A Discussion on Universal Health Care

In his article, “Health Care is not a Right”, Leonard Peikoff protests, “Nobody has the right to the services of any professional individual or group simply because he wants them and desperately needs them.” Peikoff explores the immorality of providing health care for underserved people—as opposed to letting them support themselves by purchasing their own health care—as an infringement on their American rights. Taking the contrary stance, “Universal Health Care: A Moral Obligation?” author Ronald Pies decides, “The government must play a key role in ensuring that basic health care is both accessible and affordable to all.” In reality, Pies’ fixation on the moral imperative of providing universal healthcare is much like the logic behind Obamacare; at the same time, the conflict between the rights of illegal immigrants and their newfound access to health care in the United States is an extrapolation of Peikoff’s line of reasoning.

Offering affordable health care to more Americans than ever before, Obamacare is rooted in the belief that all Americans have a right to health care. President Obama promotes the Affordable Care Act, exhorting, “Let’s help our fellow Americans get covered. Let’s give every American a fighting chance in today’s economy” (whitehouse.gov). It seems in accord with traditional American principles of equality and justice that health care, as a vehicle for preserving a high quality of life, belongs to all American citizens. When equality among individuals exists, so too should equality of rights exist. To prevent the exclusion of people from seemingly basic rights based on their socioeconomic status, Obamacare offers health care indiscriminately; that is, the Affordable Care Act makes health care available to all United States citizens. Many people argue that, in the name of unity and equality, we must care for our fellow man and provide for him what he cannot provide for himself. Accordingly, the government seems to take on an overarching responsibility for citizens' welfare, even enacting laws that add health care to the list of basic human rights. Conclusively, moral responsibilities convince many people to support the integration of universal health care.

On the other hand, beliefs like Peikoff's readily challenge such cases as the expansion of health care availability to illegal aliens residing in the United States. He makes the case that health care is a privilege rather than a right, on the grounds that people have rights to action, not services. In other words, while Americans have the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, they do not have the rights to rewards. Thus, by virtue of preserving the American concept of “rights”, universal health care must not exist. Moreover, Peikoff argues that legal American citizens are not entitled to free health care. Surely, then, illegal immigrants are not entitled to it either. For these reasons, Peikoff’s logic is very much at odds with the idea of offering health care to all.

Universal health care has its supporters and critics. Some, like Ronald Pies, argue that the government is morally obligated to offer universal health care; this belief is consistent with the implementation of Obamacare. Others, like Leonard Peikoff, believe health care is a privilege, not a right, and everyone is responsible for providing it for themselves. Ultimately, people are divided as to whether or not providing health care for all is moral.