Just like Engelhardt, Robert Nozick enters the picture to provide his views on the issue of Health Care. Like Engelhardt, Nozick is a Libertarian and the basic core of his argument is that if everyone follows the rules of just acquisition and exchange, then the resulting distribution is just. Thus he asks, “What right do we have to redistribute a person's justly acquired wealth or possessions?” In a free society, people have the freedom to share their goods at their will with anyone and whomever they like, and any “distributor” who tries to take goods from a person to give to another in order to have equal distribution is essentially not leading a free society. What you have earned fairly and justly, no matter how unequal the distribution is, are yours and no one has the right to take that away from you.
Thus from a moderate principalism perspective, Nozick is arguing for the individuals' autonomy, that they can choose not to contribute to a Health Care system and no one has the right to make them to participate or contribute. Robert Nozick is keen to use an example to show his argument in realistic terms, with his Wilt Chamberlain scenario. Let's say that Wilt starts from a position of your favorite just distribution. But as he plays, people pay him money to see him use his talents. So after a while, he becomes filthy rich. So then, what right do we have to redistribute his money? Did he earn his money justly? Yes, he did indeed earn his money following all the rules. So how can we distribute his money?
However, John Rawls replies to Nozick by saying that natural and social “lotteries” determined a person's place in society, but from the original position with a veil of ignorance, anyone would want the lucky to help the unlucky. So if you were to pick principals with a veil of ignorance from the original position, then anyone would choose that they want the rich to help the poor, because in the veil of ignorance, you do not know what your status or class will be in society. Simple case of human's self-interest to be well off will drive humans to make that choice. From the original position, you would not know your social standings or your natural skills (social and natural lotteries), so you would want a fair system for everyone to be well off. You would want, from the original position, that the lucky help the unlucky.
So Rawls says that even Wilt Chamberlain would choose this idea, from the original position. In the difference principle, Rawls argues that just like society believes in the right to education, right to health care should be addressed. Fair equality of opportunity for all individuals to pursue all they can be, whatever it may be… education, position or offices, it does not matter what. However, as stated by the President's Commission, Health Care is a social product and it is of special importance since it broadens our opportunities. Meaning, if you are sick or is not receiving adequate health care, then how can you pursue what you want to be or even have a fair equality of opportunity in society? Thus, just as or even more important than right to education or right to opportunity is the right to adequate Health Care.
However, the President's Commissions goes just short of saying we need a reform in the Health Care, they stated that it is a required commodity and it has a huge impact in our lives, yet due to the administration in the White House, they did not express the full view. But if we are to follow up the Commission's views with what Moderate Principalism tells us, it is can be derived that we do indeed an obligation to provide everyone with an adequate level of care, to facilitate a reasonably full and satisfying life without the imposition of excessive burdens. Not only is Health Care an issue of morals and ethics but it goes much deeper from philosophical to theological realms. In theological terms, many religions urge its followers to be good to others and provide for the needy, and right now the needy are the majority of Americans with little to no adequate Health Care.
Even the simple principles of Utilitarianism urges us to take a action that will promote the net happiness with the people, and with over 75% of Americans urging for a Universal Health Care system, I am sure that the net happiness is on the side of improving our Health Care system. To sum it all up, if we consider all the “pros” and the “cons”, we see a distinct answering emerging. The direction our current Health Care System is heading is showing numerous warning signs that our system needs some serious overhaul (stats and figures). And from what we can gather from the President's Commission, Moderate Principalism, Daniel's Rawlsian approach as well as from the arguments against Nozick's and Englehardt's objections, we can rationally deduce that it is within our moral responsibility to provide our citizens with the adequate Health Care they need and deserve, without imposing excessive burdens to facilitate a full and satisfying life. As our constitution's preamble says - “in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare” - we need to fix and improve or introduce a new Health Care system for our nation.
