National Healthcare Insurance - Essay Example

National Health Care Insurance John Stuart Mill conception of liberty correlates liberty of discussion and thought, individuality as an element of well-being, and limits to societal authority over individuals. Mill develops harm theory by establishing a principle, which isolates an area within which individuals are free from interference in developing their individuality through experiments and free choices in their livelihoods. Mills concept of liberty seeks to prevent intrusive action based on moralistic or paternalistic grounds (McKenna and Feingold 32). Mill capitalizes on the force of liberty and its unbending character. Individual liberty should be indefeasible and absolute where the principle of liberty applies, measures that govern absolutely the manner in which the society deals with individuals in the way of control and compulsion. Mill emphasis the point that individual liberty is by right absolute with concern on matters regarded as harmless to other people and that individual enjoys absolute liberty of choice among purely self-regarding acts. Mill’s concept of liberty revolves around the idea that liberty is essential in ensuring subsequent progress of the society and the individual, especially in the case where the society is more important than the state. This scenario is only possible in circumstances where the rulers only represent the interests of the ruled, or a perfect representative democracy without any opposition between the ruler and the ruled (McKenna and Feingold 61). In such a surrounding, the liberty of an individual is attainable, but not guaranteed. Mill’s concept of liberty digs into moral theories, highlighting the happiness of the individual as the only important thing. Such happiness is only achievable in a civilized society where people freely engage in their own interests, with their skills and capabilities developed through a good education system. In this regard therefore, Mill advocates for the fundamental importance of individuality and personal development, both for the development of the society and the individual for progress in the future. Michael Walzer’s theory of distributive justice presents a pluralistic and particularistic approach to equality. He argues that the principles of a society should follow the historical and cultural setting of that society, that is, universal principles of justice does not exist, that distribution of different social goods should follow different principles, and that these different principles display different meanings of social goods that are products of cultural and historical particularistic approach. Walzer further argues that each social good constitutes its own distributive sphere, with every sphere being autonomous. This is to say that social goods from one sphere should not intrude another sphere. Walzer’s major concern on progression to complex equality emphasizes on dominance in a particular sphere of justice and not (principally) on the basis of the monopoly in that given sphere. Walzer’s arrangement of human affairs in establishing equality imposes the condition that the distribution of a social good in one sphere must not lead to conversion of that particular social good into another sphere. An example is the possession of power in the political sphere, which for the purpose of equality, should not enable the politician to convert the power to wealth, which is in a different sphere. As long as the conversion is impossible, equality is achievable despite the distribution of a social good in any one sphere (McKenna and Feingold 132). Walzer views the human society as a distributive community where the multiplicity of goods meets the multiplicity of distributive processes and procedures. Therefore, to create a just distributive procedure or principle requires complex equality rather than simple equality. This forms what he calls a complex egalitarian society. The reduction of dominance has preference over the breakdown of monopoly in his concept. His critique on dominance follows that social good x must not be distributed to individuals (men and women) in possession of another social good y on the mere perception that they posses y and without the concern of the meaning and value of x. Karl Marx economic theory takes a communistic approach, highlighting the problems associated with capitalistic production. According to Marx, production would occur among individuals in a civilized society. This was the same objective of Mill in his theory on liberty. Production in a civilized society would aim at meeting the needs of the individuals in that society, as people not only act on nature but also on each other. According to Marx, individuals in a civilized society produce by cooperating in a certain manner and mutual exchange of their activities (McKenna and Feingold 190). Marx held the belief that in the practical world, practical activities led to the desire to want to fulfill societal needs f individuals. Efforts to meet the individual desires lead to production. According to Marx, production in a civilized society is twofold consumption, objective and subjective. Marx also focuses on the issue of labor theory of value. The theory, in its simplest form, states that the value of exchangeable services and goods equal to the labor value required for their production. In essence, it means that a commodity has value because of the labor efforts directed into its production. This means that the owners of the industry should compensate the labor force accordingly. The concept of complex equality presents itself in this scenario. The owners of the industry posses power in the industry, but they should not use their position in the power sphere to obtain extra benefits, which is another sphere, from their workers. Adam Smith relays his conception of economic in his theory of moral sentiments, which highlights the two systems of virtues, noble and commercial. The commercial virtues focus on self-interest in the business world and include frugality, prudence, justice, and others. The noble virtues, which are more important than the commercial ones, emphasizes on self-command, including virtues like love, friendship, generosity, kindness, compassion, and others (McKenna and Feingold 221). According to Smith, the two types of virtues can be applied in the economic and personal spheres of individual’s life, but separately. For an individual to be virtuous, they must apply the two types of virtues in accordance with each other. This enables an individual to act moderately within both spheres of economic and personal concern. This is similar to what Walzer suggests in his complex equality theory, with emphasis on the non-intrusion of social goods from one particular sphere to another. The elimination of conversion of one social good from a particular sphere to another in another sphere is possible because there are two types of virtues that guide the personal and economic spheres. Smith also had a contribution on the concept of the free market, where the market price depends on the laws of supply and demand. According to his theory of the invisible hand, Smith suggests that ideal market as that which a person is guided by their self-regarding concerns, or the invisible hand. All individuals labor for their own gain rather than public interests, thereby promoting an end that was not part of their intentions. As a resulting of pursuing their own interest, these individuals promote the interests of the society, which is exactly according to the individual liberty principles of Mill. With the consideration of the above scholars and their principles, the national health care insurance plan will violate most the principles set by these philosophers. Imposing a national health insurance plan on all citizens of the US will be undermining their individual liberties. As Mill would put it, it is a violation of the freedom to choose based on safe-regarding acts. Additionally, there is a possible conversion of the insurance plan (social good) on the sphere of leadership to other interests on other spheres. Karl Marx principles in economics would probably embrace the idea of a nationalized health insurance policy because of his communist point of view. However, according to smith, all individuals should work on their interests (health care policy) to meet the national interest in the health care plan, without interfering with the natural balance between the personal and economic spheres. Reference McKenna, George and Feingold, Stanley. Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Political Issues, Expanded. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies Inc., 2011. Print. Read More