We the People and the Right to a Decent Minimum Health Care

It is true that people follow politics and read updated news feeds on health care daily. Yet, if one were to suddenly be asked to defend with valid and sound reasons, which frankly are not usually present in politics, on why the implementation of the right to a decent minimum is justified (or not justified), then one would most likely give an answer that is incorrect or flawed in reasoning.

This is because when most people state their beliefs, a large part of their beliefs is centered on imperfect premises. In other words, an individual may state that providing a decent minimum health care to everyone is necessary because everyone is entitled to a certain level of hospital treatments and visits to doctors' offices. The individual may defend the argument by saying that no physician should deny a sick patient because that would be an immoral action.

Yet, as Allen Buchanan stated, such premises are impractical and "not within the domain of social control."¹ Furthermore, it is worth considering what people believe in general about health care first. Anyone without some strong enmity towards humanity believes on the existence of the decent minimum health care. It is, however, the matter of adding this existence to all people's lives. One side sees the universal health care as the universal and fundamental right of people while other side perceives such universality as the infringement of people's other freedom and rights.

There is also a debate that suggests that universal health care prevents a proper market system. Buchanan asked, "Granted that individuals are allowed to spend their after-tax incomes on more frivolous items, why shouldn't they be allowed to spend it on health?"¹ The answer to this question is not simply a "no" because doing so would require a clarification of the level of decent minimum health care, which has not been clearly defined.

Moreover, universal health care implies that it must be equal and just to everyone. This necessity of justness is a challenge, especially in Utilitarianism, because when comparing the need for health care between a regular person and a person suffering from incurable diseases like ALS, as recently covered in the media, the latter will certainly need more resources. This does not, however, would mean that the regular person would not benefit from the same level of health care, and therefore, undermine the very ground of justness.

Buchanan then introduced the distinction between the universal right and special right. As the name suggests, the special right differs from the universal right in the sense that it is another layer of rights restricted only to people with natural disorders, suffering from unfortunate events like wars, and other events. He also discussed how preventive measures such as sanitation and immunization to everyone in the society have benefited all the members.

Furthermore, while no one in the society should be required to do something against the will, it is morally proper thing to help others in need. For example, Kant discussed "an argument for the conclusion that one ought to help those in need, at least if one can do so without excessive costs to oneself."¹ It is critical to observe that while he used the word "ought," he does not, by any means, establish a strict normative guideline for people.

Ultimately, the question then boils down to 1) what is really the proper way to collect revenues from people if the choice of universal health care is to be implemented permanently, and 2) what really is the most important right when it comes to the debate about health care. Until the decision has been made to judge which right triumphs in the minimum health care discussion, no final conclusion could stay in place.

¹ Allen E. Buchanan, "The Right to a Decent Minimum of Health Care," Philosophy and Public Affairs Winter 1984 Vol. 13, No. 1.