Philosophy

728 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Pros and cons to universal health care

Philosopher Robert Nozick believes in the entitlement theory. The entitlement theory states that, “A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition is entitled to that holding...A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer, from someone else entitled to the holding, is entitled to the holding…No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of 1 and 2” (NOTES).
Health care should not be provided for all US citizens. While this may be convenient for some, it would be very inconvenient for many. Providing health care for all US citizens isn’t very realistic, and would have more negative results than positive results.
Nozick believes that the state should not have the power to establish public education or health care through taxes imposed on citizens who may wish to spend their money on private services instead.
However, Philosopher John Rawls believes opposite of Nozick. Rawls believes that in addition to protecting the basic liberties, it is legitimate for the state to use its coercive powers to maximize the position of the least well off (via redistributive taxes).
Philosopher John Rawls is wrong in his belief. This can be proven by the many problems that may arise if all US citizens were given health care. There are many problems that would be possible if all citizens were given health care. For example, if health care were provided for all US citizens, a lot more people would be going into the doctor for anything, no matter how small or insignificant. More people going to the doctor means more doctors needing to be available which in turn results in more doctors needing to be hired, which ultimately results in more money ...

... middle of paper ...

...alth care for himself and have medical attention when he needs it, and those that do not pay into health care, don’t get the same coverage.
Ultimately, it should be up to each individual whether or not they wish to have health insurance or not. People that are willing and able to provide health care for themselves and their family should not be punished by having to pay additional taxes to provide health care for other people. It may sound harsh, but people must fend for themselves, that’s how the world works. As America being a free, democratic nation it would be nonsense to provide all citizens with health insurance, as this would be an infringement to the state of nature. I believe that the way that health care is in the United States is working out just fine, and does not need any changes made. Healthcare should not be automatically provided for all US citizens.

Show More
Related

  • Analysis Of Robert Nozick's View On The State Of Government

    1040 Words  | 3 Pages

    Nozick takes this concept against the ideas of Rawl’s theory of justice and the concept of a social contract. Meaning that in a just society nothing should be subject to any political or social bargaining. Rawl opposes the classical and institutionalist utilitarian theory of justice in which morality is contractual, and claims that human virtues, truth and justice cannot be tradable. Furthermore, he believed that political institutions should have all powers over the lives of individuals and over the market economy conditions. Thus focusing more on resources, and how these resources should be redistributed in order to have a fair and equal social system. Under his belief the principles of social justice provide a mechanism that establishes the rights and duties of social institutions within a society, which defines a justified equitable sharing of benefits and burdens of social

    Read More

  • Nozick's Distribution Of Wealth

    1003 Words  | 3 Pages

    In addition, Nozick is a classical liberalism, advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom. Now, that is where the problems, when it comes to agreeing with Nozick’s way when it comes to distribution of wealth because I don’t believe in an emphasis on economic freedom. While having the main focus on economic freedom can cause political issues with in the society, and what I mean by political issues is basically government problems. Many people complaining about government support, such as welfare, job assistance, social security, and etc. A society without those things diminish in so many ways, starting with population decline to reduction of property. Another thing that’s crazy is that I do not agree with is that he believes taxation for anything other than protection is unjust. Nozick states, “Not all actual situations are generated in accordance with the two principles of justice in holdings: the principle of justice in acquisition and the principles of justice in transfer.”, which means people only get distribution or benefits of wealth if its by legitimate means. These legitimate means are move by the specific principles. This is one another reason I don’t agree with Mr. Nozick because legitimate means should not determine your distribution of wealth.

    Read More

  • Free Healthcare in the US

    1778 Words  | 4 Pages

    It is essential for the United States government to provide its entire citizen with a free health care. This system ensures that everyone has an access to medical services regardless to his or her social status. It is an important way of preserving life as free health care plan ensures free treatment to the entire citizen. In addition, it can play a big role of ensuring that there is an improved access to health services. Ensuring that all American citizens have an access to the right health care will in turn decrease health care costs. It can also help to stop medical bankruptcies in the entire nation. Lastly, it is one way of reducing poverty as it will lower the debt of the US which would then increase employment.

    Read More

  • Nozick Argument Analysis

    587 Words  | 2 Pages

    In his argument, Nozick argued that taxes money is collected from a certain person and is given to another person. However, to join and engage in any society, there is a set of obligations and duties. A certain community would provide essential resources and services (clean and fixed roads, highly maintained bridges, and efficient bus systems) that are compatible with the modern living. To use these services, everyone must provide a percentage of his income or provide work. Let’s imagine a professor at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia who lives in New jersey and wants to go to his work. He has to cross the Benjamin Franklin Bridge that must be regularly maintained and tested for safety. If he refused to pay his taxes because he thinks that his money is being given to someone else, then there would be no money to maintain the bridge. The tax money collected is spent on things and essentials the public use. The problem with Nozick’s first premise that he considers paying taxes collecting money from a person and give it to another person. But in fact, taxes act as a membership fee. If you want to participate and enjoy the features that a community has to offer, then you must willingly pay a

    Read More

  • John Rawls: “Original Position”

    1126 Words  | 3 Pages

    Out of this experiment Rawls provides us with two basic principles of rules of: 1) every person should have equal opportunity to access a justice system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all and; 2) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both; a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged offices and b) positions opportunities should be made available to all under fair and equality conditions (242).... ... middle of paper ... ... I would opt against some other economic society, not knowing whether or not it would satisfy the conditions of providing the best opportunity for the least in my society.

