Debating The Right To Healthcare: (Right For Healthcare For Everyone Is Essential View Point)
Individual rights are frequently invoked in political debates in the United States. Individual rights are frequently used to justify specific policies, whether by a veteran politician or an ordinary citizen. This “rights talk” can be legitimate, but there is frequently no explanation for the basis of these individual rights. In other words, by invoking these individual rights, their legitimacy is assumed without any need for justification. Aside from the inalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence (i.e. the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) and the expressed freedoms in the Bill of Rights, there are numerous other rights that some claim fall under the umbrella of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Some of these are the right to universal health care, the right to marry, the right to privacy, the right to work, the right to die, and so on. The right to universal health care is an excellent example of this trend, as health care reform is currently at the forefront of US political activity. Although there are various perspectives on how to reform the American healthcare system, the one receiving the most attention and evoking the strongest emotions is government-provided healthcare (also known as the public option) to ensure every American. Many supporters of the public option argue that everyone has the right to health care through government action. Although not everyone agrees on the specifics, everyone agrees that everyone should have access to health care. This claim has philosophical significance. Is there a fundamental right to universal health care? What is the basis for this right? The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines rights as entitlements (not) to perform certain actions or be in certain states or entitlements that others do not perform certain actions or be in certain states. Applying this definition in political philosophy challenges those who want to investigate which rights should be legally protected and which should not. Regarding the justification of rights, there are two major schools of thought. One school of thought contends that rights are status-based, which stems from the concept of natural rights. According to this point of view, individuals have rights because they are human. Humans are given appropriate rights based on characteristics that they have by nature. Much of the foundation for this viewpoint comes from Kantian thought, which holds that humans should be treated as ends rather than means. Status-based rights are popular because they place a premium on individual dignity, and their justification begins with the nature of the rights holder rather than the consequences of exercising those rights.