Author Allen E. Buchanan for this essay is professor of philosophy in public policy at Duke University since 2002 and written 6 books in biomedical ethic, social justice, international justice including international law. he served staff philosopher for president's commission on Medical Ethic 1983, and 1996 to 2000. I am giving you author's back ground information that it help us understand better his article.
Definitely, Buchanan is favor of having Universal health care that "our government to guarantee a decent minimum health care for every body(p:525)." not only certain people but for every body to all person with backing up coercive power and policy by state or federal to succeed for this application.
we have already has had special rights for health care for man and women who served country that sacrificed for the good society and social welfare for the country, and people can argue for other group that injustice argues for American African and Native American. There are many clinics already for indigent groups through all of the United States with enforced principles requiring toward familiar public good by rotating physician to participate for runing clinic smoothly beside their own practice.
If our societyin health care change to all one category of Universal health care then poeple who want go freedom of choice to pick their own health care for better treatment, there will be very unhappiness among the lot of people who diminishing their freedom by that. Also where all these cost of Universal health care will be coming from even if it would be working in the future?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I really like how Buchanan concludes his essay by combining the First and Second Argument to derive a solution: "a coercive mechanism which attaches penalties to noncontribution." It seems like the solution would work by eliminating the public goods and free-rider problems. However, I don't understand why providing everyone with a decent minimum is necessary because I am completely lost in Buchanan's assumption that there is a right to a decent minimum. Can someone clear this up for me?
ReplyDeleteI think the answer is in one's view of others. If a person thinks we earn our place in the world and everyone has equal opportunity to contribute then you may agree that healthcare too must be earned. A determinist would say we aren’t responsible for the cards we are dealt. It's not right to fault a man for the circumstances he finds himself in because there was no other way for him. Buchanan holds we are not a level playing field for a few reasons and until we are we are morally obligated to provide a decent amount of healthcare.
ReplyDeletemighty skunk: I don't think Buchanan is arguing that there is a right to decent minimum--at least not in the usual sense of right. The concept of right requires that we have a coherent and defensible theory of rights (or justice), which he thinks we do not yet have.
ReplyDeleteWhat Buchanan does is use the alternative strategy of reverting to more specific notions in morality and rights (retributive justice, charity, harm prevention, prudential argument) that, when taken together, results in something that would do the work that a right to decent minimum would do if there were such a right.