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of The Affordable Care Act

    1315 Words  | 3 Pages

    As of 2014, all Americans are required to have healthcare insurance and there are many people who do not agree with paying for health care insurance. However, I believe that The Affordable Care Act should remain available and required for everyone who either does not think that they need it or if there are others who feel that they do need the care. There are so many benefits on receiving health care insurance as well as some downsides. The Affordable Care Act was signed and passed by President Obama on March 23, 2010. According to “FamiliesUSA”, three in ten adults were uninsured during 2012 and that is about 55 million people uninsured. (“New Results from National Health…”)

    Read More

  • Anarchy, State and Utopia by Nozick

    1235 Words  | 3 Pages

    In his book “Anarchy, State and Utopia”, Nozick asserts that all humans have certain fundamental rights, such as life, health, liberty, and property. And these rights cannot be taken away from the citizens. The state, he claims, as no moral authority over someone's property which has been justly acquired. He claims that if a person has justly claimed his property than the state does not have any jurisdiction to take that away from him. The problem with all distributive principles of justice, he believes, is that they violate some of the basic human rights and are therefore inherently unjust.

    Read More

  • Summary Of Nozick's Distributive Justice

    1507 Words  | 4 Pages

    Nozick Robert is a philosopher who argued about personal ownership is the footstone in justice distribution and the way to make people to own thing in fair way. In the “Distributive Justice,” Robert demonstrated the entitlement theory, which is consisted of original acquisition of holdings principle, transfer of holdings principle, and the rectification of injustice in holdings principle, showing the methods determining justice of how people to own thing, then, via those principles and the example of Wilt Chamberlain, Robert showed the importance of ownership and personal right and tried to criticize the injustice of equal distribution of third party like government. However, Robert had completely ignored the importance of equal distribution

    Read More

  • Comparing Rousseau And Nozick

    523 Words  | 2 Pages

    As an example, one can inherit property that produces a lot of wealth for the owner because it is through the transfer of holdings. It will put him or her above many others financially, but it is acceptable because it doesn’t violate the entitlement theory. Even in terms of the original acquisition of land, Nozick uses the Lockean proviso to defend this. Nozick defines this proviso as “a process normally giving rise to a permanent bequeathable property right in a previously unowned thing will not do so if the position of others no longer at liberty with the thing is thereby worsened” . In essence, as long as the appropriation of land does not make any individual worse off, then it satisfies this proviso and the acquisition cannot be opposed or deemed as

    Read More

  • Lower-Class Health Care

    2255 Words  | 5 Pages

    Having America strive for healthcare for all individuals has always been an issue in America for several years. The wealthy and most middle class have had success being able to adopt health care, but what about the remaining half of the world who is lower classed? There is a lot of controversy and arguments when it comes to this topic, and always has been. People believe all Americans should have the right to have health care since they are citizens and all the people in the country should get this right to make it fair, but others argue the opposite. The opposing believe Americans should have to work hard for this privilege and it shouldn’t automatically be given to everyone, specifically, the lower classed citizens.

    Read More

  • Health Care Affirmation

    376 Words  | 1 Pages

    I stand in firm affirmation to the resolution that the US government is correct in requiring US citizens to have health insurance. If we prove that the right to health care could save lives and that providing citizens with the right to health care could be good for economic productivity we will win this debate. According to the Declaration of Independence it states that all men have unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In which it necessarily entails that having health care is needed to preserve life and pursue your happiness. We need to promote the right to health care.

    Read More

  • The Philosophies Of John Rawls Vs. Nozick

    792 Words  | 2 Pages

    Nozick agrees with the liberty principle proposed by Rawls, but he disagrees with the equality principle and the fashion in which resources are distributed. I believe the historical principle of distribution is one strength of Nozick’s ideas. The historical principle of distribution states that the justice of any distribution does not depend on how closely it resembles any form of an equality pattern but how the distribution came about (959). I also agree with the theory that people are entitled to anything they acquired voluntarily and anything that is transferred to them voluntarily (958). Nozick does not agree with redistribution of wealth because taking resources from one person to benefit others is not necessarily voluntary. The biggest weaknesses of Nozick’s idea of equality comes from the idea that taxation and federally funded programs would be unjust forcing everything to be owned privately. This creates the most issues because people are self-interested and the virtue of market may not create the balance which Nozick proposed. Public school systems and public roads being deemed illegitimate would create issues with access. Also, making taxation illegal would make it difficult to have services like a police force, fire department, court system, or penal system because they would have to be paid by the individual directly. The police and court systems could become corrupt

    Read More

  • The Importance Of Universal Health Care In The United States

    360 Words  | 1 Pages

    You argue that health care is a right not a privilege and that the United States should have universal health care. The arguments you made for universal health care are: the rising costs of healthcare premiums and the economic burdens that is placing on Americans in choosing whether or not they can seek medical care and price control on prescriptions and health care would be regulated. You mentioned that other countries with universal health care have a much higher tax rate than the United States, but do not believe that the United States would have to follow suit, due to keeping health care costs regulated. I would argue that taxes would certainly rise for Americans. Regardless of regulating costs for health care, it would still need

    Read More

  • Robert Nozick: The Value Of Personal Freedom

    930 Words  | 2 Pages

    While Nozick’s vision of a society based around protecting each individual’s freedom and right to self-ownership seems enticing, it would actually lead to the exact kind of captive life that he seeks to avoid. Governments are not the only bodies that can infringe on the rights of others. Even with regulations in place to prevent active infringement on the rights of others, there are avenues for those with more resources to exert

    Read More

  • The Importance Of Healthcare In The United States

    556 Words  | 2 Pages

    Everybody should have healthcare. People work hard, but healthcare is expensive, so some fall short of being able to afford healthcare or are

    Read More

More about Philosophy

Open Document