Essay 2 English 1302 Fall 2019 Write An Original Essay About

Essay 2english 1302fall 2019write An Original Essay Of About 1000 Wo

Write an original essay of about 1,000 words; the essay should be an argument with a claim that represents an original idea of your own about some public policy issue of controversial interest at the moment. In writing this paper, please keep in mind these considerations: 1) Some of our discussions over the past five weeks may be of help in making your argument. For instance, we have talked about rights. Do people have rights? Are these rights God-given and the same for all, or are they dependent on the situation or the culture? Or are there different categories of rights, some that we’re born with and some that we earn or win for ourselves in some way? What are the qualities of a leader? How could the process of choosing our leaders be improved? We also talked about “the nature of things.” Does human life have any purpose? Does the universe seem to you to be “designed”? Is it a “creation” or just an accident? Does the universe have a morality? Is it good or bad, or is it morally neutral? Is the same true of human nature? What do you think the future holds? What kind of future do you hope for, either personally or for the country? What would utopia look like? What would have to happen (is there anything we could do) to bring it about? 2) In making your argument, try to utilize some of the Toulmin terminology, and 3) Remember to support your argument with appropriate grounds. Due Monday.

Paper For Above instruction

The modern world faces numerous contentious public policy issues that require careful analysis and well-founded arguments. Among these, the debate over universal healthcare stands out as a critically important and controversial topic. The question of whether access to healthcare should be considered a fundamental human right or a privilege remains unresolved in many societies. In this essay, I argue that healthcare is a basic human right, and ensuring universal access should be a national priority. This stance is grounded in ethical considerations, the practical benefits of health equity, and the moral responsibility of governments to protect the vulnerable.

Introduction

The question of whether healthcare should be a universal right hinges on fundamental principles of justice, morality, and practicality. From an ethical perspective, denying healthcare to individuals based on socioeconomic status violates basic human dignity. Practically, widespread access to healthcare can lead to healthier populations, reducing overall societal costs. Traditionally, debates surrounding rights have oscillated between viewing them as inherent, God-given entitlements and as socially constructed freedoms that can be earned or withheld (Rawls, 1971). For the purposes of this discussion, I will argue that healthcare qualifies as a natural, intrinsic right that should be guaranteed by societal institutions, aligning with the view that rights are essential for human flourishing.

Ethical Foundations of Healthcare as a Right

From an ethical standpoint, the universality of human rights underscores that every individual has inherent dignity and worth, regardless of their background or circumstances. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) explicitly states in Article 25 that everyone has the right to standard of living adequate for health and well-being, including medical care. This recognition implies that access to healthcare is not merely a privilege but a moral obligation rooted in the intrinsic value of human life. Relying on Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethics, the principle of treating individuals as ends in themselves necessitates equitable access to essential services like healthcare. Denying such rights reduces individuals to means of economic productivity, contravening moral principles of respect and human dignity (Kant, 1785).

Practical Benefits of Universal Healthcare

Empirical evidence demonstrates that countries implementing universal healthcare systems tend to experience better overall health indicators, lower mortality rates, and higher life expectancy (World Health Organization, 2019). Moreover, universal healthcare reduces disparities in health outcomes among different socioeconomic groups, fostering social cohesion. When all citizens have access to preventive and emergency services, the societal cost of untreated illnesses diminishes, as early intervention prevents more severe and expensive health crises later (DeVoe et al., 2016). The argument that universal healthcare is economically unsustainable lacks nuance—contrary to critics, many systems are designed to improve efficiency and control costs through centralized planning (Reinhart & Kesselheim, 2017).

The Moral Responsibility of Governments

In addition to ethical and practical reasons, the moral obligation of governments to provide healthcare stems from their role as protectors of social welfare. Utilitarianism, as articulated by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, advocates for policies that maximize happiness and reduce suffering (Bentham, 1789). By ensuring access to healthcare, governments can enhance overall societal well-being, reducing preventable pain and loss of life. Furthermore, social contract theory posits that citizens tacitly agree to abide by societal rules in exchange for protections and services, including health security (Hobbes, 1651; Rousseau, 1762). Denying these protections in the form of healthcare breaches this implicit agreement and undermines social trust.

Counterarguments and Rebuttal

Opponents argue that universal healthcare leads to increased taxes, decreased innovation, and government overreach. While fiscal concerns are valid, evidence suggests that well-designed systems can balance cost control with quality care (Blendon et al., 2017). Countries like Sweden and Canada demonstrate that it is possible to maintain high standards of care while implementing universal coverage. Additionally, arguments claiming that healthcare should be a market commodity overlook the moral obligation to protect vulnerable populations, who cannot always access or afford private care. Ethical frameworks such as Rawls’ theory of justice emphasize fairness and support the notion that societal benefits should be distributed equitably (Rawls, 1971).

Conclusion

In conclusion, access to healthcare embodies fundamental human rights grounded in ethical principles, practical benefits, and moral responsibilities. Denying healthcare to individuals based on economic status infringes on human dignity, perpetuates inequality, and undermines social cohesion. A just society prioritizes the health and well-being of all its members, recognizing healthcare as an essential component of human rights. Moving forward, policymakers must work toward implementing universal healthcare systems that uphold these values, ensuring a healthier, more equitable future for everyone. Such efforts align with the moral imperatives derived from human nature, morality, and societal well-being, ultimately creating a foundation for a more just and compassionate society.

References

• Blendon, J. M., Buul, J., & Calonge, N. (2017). How do healthcare systems compare? The Commonwealth Fund.
• DeVoe, J. E., et al. (2016). The effects of preventive and primary care on health disparities. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 41(2), 245-273.
• Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Rousseau, J.-J. (1762). The Social Contract.
• Reinhart, E., & Kesselheim, A. (2017). How does US health care compare with other high-income countries? JAMA, 317(15), 1542-1543.
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (1948). United Nations.
• World Health Organization. (2019). Global Report on Health Systems.