There are many ethical and political issues surrounding the finance of medical care in the United States and Canada. The Affordable Care Act was intended to provide affordable medical care to all Americans. In 1987, Rosalyn Schwartz, a recently divorced American, lost the medical coverage previously provided through her husband’s job. Due to the fact that she had a pre-existing ulcer condition, insurance companies only offered plans that excluded treatment for ulcers. Universal medical coverage supplies basic medical care for all citizens. The single payer system is a form of universal medical coverage in which one organization acts as the regulating body. In 1962, Canada funded a single payer national medical care system that provided all
…show more content…
The argument against this is that America was based on the principle of negative rights on non-interference. This ideology suggests that the United States promotes a life-long dependency on government. Under this system money is essentially transferred from the hardworking taxpayer to government dependent individuals. Philosopher John Rawls believes that justice requires universal medical coverage and that minimal health care is a right. He argues that justice applies to the basic fabric of society, and health care is an essential part of that structure. The world is naturally unfair. The role of government is to reduce natural inequality while preserving liberty. According to Rawls an unequal medical structure would be just only if the poor were better off under that system than the current. He emphasizes that this does not apply to the current American medical system. He also argues that congress opposed the current Medicare program as it was at the time considered socialized medicine. Robert Nozick opposes Rawl’s view on the theory of justice by arguing that health care is not a right. His perspective states that people tend to seek medical treatment for more and more reasons when health care is seen as a right as opposed to a …show more content…
If these new taxes are incremental and increase to premiums are regulated, it is argued that it may be possible to expand coverage and reduce the overall costs. This viewpoint is countered by the concept of intergenerational injustice. After the first few years on Medicare most beneficiaries receive far more than what was paid into it. Since the current labor force pays currently administered social security and Medicare entitlements, the burden remains squarely on them. It is argued that once universal healthcare is enacted, the yoke will forever remain on the shoulders of the young, specifically those aged 20 to 30. In a sense it is the healthy subsidizing and the sick at higher cost than before. Favoring the ADA, supporters claim that there is not an intergenerational injustice. They argue that many of the young are not paying anything into the system but are cared for when injured or sick. By this argument they are contributing to their own burden. This viewpoint also suggests that seniors making more than 250,000 a year should not receive free Medicare. There are also multiple meanings of Justice. Some argue that it is an injustice to not expand Medicaid, as this would be a violation to the sense of the community within the
The argument against this is that America was based on the principle of negative rights on non-interference. This ideology suggests that the United States promotes a life-long dependency on government. Under this system money is essentially transferred from the hardworking taxpayer to government dependent individuals. Philosopher John Rawls believes that justice requires universal medical coverage and that minimal health care is a right. He argues that justice applies to the basic fabric of society, and health care is an essential part of that structure. The world is naturally unfair. The role of government is to reduce natural inequality while preserving liberty. According to Rawls an unequal medical structure would be just only if the poor were better off under that system than the current. He emphasizes that this does not apply to the current American medical system. He also argues that congress opposed the current Medicare program as it was at the time considered socialized medicine. Robert Nozick opposes Rawl’s view on the theory of justice by arguing that health care is not a right. His perspective states that people tend to seek medical treatment for more and more reasons when health care is seen as a right as opposed to a …show more content…
If these new taxes are incremental and increase to premiums are regulated, it is argued that it may be possible to expand coverage and reduce the overall costs. This viewpoint is countered by the concept of intergenerational injustice. After the first few years on Medicare most beneficiaries receive far more than what was paid into it. Since the current labor force pays currently administered social security and Medicare entitlements, the burden remains squarely on them. It is argued that once universal healthcare is enacted, the yoke will forever remain on the shoulders of the young, specifically those aged 20 to 30. In a sense it is the healthy subsidizing and the sick at higher cost than before. Favoring the ADA, supporters claim that there is not an intergenerational injustice. They argue that many of the young are not paying anything into the system but are cared for when injured or sick. By this argument they are contributing to their own burden. This viewpoint also suggests that seniors making more than 250,000 a year should not receive free Medicare. There are also multiple meanings of Justice. Some argue that it is an injustice to not expand Medicaid, as this would be a violation to the sense of the community within the