Egalitarianism In Obamacare

Q. 1. Answer Tocqueville illustrates the harsh fact of an aristocratic society that if a man has been born rich, he is credited to wealth and inherits to remain rich. This striving force led by a man continues till he dies. Furthermore, if a man is born a peasant, it becomes his destiny to die as a peasant, consequently inheriting the same virtue to his children (Tocqueville, p. 54). All in all, both of these classes intersect to pursue their private interests in their walk of life.

Rawls’ idea of justice as fairness, which he presented in his book, “A Theory of Justice,” emphasizes the importance of equal opportunities and equal distribution of wealth and resources in society. This idea resonates with me because, as someone who values fairness and equality, I believe that everyone should have the same chance to succeed and live a fulfilling life. Rawls’ work has taught me to be more aware of societal inequalities and to work towards creating a fairer and more just

We need to make a difference and get everyone equal so we can all live our best lives. Income Inequality in the United States How unequal is the economy in the United States? Inequality has always existed in the U.S. but the gap between the rich and poor has never been as big as it is now. The rich never got torn down even when there were financial crashes, but the poor suffered a lot. Women made 82 cents for every $1 a man made, and African Americans made 78 cents for every $1 white people made, how equal is that?

Health care should not be considered a political argument in America; it is a matter of basic human rights. Something that many people seem to forget is that the US is the only industrialized western nation that lacks a universal health care system. The National Health Care Disparities Report, as well as author and health care worker Nicholas Conley and Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), strongly suggest that the US needs a universal health care system. The most secure solution for many problems in America, such as wasted spending on a flawed non-universal health care system and 46.8 million Americans being uninsured, is to organize a national health care program in the US that covers all citizens for medical necessities.

Don’t Look Back Warren Farrell, an American author once said “Nobody really believes in equality anyway” and this rings true for several reasons. One such reason is, it is nearly impossible for equality, and happiness to coexist. For generations citizens of the United States have been striving to have total equality in their everyday lives. People want equal rights, equal pay, equal education opportunities. However, not many people want to do equal work, get equal consequences, or submit equally to government rules and regulations.

Health care inequality is a prevalent issue in Massachusetts and around the United States. Low-income families and individuals all over the country are barred from receiving adequate and necessary health care due to a lack of insurance or due to restrictive policies in their existing insurance. According to a report done by the Working Poor Families Project in 2013 titled Low-Income Working Families: The Growing Economic Gap, a low-income family is defined as one who earns less than twice the federal poverty line, while a poor family is defined as one who earns less than the federal poverty line. For a family of four with two children to be considered low-income in 2011, the threshold was $45,622, with the federal poverty line being $22,811. (Population Reference Bureau)

He explains we must put ourselves in the original position for equality and behind the “Veil of Ignorance”. This is done by not having knowledge about the different aspects of the issue like: race, gender, social class, and so on. It’s interesting when Mr. Sandel addresses at the beginning of the lecture that if we were behind the Veil of Ignorance Rawls believes we wouldn’t choose utilitarianism. This is because as we know Utilitarianism is good to the

Many Americans were led to believe that the introduction of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2009 would put an end to disparities in health care access. While it did improve the situation for a small percentage of the population there are still many Americans who lack access to good quality health care. Health care access in America is determined by money and those in lower socioeconomic groups frequently tend to miss out on adequate care. In a recent health care report by the national health research foundation Kaiser Family Foundation, it was noted “health care disparities remain a persistent problem in the United States, leading to certain groups being at higher risk of being uninsured, having limited access to care, and experiencing poorer quality of care” (Kaiser Family Foundation). The current health care

America prides itself on being one of the most effective democratically governed counties. The idea of the American dream is that all people have equivalent political freedoms and a responsive government. However the effectiveness of social equality is being threatened by increasing inequality in the United States. Economic inequality in the US has expanded drastically. The wealth gap has had drastic changes over the past 35 years.

Although, there are still some things we, as humans, are given naturally that we cannot just avoid or take away. These are our natural primary goods such as intelligence, health, or strength, and they sometimes do influence our social standing or success in life. This made Rawls’s argument instable, and in order to fix it he came up with the difference principle which states that such inequalities are acceptable, as long as they enhance the wellbeing of the least advantaged. The idea of being ambition-sensitive and endowment-insensitive are key to his overall position on distributive justice. For Rawls, distributive justice means a world

Distributive justice by definition deals with the distribution of benefits and burdens across members of a society. Over time, philosophers have argued how these benefits and burdens should be distributed as what results from them fundamentally affects people’s lives. John Rawls, an American moral and political philosopher argued as a liberal “Justice as Equality” by means of his three principles of justice: the principle of equal liberty, equal opportunity and difference. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from harm by others, but also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty (Minogue, Girvetz, Dagger & Ball, 2018). Rawls believed that everyone in society should have had equal political rights, although social and economic inequalities existed, but only under the condition that they were to the maximum advantage of the least advantaged people in society.

However, it is argued that there are many flaws to Rawls’ theory of justice, particularly in relation to the “original position” and the basic structure of society as the primary subject of justice. This will be argued in the first half of this essay. Another flaw of Rawls’ arises in relation to his two principles of justice, the second principle in relation to distributive justice and the individual’s right to self-ownership. This will be discussed in the latter half of this essay and reinforced by the works of Robert Nozick. A concise conclusion will then be made in relation to Rawls’ theory of justice and whether it truly revived the social contract

Looking at Rawl’s principles more in depth, he is discussing an egalitarian conception of justice. One that would allow a state in which two things that are unequal the conditions of equality of opportunity especially those born to lower class systems and into less favorable social

In chapter three we discovered that Rawlsian fairness requires that we give up our surplus to provide what others lack. This impartial perspective can only be achieved, however, under what Rawls terms a ‘veil of ignorance’ experienced by an autonomous legislator or an impartial spectator, respectively. Actually, Rawls argues at great length why we should accept the difference principle, namely because no one knows behind the veil of ignorance if he might end up as the least well-off, giving him a reason to adopt a risk-avoiding strategy, i.e. implementing the difference principle. It is prima facie unfair, according to Rawls, to allow the least-well-off to starve to death simply because of their own bad luck, which merely appears to point to ‘formal impartiality’ as ‘formally concerning for all’. In contrary, a just or non-formal impartiality might allow special consideration for persons who have traditionally been marginalized or subject to discrimination.

They are two principal that can be used for regulating society. Rawls’s first principle guarantees moral equality between people, which is a grounding condition for a just society. Each person should, therefore, have an equal right to the most comprehensive set of basic freedoms that are compatible with a reciprocal system of freedom for all. The second principle states that social economic inequalities will only be justified if they benefit the worst off in society and if they are attached to positions and offices open to all. John Rawls first of all argues that society is inherently unfair as it is.