The Fundamental Issue of The State and The Individual - Essay Example

The and the Individual (14.03.12) In the continuing debate over the rights of majorities and minorities and the power of the and power of the individual, there are several issues at stake. This paper examines the right of the individual and the power of the state as it relates to health care policy and then discusses the views of Machiavelli and Locke on how the two philosophers perceived the power of the majority, minority, the state, and the individual and how such concepts are applicable to the issue of healthcare. The fundamental issue relative to healthcare policy is whether healthcare is a legal or constitutional right. In this context it is important to examine legal and constitutional rights regarding health care as also the power of the government to enact and finance healthcare programs. The recent passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act created legal issues about whether the Federal government has the power to make it mandatory for individuals to buy healthcare insurance and whether states can opt out or nullify such provisions. The Constitution of the USA does not provide citizens with an explicit right to healthcare. The Supreme Court has held that as per the Constitution, individuals can seek healthcare services at their own cost from the available service providers. (Swendiman, 2010, p.2). It has also held that there is no provision that guarantees government health care for those that cannot afford it. At the same time, many states in the US have constitutional state provisions relative to providing healthcare services to citizens. As compared to the Federal government, the constitutions of states have more expansive provisions relative to health care because federal rights require states to comply with minimum standards (Bayer, 2007, p.1). The issue that arises in this regard is the extent to which states can legally restrain the freedom of individuals in serving the common good of the entire population. In addition, the question arises about the extent to which public welfare can be protected in justifying government actions relative to curtailing or eroding fundamental rights. Such issues form the basis of controversy and long drawn debates relative to public health in the US. The Supreme Court has described inter-state commerce as being amongst economic activities that impact the country’s economy. Given that the health care sector impacts the country’s economy, it becomes implied from this argument that the federal government has the right to control health care through legislation. Although the US Supreme Court and Constitution do not acknowledge the constitutional right to healthcare for people unable to afford it, a number of statutes have been enacted by the Federal government, such as the Children’s Health Program, Medicaid and Medicare, which describe and establish the precise rights of individuals relative to receiving healthcare services from the state. A major element of several healthcare entitlements from the government is the funding for healthcare facilities that are provided under the law. Majority of these provisions were enacted following recognition of the Federal government’s authority to enact laws that are necessary for carrying out its authorization for providing towards the general welfare of individuals. This authority to spend on healthcare is considered to be a broad grant of authority vested to the Federal government by the country’s Constitution. The Supreme Court gives significant regard to the legislative decisions taken by the Congress for making provisions for healthcare budgets in keeping with the objectives of public welfare (Garrett, 2000, p.216). However, there are a number of tensions about the scope of public health and the extent to which it can be accepted, especially in terms of the original issues relative to fighting infectious diseases during the 19th and early 20th centuries. The issue attained more significance at the end of the 20th century because of efforts to resolve the chronic patterns that had started impacting mortality and morbidity in developed nations. This is a typical example of the tension that prevails amongst individual rights and public health, because courts in the US have ruled in upholding the government’s right to use police powers to tackle epidemic diseases. There have been instances when excessive force has been used in imposing quarantines on individuals that are considered as being threats to public health. Harsh measures have been taken against disfavored minority groups during outbreak of diseases amongst them. Courts in the US are known to have favored public health authorities on issues relating to the divesting of individual freedom in the name of public health (Garrett, 2000, p.112). The debates of the 1980s on AIDS/HIV clearly demonstrated the immense influence that is exerted in the historical and political perspective in enforcing public health policies. A major controversy was created in regard to initiatives of preserving individual rights in determining that it should be mandatory for individuals to undergo testing for HIV infection. It was only a decade later that considerable support was provided by the medical fraternity in relaxing the prevailing standards. Given the large number of threats to individual rights relative to healthcare, it is evident that the tension relates primarily to the good of the individual and the entire society. It is in this context that the issue arises about the extent to which the state should go. Under such circumstances the only option is to recognize that a difficult trade off has to be arrived at while making policy decisions. While philosophers have not directly addressed the issue of the rights of majorities and minorities and the power of the individual and the power of the state relative to healthcare, the contrasting perceptions of Machiavelli and Locke provide two distinct viewpoints on the ways in which healthcare can be viewed in terms of the issues that are being discussed. Machiavelli is often perceived as an example of a thinker who focused on the significance of pointlessness in hypothesizing with thoughts. Machiavelli liberated politics from moral philosophy and religion and assumed the task of describing what kings went about doing, which made him to anticipate what eventually was recognized as the scientific character that ignored issues relative to what was good or bad. Rather, he focused more on observing what was actually happening. In having studied the past in great deal, Machiavelli believed that in order to understand the later development of societies it was essential to know of the pattern of their historical developments. It is in this context that the present status of health care in the US can be meaningfully understood in terms of the policies that were in place in the past and how they were gradually