File Insurance claims or "claims of justice"

Fundamental human rights, Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. One can define them however they wish. Some interpret this to say if something requires action on the part of others it can’t be right. Both Daniels and Sreenivasan are not proponents of radical libertarianism because both hold an allotment of tax money should be devoted to healthcare. The collection of tax money itself is an infringement on one’s liberty to choose how he spends his money. So there difference is in how that money is spent.
A recent news story involving Nataline Sarkisyan is one to ponder. At 17 she suffered from Leukemia and after a bone marrow transplant was unsuccessful she was in need of a liver. The trouble was not that there were no livers available or they didn’t have insurance the problem was that the insurance company, Cigna, refused to cover the transplant calling it experimental and investigational. Although liver transplants are one of the most common transplants in the United States she died waiting. So, how would she have been helped by living in a land of equal educational and workforce opportunity? Those points are of no value to her if she wont get to experience them or have children that will. I know by making healthcare universal there are increased wait times to see a doctor but do they outnumber the deaths from insurance denials or conditions treatable with preventative medicine combined? To do anything except provide universal healthcare is as Daniels said “the ambulance that waits at the bottom of the cliff”. Privately owned and administered healthcare is driven by profit not fundamental human anything! So the illusion that one is more liberal in their right to choose a healthcare company is just that, an illusion. Insurance companies are not required nor do they desire to work for your best interest the goal is profit. Like the Sarkisyan family you may find yourself less autonomous than ever allowable under a well run universal healthcare system.
Why should healthcare be so different from emergency medical services and fire protection? We unquestionably invest in those institutions which preserve our health. From behind the veil of ignorance Daniels points out we would choose to provide healthcare for everyone even if it limits our ability to spend our money the way we choose. From behind the veil of ignorance one would also be a supporter of reducing society’s economical gap. So the choice lies in which is more concrete, which is doable in the context of modern times. To devote money to equalizing the distribution of income, education and jobs it a bit more complex and I would say just as bit as expensive to accomplish correctly. For instance, to bring public education to the level offered by private schools, how much money would that cost? And are we then all going to support affirmative action because we want workplace balanced. Seems to me making healthcare available to everyone is the first step in improving our country’s overall wellbeing. Then, if this is indeed the greatest country on earth, the other social problems should be addressed. As other countries have made little progress in closing the gap in health by providing universal healthcare perhaps if the US finds an effective and durable way to implement it we can become their model.
Although Sreenivasan's article is titled "opportunity is not the key" both authors suggest a fair share to opportunity only in different ways. It's just that Daniels has a solution that has the potential to make the most immediate difference.