ipl-logo

Egalitarianism In Obamacare

1048 Words5 Pages

Bernie Sanders once said “A nation will not survive morally or economically when so few have so much, while so many have so little”. In our society, many people experience inequalities, including racial inequality, gender inequality, and economic inequality. These social inequalities create institutionalized social barricades that most times, cannot be solved without some sort of policy that advocates equity. Inequality means that people have little or unequal access to resources such as education, housing, health care, politics, and many more. It also means that people are treated unequally by society. The adoption of egalitarianism will likely solve issues of inequality, as egalitarian policies in the past have solved the issue. Furthermore, …show more content…

government has demonstrated the effectiveness of an egalitarian system through policies that advocate equity. One example of this is Affordable Care Act (ACA) enacted by President Obama on March 23, 2010. The Affordable Care Act does what it says; it makes healthcare affordable for low-income citizens. Not only does it give low-income citizens the opportunity to purchase health care that would otherwise only be affordable to the upper-class, but it also provides positive secondary long-term effects. The article It Easy for Obamacare Critics to Overlook the Merits of Medicaid Expansion explains that “children whose eligibility [for medicaid] increased were more likely to go to college, earn higher wages and pay more taxes by the time they were 28 years old.” (New York Times) Essentially, this statistic states that healthcare can benefit the future economy. Children will grow up to be financially stable, and will then be able to pay their taxes to further provide for the next generation of low-income citizens. Moreover, not only will egalitarian policies fill the gap of inequality, but they can also provide stability for the future economy. Providing government health care is the most moralistic approach to help those who cannot afford medicare– between 2000 and 2005, “more than 130,000 Americans died because of their lack of health insurance” (obamacarefacts.com) Lacking the egalitarian discipline of government-funded medicare essentially equates to murdering …show more content…

In our society, people are either born rich and powerful, having the rights and opportunities that those who are born into lower-class would not have. So why should we live in a government system where we allow these inequities to happen? In Justice, Michael J. Sandel discusses John Rawls’ arguments over defining a just society. Rawls believes that “we should reject the contention that the ordering of institution is always defective because the distribution of natural talents and the contingencies of social circumstance are unjust, and this injustice must inevitably carry over to human arrangements. Occasionally this reflection is offered as an excuse for ignoring injustice, as if refusal to acquiesce in injustice is on par with being unable to accept death. The natural distribution is neither just nor unjust; nor is it unjust that persons are born in society at some particular position” (Sandel 165). Rawls points out that our society has chosen to ignore the issue of inequity most of the time, so long that the effects of this indifference do not hurt their positions. Moreover, what Rawls has described in this quote is very much evident in our society. The citizens on top–especially upper class white males–have the power to pretend the inequities in American society don’t exist, therefore making our society unjust. More

Show More
Related
1683 Words | 7 Pages

Q. 1. Answer Tocqueville illustrates the harsh fact of an aristocratic society that if a man has been born rich, he is credited to wealth and inherits to remain rich. This striving force led by a man continues till he dies. Furthermore, if a man is born a peasant, it becomes his destiny to die as a peasant, consequently inheriting the same virtue to his children (Tocqueville, p. 54). All in all, both of these classes intersect to pursue their private interests in their walk of life.

Read More
1598 Words | 7 Pages

Don’t Look Back Warren Farrell, an American author once said “Nobody really believes in equality anyway” and this rings true for several reasons. One such reason is, it is nearly impossible for equality, and happiness to coexist. For generations citizens of the United States have been striving to have total equality in their everyday lives. People want equal rights, equal pay, equal education opportunities. However, not many people want to do equal work, get equal consequences, or submit equally to government rules and regulations.

Read More
1993 Words | 8 Pages

Uphill Battle: How Income Equality Has Eroded the Lower Class I. Introduction Income inequality refers to the large variations in income distribution amongst citizens. A disproportionate concentration of resources in the U.S. economy takes away and limits the opportunities for middle and lower incomes, handicapping their ability to advance. In political science, the topic of income inequality has harnessed large amounts of attention, stemming from its underlying implications on the economy, political states, and social adhesion. Citizens in the United States have the ability for their relationships in society, their economic involvement, and their quality of life to all be stripped away if they fall into this category. Within U.S. politics

Read More
900 Words | 4 Pages

“Universal Health Coverage is achieved when everybody receives the healthcare, they need without suffering financial hardship” (The Elders 1). This means that theoretically anyone could receive quality treatment without discrimination of income. However, economists estimate that 85% of tax-paying Medicaid recipients and 66% of tax-paying Medicare recipients would pay more if a Universal Healthcare system was implemented (Baldacci and Moffit 24). This demonstrates how Universal health care would actually hurt the impoverished as they are the ones under government assistance already. A mixed Health Care system is a great compromise that benefits those in need without an atrocious cost.

Read More
575 Words | 3 Pages

We need to make a difference and get everyone equal so we can all live our best lives. Income Inequality in the United States How unequal is the economy in the United States? Inequality has always existed in the U.S. but the gap between the rich and poor has never been as big as it is now. The rich never got torn down even when there were financial crashes, but the poor suffered a lot. Women made 82 cents for every $1 a man made, and African Americans made 78 cents for every $1 white people made, how equal is that?

