As follows is my final argument for government, answering the question put forth by my professor of whether or not the federal government should establish a national health care system. Note that this does not seek to answer what form said system would take (i.e. not an endorsement of Obamacare or anything) only whether or not the federal government should be the proponents of a system. As a disclaimer: Im not posting this to inflame, offend or injure. Im posting it because Im proud of it and I like to share my stuff. Feel free to enjoy or ignore. Johnny Alexander. GOVT 2305-04. November 23, 2013 The Federal government should (or should not) enact legislation that establishes a national health care system. In pursuance of addressing the fundamental problem of government as observed by Rousseau, it will be argued that the federal government is best suited to establish a health care system because it is best equipped to do so, and the function rests within its purview. The federal government should enact legislation that establishes a national health care system because doing so will best provide justice for all citizens by protecting the individual rights of life and pursuit of happiness as well as providing for the common interest of the general welfare of the nation. Thomas Hobbes, in his prolific work, Leviathan, observed that nature has made men equal such that no man can hold absolute power over another. Men, by the right of nature, can take what they will in nature as well as from one another, thus entering into a constant state of war between all men. To prevent this sorry state, men enter into a social contract with one another, relinquishing such of their natural rights to one another as to ensure peace and security. Hobbes further shows, and is supported later by Rousseau, that in a social contract, men renounce or transfer their rights, which results in removing “an impediment to someone else’s use of those same things or someone else’s exercise of their right to them.” John Locke, in expounding upon Hobbes’ work, stated that the natural rights of men were those of life, liberty and property. The American founding fathers drew upon the work of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau in the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. In the former, Jefferson lists the inalienable rights of man as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is primarily the first and third of those individual rights that health care is concerned with. The Constitution states in its preamble that one of the purposes of the government established is to promote the general welfare. This represents a common interest in society. Thomas Paine, a revolutionary thinker who encouraged the American Revolution and supported the Constitution, put forth in his book The Rights of Man that the health and education of a society, which is undeniably in line with general welfare, are extensions of natural rights. So the question is, having identified the individual and common interests, which would better provide the balance between the two: administration of health care on the national level, or administration on an individual level? By using the logic of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Paine, an answer readily presents itself. Locke stated that the purpose of government is to protect the rights of its people. Rousseau goes further by saying that the duty of government is to provide justice. Paine’s conception of the scope of government grants even more illumination into its ability to solve this issue. In keeping with Locke, Paine says that natural rights are those of a man’s right to exist, including intellectual rights, rights to comfort and happiness, and civil rights which include security and protection. He further states that, in relinquishing of certain rights as is requisite for a social contract, “The natural rights which are not retained, are all those in which, thought the right is perfect in the individual, the power to execute them is defective…He therefore deposits this right in the common stock of society and takes the hand of society, of which he is a part, in preference and in addition to his own…Every man is a proprietor in society, and draws on the capital as a matter of right.” In the case of national government establishing a health care system, it can be observed that by doing so, the individual rights of life and pursuit of happiness are provided for, since healthy people generally live longer and sick people are generally miserable. Furthermore, the common interest of the general welfare is provided by the whole of society having access to health care on a national level. But what of loss of liberty? Would not taking away the individual’s remaining inalienable right be tantamount to tyranny? Not so if one learns from the aforementioned philosophers. When a member of society gives up his right, he does so in concert with the rest of society, as can be learned from Rousseau. So of the rights that an individual loses, he gains access to that of all the members of society and when all have given to one another, there is balance. The individual has not lost his right, he has ensured it by submitting himself to the society of which he is a part, which is now better able to provide for those needs which he could not alone. So the government of the people provides for all in proper measure because it is empowered by them to do so. When the issue of health care is not administered by government, justice is hard to find. Those who have greater wealth, receive greater care and those who have no wealth, receive almost no care. According to Paine, health is not a privilege but a natural right of men. Indeed, by the Declaration of Independence life, inextricably connected to health, is an inalienable right, and rights should not be supplied in uneven measure. Thus, it can be seen that the national government is best suited to solve the issue of health care by instituting a national system. John Locke says it quite well, “Every one as he is bound to preserve himself…when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he as much as he can to preserve the rest of mankind…” This is the heart of the social contract, and as Rousseau would doubtlessly observe, the soul of justice.
Posted on: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 23:43:44 +0000