Proposal For National Health Care example essay topic

As President of the United States, I would like to propose a government sponsored, national system health care. With that, would like to model this system in the fashion of European and most other world countries, which would call for its financing through a twenty percent tax. With this proposal, everyone will be cared for in accordance to their needs, however the quality of health care will be equal in all cases. And with all the money saved from not having to spend it on insurance, can be put toward good use, thus benefiting the economy as a whole. A UTE would respond o this by first looking at what the consequences are if he decides to vote in favor of my proposal, and if those consequences would benefit the majority of people. He would then most likely vote it down since it isn't beneficial to the greater number of people.

The rich and the middle class would be hit hard with the maximum amount of taxes. And ordinary, the people of these socioeconomic classes would be able afford medical insurance on their own without this policy. So on the whole, the only people who this proposal would benefit would be the poor, who in this case are the minority. So if this policy's consequences don't increase the pleasure of the minority, it isn't in the best interest of the Utilitarian vote. On the other hand, Rawls would see that the proposal for national health care greatly coincides with his feeling against the genetic and social lottery, which gives people unfair advantage. The poor would be able to receive as good health as the rich, thus leveling the field for all socioeconomic classes and no longer taking into account if the people are rich, poor or somewhat in between.

With this policy everyone will experience equal opportunity, which would be well liked by Rawls, since everyone would be allowed to have access to health care, and the worst off will be taken care of in consideration to the Difference Principle. Robert Nozik's entitlement, would say that the rich and the middle class who can afford their own health care are entitled to have better quality for what they pay. While the poor people who can't afford decent health care are only entitled to mediocre coverage. It isn't the fault of the rich and middle class that they are where they are economically, so they shouldn't be penalized. Thus, Novick would vote down the proposal.

A rights-based person would say that as humans, we have unalienable rights. Among them exists the right to maintain good health. Therefore, people should not be denied equal health coverage due to their economic class. Whether they are poor, rich or in the middle people deserve the right to live a happy and health life. So if that calls for equal health coverage, twenty percent tax isn't a large loss. The theory, which supports my proposal, comes form John Rawls who says that people regardless of their social status shouldn't be given any kind of advantage for their luck.

This applies to proposal. As the president, I wrote this with the intention of narrowing the gap of economic classes, since luck should never be a factor played into whether someone would be ale to live a healthy life or not. Even though there is the rich, and middle class who can afford decent medical treatment, why should people who age endowed with certain unalienable rights be stripped of them, simply because they can't afford it? My answer is that the poor shouldn't be deprived of any rights and my proposal intends to change and give equal medical care to all.