Read More
367 Words | 2 Pages

Many Americans were led to believe that the introduction of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2009 would put an end to disparities in health care access. While it did improve the situation for a small percentage of the population there are still many Americans who lack access to good quality health care. Health care access in America is determined by money and those in lower socioeconomic groups frequently tend to miss out on adequate care. In a recent health care report by the national health research foundation Kaiser Family Foundation, it was noted “health care disparities remain a persistent problem in the United States, leading to certain groups being at higher risk of being uninsured, having limited access to care, and experiencing poorer quality of care” (Kaiser Family Foundation). The current health care

Read More
727 Words | 3 Pages

Health care should not be considered a political argument in America; it is a matter of basic human rights. Something that many people seem to forget is that the US is the only industrialized western nation that lacks a universal health care system. The National Health Care Disparities Report, as well as author and health care worker Nicholas Conley and Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), strongly suggest that the US needs a universal health care system. The most secure solution for many problems in America, such as wasted spending on a flawed non-universal health care system and 46.8 million Americans being uninsured, is to organize a national health care program in the US that covers all citizens for medical necessities.

Read More
599 Words | 3 Pages

Health care inequality is a prevalent issue in Massachusetts and around the United States. Low-income families and individuals all over the country are barred from receiving adequate and necessary health care due to a lack of insurance or due to restrictive policies in their existing insurance. According to a report done by the Working Poor Families Project in 2013 titled Low-Income Working Families: The Growing Economic Gap, a low-income family is defined as one who earns less than twice the federal poverty line, while a poor family is defined as one who earns less than the federal poverty line. For a family of four with two children to be considered low-income in 2011, the threshold was $45,622, with the federal poverty line being $22,811. (Population Reference Bureau)

Read More
1114 Words | 5 Pages

Looking at Rawl’s principles more in depth, he is discussing an egalitarian conception of justice. One that would allow a state in which two things that are unequal the conditions of equality of opportunity especially those born to lower class systems and into less favorable social

Read More
1037 Words | 5 Pages

In this essay, I will explain John Rawls’s argument concerning distributive justice and Roland Dworkin’s argument concerning why a government should be a welfare state, as well as arguing for the fair and just treatment for those least advantaged in society, whatever that society might look like. Rawls’s argument in favor of distributive justice begins with his initial overall idea that one’s ability to lead a good life should not be based upon things one cannot control, such as his endowments, but instead based upon one’s ambition. This gives everyone the same opportunity in achieving success within their life. Being ambition-sensitive is key to his argument because one’s success should be based upon the work they put into life (their ambition)

Read More
417 Words | 2 Pages

He explains we must put ourselves in the original position for equality and behind the “Veil of Ignorance”. This is done by not having knowledge about the different aspects of the issue like: race, gender, social class, and so on. It’s interesting when Mr. Sandel addresses at the beginning of the lecture that if we were behind the Veil of Ignorance Rawls believes we wouldn’t choose utilitarianism. This is because as we know Utilitarianism is good to the

Read More
5992 Words | 24 Pages

In chapter three we discovered that Rawlsian fairness requires that we give up our surplus to provide what others lack. This impartial perspective can only be achieved, however, under what Rawls terms a ‘veil of ignorance’ experienced by an autonomous legislator or an impartial spectator, respectively. Actually, Rawls argues at great length why we should accept the difference principle, namely because no one knows behind the veil of ignorance if he might end up as the least well-off, giving him a reason to adopt a risk-avoiding strategy, i.e. implementing the difference principle. It is prima facie unfair, according to Rawls, to allow the least-well-off to starve to death simply because of their own bad luck, which merely appears to point to ‘formal impartiality’ as ‘formally concerning for all’. In contrary, a just or non-formal impartiality might allow special consideration for persons who have traditionally been marginalized or subject to discrimination.

Read More
1635 Words | 7 Pages

However, it is argued that there are many flaws to Rawls’ theory of justice, particularly in relation to the “original position” and the basic structure of society as the primary subject of justice. This will be argued in the first half of this essay. Another flaw of Rawls’ arises in relation to his two principles of justice, the second principle in relation to distributive justice and the individual’s right to self-ownership. This will be discussed in the latter half of this essay and reinforced by the works of Robert Nozick. A concise conclusion will then be made in relation to Rawls’ theory of justice and whether it truly revived the social contract

Read More
1030 Words | 5 Pages

They are two principal that can be used for regulating society. Rawls’s first principle guarantees moral equality between people, which is a grounding condition for a just society. Each person should, therefore, have an equal right to the most comprehensive set of basic freedoms that are compatible with a reciprocal system of freedom for all. The second principle states that social economic inequalities will only be justified if they benefit the worst off in society and if they are attached to positions and offices open to all. John Rawls first of all argues that society is inherently unfair as it is.

Read More
1821 Words | 8 Pages

Distributive justice by definition deals with the distribution of benefits and burdens across members of a society. Over time, philosophers have argued how these benefits and burdens should be distributed as what results from them fundamentally affects people’s lives. John Rawls, an American moral and political philosopher argued as a liberal “Justice as Equality” by means of his three principles of justice: the principle of equal liberty, equal opportunity and difference. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from harm by others, but also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty (Minogue, Girvetz, Dagger & Ball, 2018). Rawls believed that everyone in society should have had equal political rights, although social and economic inequalities existed, but only under the condition that they were to the maximum advantage of the least advantaged people in society.

Read More

More about Egalitarianism In Obamacare

Open Document