With trillions of dollars being spent annually on healthcare in the United States, it is an integral part of both the country’s economy and to its citizens' wellbeing. The US, for decades, tended to grant more freedom to its citizens and, consequently, maintained a completely private healthcare industry. Supporting a more active role of government, other countries often control a socially funded healthcare system. These ways of approaching healthcare are a consequence of fundamentally different rationales on the roles of government and the individual. These political differences have resounding impacts on who is cared for, how they are cared for, and who is held responsible for the trillion-dollar bill, and, therefore, impact all citizens.
…show more content…
Challenging Rousseau, John Stuart Mill argues that individuals know themselves best and that government is inherently inefficient, so the individual should possess more power. This debate is extremely applicable today with the issue of healthcare, especially with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) currently being contested by current members of Congress. Supporters of the ACA propose that the federal government knows the general will of the nation best and should, therefore, take paternalistic measures to mandate that each individual have healthcare to protect their own well-being; whereas, opponents hold that individuals should maintain control over their personal choices in such a private matter as healthcare. Following the philosophies of Rousseau and Mill, the US government should legislate paternalistic guidelines regarding healthcare for their citizens similar to those in the Affordable Care Act, yet, in contrast with the ACA, individuals should select their individual …show more content…
Drawing on late 1800’s liberalism, Mill disagrees with Rousseau’s notion that the sovereign knows the general will of his people. First, he notes no other individual nor the government can understand a citizen’s best interest better than they do themselves since an individual “is the person most interested in his own well-being” (Mill 1909). Furthering his point, Mill points out how government inefficiencies would hinder the sovereign from successfully acting with the general will of the people in mind because “when it does interfere, the odds are that it interferes wrongly, and in the wrong place.” (Mill 1909). Finally, he argues that granting the government absolute power would lead to a tyranny of the majority in which governments trample the rights of minorities for the perceived greater good of the people of the state (Mill 1909). Therefore, instead of a powerful government, Mill envisions a limited role for government that acts solely when an individual, or a collection of individuals, infringe upon the rights of other
Challenging Rousseau, John Stuart Mill argues that individuals know themselves best and that government is inherently inefficient, so the individual should possess more power. This debate is extremely applicable today with the issue of healthcare, especially with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) currently being contested by current members of Congress. Supporters of the ACA propose that the federal government knows the general will of the nation best and should, therefore, take paternalistic measures to mandate that each individual have healthcare to protect their own well-being; whereas, opponents hold that individuals should maintain control over their personal choices in such a private matter as healthcare. Following the philosophies of Rousseau and Mill, the US government should legislate paternalistic guidelines regarding healthcare for their citizens similar to those in the Affordable Care Act, yet, in contrast with the ACA, individuals should select their individual …show more content…
Drawing on late 1800’s liberalism, Mill disagrees with Rousseau’s notion that the sovereign knows the general will of his people. First, he notes no other individual nor the government can understand a citizen’s best interest better than they do themselves since an individual “is the person most interested in his own well-being” (Mill 1909). Furthering his point, Mill points out how government inefficiencies would hinder the sovereign from successfully acting with the general will of the people in mind because “when it does interfere, the odds are that it interferes wrongly, and in the wrong place.” (Mill 1909). Finally, he argues that granting the government absolute power would lead to a tyranny of the majority in which governments trample the rights of minorities for the perceived greater good of the people of the state (Mill 1909). Therefore, instead of a powerful government, Mill envisions a limited role for government that acts solely when an individual, or a collection of individuals, infringe upon the rights of other