changed in meeting the needs of modern societies. The present healthcare set up is seen as a gradual evolution whereby the Federal government recognized the need of people to be provided basic health care along with support in getting the maximum benefits through payment of the mandatory amounts, such as on Medicaid and Medicare. Machiavelli had observed the ways in which people dealt with rulers and how rulers should administer the state and what kind of life styles they should lead. For instance, he did not hold that rulers should live a virtuous life in order to be happy. In fact, he considered misery as a vice that facilitated the ruler to rule effectively because it is better to be admired as well as to be feared. However, given that any individual will not have both traits, a better option for the ruler is to be feared than be admired. It is thus implied that Machiavelli believed that rulers should make use of unpleasant practices in order to continue their hold on power. In keeping with this philosophy, it appears that the federal and state governments in the US should adopt healthcare policies whereby the state’s interest becomes predominant in meeting its political objectives (Arnhart, 2003, p.97). However, this kind of arrangement is entirely impractical in a democratic society where welfare of citizens is of prime importance. The state is obliged to take care of individual’s healthcare needs and the very basis of its existence rests on the efficiency with which it meets the objectives as laid down in the constitution. The fact that the Supreme Court holds that the Constitution does not provide for the state to meet the healthcare costs of citizens, does give inkling of Machiavelli’s principles being somewhat relevant, even in a democracy. But it is also true that most states in the US have to abide by their respective Constitutional provisions in providing healthcare services to citizens. However, it is widely believed that Machiavelli did teach things that were not ethical in a democratic society because he implied that rulers should not adopt values relative to righteousness, compassion, restraint, understanding and the love of people. Instead, he preferred that rulers should favor using brutality, aggression, fright and trickery. Surely, all these concepts cannot possibly work in modern democratic societies. Going by Machiavelli’s principles, no state in the US can survive and will be removed from power by the democratic forces. Machiavelli is better understood as a political scientist in recognizing the differences amongst the truth of politics and the values pertaining to moral judgments (Arnhart, 2003, p.131-132). In contrast, Locke is a philosopher who has had considerable impact on political thought in America. His theory of revolutions is aptly articulated in the Declaration of Independence in reflecting his inspiration on thinkers of the period. The words in the Declaration such as liberty, life, inalienable rights, all men are created equal, self evident and the pursuit of happiness, clearly reveal a sense of feeling that espouses the cause of human freedom and life. It is evident from the given principles that the rights of US citizens relative to healthcare cannot be violated in any sense if Locke’s concepts are followed in the true spirit. The very essence of liberty and life imply that citizens ought to be given the right to live through provision of proper healthcare facilities without any exploitation or discrimination on the basis of class or status. Through this argument, every individual has the right to get help from the state in meeting his or health needs. If this is not complied with, the essential provision of the American spirit of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is violated. Through this perspective, Locke gave the individual power and the right to be provided healthcare (Abramson, 2009, pp.197-203). A democratic set up does provide equality in terms of opportunities that inevitably lead to the creation of Marx’s situation of survival of the fittest, but the state is bound to comply with the basic social necessities that are to be provided for tax revenues collected from those who own and create capital. Locke’s philosophy of natural rights represents the right of individuals to get appropriate healthcare facilities. His idea that governments get their power from the approval of those that are governed further strengthens the concept that the state is bound to use its powers in taking initiatives and establishing facilities whereby the citizen is not deprived of the right to live because of lack of healthcare facilities. There is a striking similarity between the pursuit of happiness and Locke’s concept of estate. It is important to note that American citizens are assured not of happiness but of the right to pursue happiness. Such pursuits will certainly lead to unhappiness if individuals are not provided with proper healthcare or are exploited in being made to abide by legislation relative to health practices that violate the right of freedom and to take decision about one’s health issues (Cohen and Fermon, 1996, pp.107-111). It is thus evident that the traditions relative to liberalism as espoused by Locke are very much relevant in American politics and thoughts. It is known in this context that almost the entire history the country has been dominated with systems of liberal thought that considerably resemble Locke’s ideas. Liberal Lockean traditions have been always fundamental to American politics and thought in providing citizens the essential rights and powers that are considered necessary for the survival of a free and democratic society. In fact, the American democratic system will face severe problems if it does not follow the principles of majority rule that protects the inviolable rights of minorities. Despite difficulties being created when minority rights clash with those of the majority; the fact remains that Locke has strongly influenced the American political system in granting all citizens with the power to fight for their rights that are provided in a democratic society. Bibliography Abramson, Jeffrey. Minerva’s Owl – The Tradition of Western Political Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.  Arnhart, Larry. Political Questions – Political Philosophy from Plato to Rawls. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 2003.  Bayer, Ronald, The continuing tensions between individual rights and public health. http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v8/n12/full/7401134.html, 2007. Accessed on 14 March, 2012. Cohen, M., and Nicole Fermon. Princeton Readings in Political Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996.  Garrett, L. Betrayal of Trust: The Collapse of Global Public Health. New York, NY, USA: Hyperion, 2000. Swendiman, Kathleen S. Health Care: Constitutional Rights and Legislative Powers, Congressional Research Service. 2010. Read More