing and unable to be taken away. They are things we have simply from being born. However, this definition is extremely strong, and may rub people the wrong way when presented in the question: Is healthcare a right? For many Americans, there are people who do not deserve access to healthcare. For example, people who don’t work or contribute to society. Thus, they may argue that healthcare isn’t a right because there are individuals who shouldn’t be guaranteed those rights.
Delving deeper into the reasoning behind this thinking, the central issue people take with the idea of universal healthcare may be more related to the burden and responsibility it places both on others and on the government. Universal healthcare would have to be funded by the government which in turn is funded by individual taxpayers. To evaluate the validity of these concerns, we must ask two questions: Is it morally justified for the government to be responsible for universal healthcare? Is it morally appropriate for people to place responsibility for their health on others?
Whether it can be justified that the government should be responsible for universal healthcare depends on the government’s responsibility towards its citizens in general. While there is still much discourse on the concept of social contracts, its basic ideas can be helpful in evaluating the government's obligations. Generally, social contracts are agreements between a government and its citizens where citizens agree on certain rules (ex. stealing is a crime) and have certain obligations as part of the society (ex. not committing crimes), and the government has certain obligations to their citizens (D’Agostino et. al 2021). This definition does not provide a specific list of governmental responsibilities, but American citizens generally have some expectations of what the government should provide. For example, US citizens have an expectation of public safety domestically and internationally which is the government’s responsibility. There is a strong case for the expectation of public health as well. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many people expected the government to provide testing kits and create a vaccine for the virus. Thus, there is a strong argument for the idea that the government can be responsible for the health of citizens, potentially in the form of universal healthcare.
The other important question is whether or not it is morally appropriate for people to place responsibility for their health on others. In this case, responsibility can be taken to mean financial responsibility through funding from taxes or mentally placing responsibility on other people. We will mainly be examining the former definition as it is more often used in the issue of universal healthcare. Note that this question also presupposes that the hypothetical individual is not contributing financially, thus leaving the financial burden to others. In our current society, we already place responsibility on other citizens to fund many projects like public infrastructure and public education as the average individual cannot fund them alone. However, to many, the difference between those projects and universal healthcare is that in the former everyone contributes, and everyone benefits. In the latter, like in the case with the hypothetical individual, not everyone contributes, so it is unfair to place the financial burden on other citizens. While this is a reasonable train of thought, it isn’t always accurate as while everyone may contribute, not everyone benefits from projects like public infrastructure. For example, a repaved street doesn’t benefit someone whose main transportation is the train or metro. However, generally, these projects are thought of as a public necessity and an overall good, even though they may not benefit everyone. Since universal healthcare would also fall into these parameters, a strong argument can be made for the idea that it is morally appropriate to place financial responsibility on other taxpayers.
Much of this discussion is centered around the idea of healthcare as a right. However, it might be misguided to consider whether or not people deserve healthcare at all. Oxford political philosopher Henry Shue “held that what we really mean by “basic rights” are those which are necessary in order for us to enjoy any rights or privileges at all” (Gawande 2017). Rather than a right being an undeniable thing that people have a claim to, rights can be something that we as a society deem to be important and necessary for human flourishing. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN declares that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person” (1948). The US constitution also states that we “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (U.S. Const. 1787). It seems undeniable that the right to good health is a basic right that all humans should have. If we start with this premise, the best way to guarantee this right is affordable and accessible healthcare. So to answer the question: is healthcare a right? A strong argument can be made that yes, healthcare is a right.
References
D’Agostino, Fred, Gaus G, Thrasher J, Zalta EN. 2021. Contemporary Approaches to the Social Contract [Internet], The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; (ed.), Available from: www.plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/contractarianism-contemporary
Gawande A. 2017. Is HealthCare a Right?. The New Yorker [Internet]. Available from: www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/02/is-health-care-a-right
United States Constitution. 1787.
1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights [Internet]. United Nations. Available from: www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
Proudly powered by Weebly