Andrew Bradley's Argumentative Analysis: Healthcare

1949 Words4 Pages

Shani Fishman Professor Gillis Phil 05 1 February 2015 Healthcare Healthcare in the United States is an extremely often discussed topic on whether it is morally a right or just a charity to those who cannot afford it. Plenty claim that health care is too expensive and not affordable so they demand aid from the government. On the other hand, the rest presume that the state is not morally accountable to take this type of action, since not every citizen and human being is equally eligible to receive the same healthcare. In "Healthcare Is Not A Right" by Leonard Peikoff and "Positive Rights, Negative Rights and Health care" By Andrew Bradley, both authors reveal their opinion on healthcare by claiming that it is not right. Both arguments are extremely persuasive and valid. However, Bradley's argument is more outstanding than Peikoff's due to the fact that he explains it more efficiently and uses exceedingly stronger arguments revealing both sides of the arguments and shutting down the other side's argument by proving how it does not make health care a right. Therefore, I believe that Bradley's argument is exceptionally better since he uses opposing view points to explain why some may believe the opposite of his argument, then after …show more content…

Bradley depicts a certain theory of which "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness really refer to the right to be protected from harm”(Bradley,2). He clearly argues that "because of the special things that it provides and protects, the right to healthcare is necessary for the enjoyment of what are commonly thought of as our basic liberty rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (Bradley,1). He states that for negative rights, action in a positive manner must be

Open Document