In the preamble of our constitution our founding fathers promised to, among other things, promote the general welfare of our citizens. Currently we face disparity over what form of health care will best achieve this goal. I stand in the firmest affirmation of the resolve which states that “The United States ought to guarantee universal health care to its citizens.” For clarity throughout the debate I would like to state the following definitions from Merriam Webster Dictionary. Ought means to express obligation, natural expectation, or logical consequence. Guarantee as the assurance of the fulfillment of a condition. And Universal Health care as defined by the World Health organization as a system of organized health-care built around the principle of universal coverage for all members of society, combining mechanisms for health and service provision. The Value I will be upholding though my contentions is Maximizing societal welfare, and the value criterion through which my value is achieved is protecting life. For it is impossible for our country to advance without first promoting the welfare of our citizens.
My first contention states that the American government is morally bound to defend the welfare of our citizens. There are various documents, which contribute to the foundation of our country, that support the notion of universal health care. It is certainly not explicitly stated but still falls under the social contract which our citizens and government share. This social contract requires that the government, according to John Locke, preserves the rights to life, liberty, and property. And much like their juxtaposition their order and rank are related. For without life, liberty and property are rendered useless. Not only do the philosophies of John Locke support the value of life, but our very own constitution does as well. Before establishing our constitution our forefathers found it imperative that they state the obligation of the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document