Andrew Bradley's Argumentative Analysis: Healthcare

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

he twists their belief and reveals they are completely wrong which increases the validity and accuracy of his argument.
In "Healthcare Is Not A Right" by Leonard Peikoff, he claims that there is certainly no positivity to broad healthcare, since only negative rights come along with it. Negative rights desire the government to respect the citizen's freedom and personal rights. It makes specific activities and actions illegal and not allowed to be done if the government takes their actions too far. On the other hand, Positive rights desire the government to take action and to make these rights work someone needs to provide money or service. As an example, a positive right when it comes to healthcare works by the doctor having to be enslaved and then he will get paid by others who must pay the bill for him. Peikoff' mainly argues that Healthcare is not a positive right due to the fact that it is immoral. Leonard's argument is extremely strong due to the fact that he uses plenty of persuasive examples and uses logos and ethos to persuade his audience. His argument is valid in my opinion since it is not a positive right due to the fact that many people do not pay the doctor, the doctors work for free for those who cannot afford it. If people get healthcare for free it is basically a charity it does not make it a right in any way.
Peikoff contributes an explicit argument which promotes the main idea that morality holds three rights which are "life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. That's all” (Peikoff,1). Health care does indeed help us maintain these rights since our health is necessary for life. However is health care itself an actual right? We can all agree that to some particular individuals healthcare is not affordable especially to big families who do not make a high income. Peikoff responds by arguing that if that was the actual case and if residents of the United States could not afford health care in any way then he states that "neither, for that very reason, could any government in that country afford it, either” (Peikoff,1). He reveals that the government's income develops from the citizens' taxes and therefore, if those who bring the money cannot afford it, then not either then government as well. The government pays for everything by the money that we pay by our taxes so therefore we are the actual ones paying for healthcare to those who cannot afford it, so does that even make it a right? Peikoff summarizes by stating “Your right to anything at another’s expense means that they become rightless” (peikoff,1). To conclude, health care is not a right, especially if we pay for it from our money so other people can enjoy it for free.
On a different yet somewhat of a similar note, in "Positive Rights, Negative Rights and Health care" By Andrew Bradley, he believes that there is no brick wall separating the negative rights from the positive rights, with healthcare as an example.

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

accomplished.
Bradley abolishes the detached assumption that fairness has the right to also disconnect differences between the two types of rights: negative and positive.
To prove his point he exemplifies by showing that even health care, engages with allocation of money. He explains that "while effective law enforcement might benefit all of us, those individuals who have zero income cannot contribute to the tax”(Bradley, 2). Additionally, Bradley reveals that "compared with their contribution to the tax pool, not only did they pay nothing, but since a broke individual may well be homeless, he probably benefits quite a bit more from the presence of a good police force compared with the average citizen” (Bradley, 2). This proves that the people who actually benefit from health care are those who are broke and barely pay any taxes or none at all. While, those who pay the most taxes do not receive healthcare nor do they get many health benefits. Bradley provides background to his argument by exposing that there is no difference between the two types of rights, on the account of the approach that negative rights do not desire circulation of wealth and fairness of demand.
To summarize, Bradley regulates that that "illness restricts the range of opportunity. Healthcare therefore helps ensure equality of opportunity by providing or restoring, as closely as possible, normal function” (Bradley, 3). This means that the argument of Bradley provides a powerful stance for the acknowledgement of global healthcare as a proper right. He illustrates that the citizens who desire help from the government and crave assistance in protection of the negative rights, additionally require cooperation from the citizens who help the government by paying the taxes for the government to advance in earnings. Bradley argues that although a large amount of people believe that healthcare is a right, he believes that it is not. Thus, he strongly believes that it is not the government's duty to pay for every individual's healthcare. Due to the fact that health care is not known a negative right, Bradley sees it as if it is not an actual right. If healthcare was an actual right, then every person should be equally getting healthcare by the government and they would have to make sure that every single person had it. However. because the government does not actually make income, the citizens would have to pay taxes in order to pay for all the healthcare which means that it takes the rights away from the tax payers. Thus, the government does not actually pay for it and it would take the rights from tax payers.
By the use of deductive argument, Bradley defines the difference between a negative and a positive right and compares them to the human rights. Later, he proves that only negative rights are the true rights and since healthcare is not a negative right then it is not a right. His argument is valid due to the fact that he explains it slowly and provides an excessive amount of information to make his points.
Being healthy is a big part that is necessary for the human body to function properly in order to enjoy life liberty and happiness, however the government is not responsible for paying for every individuals health it is not a right, it is just associated with the rights. The government should not pay for healthcare according to him since they already provide life liberty and the pursuit of happiness which is rights that we were born with. Healthcare is not a right that every human should be provided for free by the government. Being healthy is a big part that is necessary for the human body to function properly in order to enjoy life liberty and happiness, however the government is not responsible for paying for every individuals health it is not a right, it is just associated with the rights.
Both of the authors argue validly by upholding their standpoint on the disputation of whether health care is morally a right. Although, Bradley proposed a way more compelling path validate his main argument. While Peikoff's shows only one side which is his side of the argument. Bradley covers every aspect and every argument for or against healthcare. Then he progresses and shuts down every objection by luring and persuading the audience of opposing side to agree with him. For every effective argument the author should try to point out every objection and prove why his argument is more effective, he needs to lure the audience to be on his side. The conclusion of an argument needs to be true and persuasive. It has to be a valid argument that maintains the main points that the audience need to accept.
If the government demanded an increased amount of taxes in order to contribute health care to all of the United States residents, it eradicates the consideration for those who make barely any money or those who are poor. If the government will cover and pay for all of those who do not work then how will that motivate and inspire them to work when theycan get all the healthcare they need for free? That is basically just taking advantage of the hard working individuals who pay for those who are lazy and want it all for free. It might even give many the idea to stop working so they can use the healthcare for free and take advantage of unemployment benefits such as healthcare.
In order for health care to be distributed equally it must be universally a right given to every individual, not just a big portion of them, but all of them. It is entirely unfair and absolutely unacceptable to establish a financial obligation on the citizens who pay taxes in order for some people to get free healthcare, yet those who equally pay for taxes do not receive the same healthcare benefits. How injustice is it that one person has to pay an enormous amount of money for healthcare when the person next to him can get it all for free? Extremely unfair. The government needs to make a change because if this continues than America will not be known as the land of equality and justice anymore.
Health care is a popular and controversial topic in our social public life. Leonard Peikoff and Andrew Bradley both contributed powerful arguments explaining the controversy. As the two authors propose significant acuity to their positions, competently, Bradley emphasizes an entirely more persuasive argument. His argument is more valid by isolating the different types of rights, by rather alternating how the States need to reevaluate the categorization of what the given rights are based on moral stances. If Bradley's case was to be considered, our society and every citizen will be treated equally rather than only particular chosen beings receiving free health care. Our Society shall be filled with justice and equity to all.