Is healthcare a right?

Uncategorized

The Sreenivasan article discusses how health should not be a determining factor for ‘fairness’, rather, ‘fairness’ should be determined by equal opportunity to life options. Sreenivasan states that ‘equal opportunity rationale is simple and appealing. Unfortunately, it is also invalid’. I agree with him that rationing out healthcare to everyone is unrealistic because some people have more health problems than others, and by rationing the help, these people are unable to actually get the healthcare that they need because they have already used up their ’ration’ of healthcare. However, Sreenivasan continues on to discuss what he believes reality should look like. He believes that ‘each person’s share of opportunity ought to be (more or less) the same as everyone else’s share’. I believe that his argument is invalid because it is more Utopian than realistic. Because of the society that we live in, certain people will have more of an advantage than others. This advantage does not just involve financial resources, but also cognitive abilities. Sreenivasan’s argument makes it sound like society should allow certain people who have more opportunities in life to have worse health than everyone else in order to level the playing field. This is immoral because this is saying that one person’s health is more important than another person’s health. For example, if we had a society like what Sreenivasan imagines, then we could say that the president of America should receive the same ‘ration’ of healthcare as say the vagrant who is living on the streets. In Sreenivasan’s society, the vagrant should receive more healthcare than the president in order to level the opportunities available. This is immoral because the president needs to be able to make wise decisions for the sake of all citizens, and being in poor health would not give him that ability. I am not saying that the health of the vagrant is not important—it is, but in our society, there needs to be a gradient in order to protect the health of everyone.
I agree more with Buchanan in that everyone has a right to a decent minimum healthcare, rather, everyone has a right to the access of healthcare. I believe that in a perfect world, everyone would have perfect health/healthcare. However, in our society, this is unrealistic because, like Buchanan stated, everyone would expect the same level of healthcare, even when determining factors change, causing this healthcare system to be more of a burden than a useful resource to society. Another burden to the healthcare system would be individuals who have severe, lifelong health problems. Is it up to society to provide care for this individual their entire life, or is it up to the individual and his or her family? In a way, this can be seen to be a moral issue. Should society provide care for this individual for life, help him achieve the same level of self-help as everyone else. Or, should society let him suffer for life, struggling to pay bills and keep a job in order to pay more bills. There is no clear right answer for this issue as of yet.

6 thoughts on “Is healthcare a right?”

  1. I was in agreement with Sreenivasan until he said that it is not required for all people to have healthcare. It is extremely important that all people have healthcare and an equal amount of health care. This disparity in healthcare is what causes low income individuals to be more sick than higher income individuals. So just because someone has more money, they should be denied health care? That is not right or ethical. They may be provided less assistance in paying for health care, however, they should still be afforded the right to healthcare. If health care is denied to a group of people (maybe the wealthy, or those with genetically less ailments), those people will be more susceptible to viruses which they can pass to those that are afforded healthcare. By offering healthcare to only a certain group of people, there will be a wide gap that is left open for viruses and other health issues to greatly affect the world’s health.

  2. Considering scenarios in which everyone is has an equal “share of opportunity” feels kind of funny given that this could never realistically happen. When it comes to something like healthcare, wherever people are willing to pay for a “better” service, there will be people willing to deliver the “better” service. The moral issue is in determining how far to go in an effort to bring up the bottom/minimum healthcare services available to each person. What should the minimum be? how can we improve the access of healthcare to those in need? At this point, its a question of whether we can improve the opportunities for those less fortunate, and not of leveling the playing field. As for your few sentences about who should pay for the health of an individual, its a very good question. I think that the goal/focus should be to prevent these people from getting sick in the first place and minimizing the number of individuals who require a lifetime of support. This is a much cheaper approach then trying to take care (monetarily) of these individuals once they are sick.

  3. Of course the president may need to be in better health than a vagrant because he is responsible for the entire country. However, this seems to be moral from a utilitarian perspective because more people benefit from a healthy peasant than a healthy vagrant. What if the vagrant had tuberculosis, while the president was only suffering from a broken pinky? Then it would make more sense to offer the vagrant more healthcare benefits to encourage him to seek medical attention, which would prevent him from causing another TB outbreak. The president, with his annual salary, could easily pay to fix his broken pinky finger because a broken finger requires minimal care. Unfortunately, as you have indicated, it is hard to determine equal opportunity to healthcare because some situation demand more medical attention than others.

  4. I do not know that I think it is completely wrong for his argument to be so utopian. I also do not think eh is arguing that those with greater life lotteries should endure worse care. I was interpreting the argument as equal opportunity to access – not better care. Meaning that if the supply is there, the means are there then any individual should be able to access care. In no situation do I think those who are able to afford excess care would be denied from doing so – no doctor or system would shut down that opportunity for those who need it. Additionally, the argument for equal opportunity is not extremely more opportunistic than completely universal healthcare under the currently US economic system.

  5. I would disagree with Sreenivasan in terms of how “each person’s share of opportunity ought to be (more or less) the same as everyone else’s share.” Because as Amiee stated, this would afford those with less opportunity with more healthcare and those with more opportunity less healthcare. I believe this would violate our basic human nature of rewarding achievement. Most people work hard and try to succeed in order to climb the social and economic ladder. However, if a person was to work hard and do so, but only to suffer by having worse health care, then they would not see the point of trying to achieve such status. It would not result in a benefit but as a detriment. Ultimately this line of think would not work realistically.

Comments are closed.