How Aristotle's One-Size-Fits-All Model Of Health Care

It is through morality that human beings have developed social entities revolving around employment, education, health, and innovation. Collectively sacrificing for the common good, we recognize the benefits of society. Inclusion promotes cumulative knowledge, knowledge promotes technological progress, and this progress promotes economic growth. As societies reevaluate the roles of government, private business, and individuals, social wealthfare – in particular the distribution of health care – has become a major topic of contemporary debate. The health of a nation’s population directly affects productivity, and dealing with the disparity presented in the United States especially, requires a review of historical Western philosophy and the responsibilities
Every ethical virtue is a condition of the mean between two things – surplus and deficit. Aristotle would argue for universal access to individually defined care, meaning universal access to different levels of health care to meet certain needs. Where Plato models the one-size-fits-all model of health care access, Aristotle understands the conditional value that differs from person to person. Finding balance would not mean taking advantage of the health care system without first making some contribution. In this stream of thought, Aristotle believes the idea that the consequences of an action need to be considered when looking at medicine – everyone has a need for some minimum level of health care, and when one’s need for aid are larger than others’, this greater need must be reciprocated through alternate methods within society so as to bring about an equilibrium. The theory of the mean applied to universal health care is simple: our rights extend only so far as we absolutely require them in order to maintain a functional level of health. Any aid that exceeds this threshold can be seen as a privilege, and not the government’s responsibility to deliver to its people. Health care should aim to balance the condition of the body. Our pleasure should come from our restoration of health after feeling ill, a natural
While the two differ on the existence of absolute, objective goods, both recognize the absolute worth of humans. If we are to acknowledge Kant’s philosophy of ethics and his two rules – to act as if your behavior should become the general rule and never treat a human being as a means to an end – we can establish a moral system surrounding the absolute treatment of all humans. That every human needs basic health care and should be treated as others would like to be treated in return. The force of morality is strong enough to justify the equal treatment of patients in the United States. To treat a human being morally, and not as a means to an end, establishes the ethical right to health care and reciprocity that societies should define as their main course of action. If people should not be treated as things, universal health care is required to the bridge the gap of