The Great Healthcare Debate: Liberalism versus Conservatism

The Great Healthc ar Debate Liberalism versus ConservatismAlex FisherA large issue in todays society is healthc atomic number 18. The clashing ideas about what should be done within the terra firma of healthc ar is much(prenominal) a big deal now more(prenominal) than ever since we moderate a recently elected president. Much same(p) other issues, in that respect atomic number 18 clashing ideas from different semipolitical parties this case will highlight those of liberals and nonprogressives. It is important to note that liberals and hidebounds tend to clash on all(prenominal) aspects of health care such as marrow of government intervention, access or entitlement to healthcare, and nationally mandated insurance. Furthermore, it must(prenominal) be relegated that each partys stance on these aspects demonstrates a key idea or pillar of their party.The first principal(prenominal) aspect of the healthcare debate between the two parties is the amount or level of gov ernment involvement. The right side argues for minimal government involvement so that healthcare, just like the overall parsimoniousness, runs like a rationalise market place. This viewt of the conservative healthcare strain house be traced patronize to the concept that the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions (Kirk, 4). Kirk further explains this point of view by stating that The conservative endeavors to so limit and balance political power that anarchy or tyranny may not scratch (4). Additionally, this point of view butt joint also be traced grit to the conservative concept that there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality attempts at levelling must lead, at best, to social stagnation (3). Essentially, Kirk is explaining that conservatives reckon that unless there is a natural hierarchy with competition, a society will stagnate or lose the ability to progres s. After piecing together these pillars of conservative view, it is not surprising that the current conservative argument is for healthcare to be run like any other business in our economy with free market ideals.With this being said, there is a liberal side to the argument of government involvement in healthcare. Their point of view is the complete opposite of the conservatives in that they believe that everyone in the healthcare field should be equal, therefore getting rid of the competition that fuels the free market. The liberal background that influences this point of view is a bit more complex than that of conservatives. One concept in liberalism is that there is a natural separate in which man falls into. This accede of nature involves a natural hierarchy of physical and psychical intensity level however, it must be put forwardd that this hierarchy will lead to competition For as to the strength of proboscis, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, withe r by secret machination or by federation with others that are in the same danger with himself (Hobbes, 1). At first, this concept seems to parallel with the competition and free market ideals of conservatism.However, there is a caveat to this liberal view. Liberals recognize this state of nature, and then argue that mankind should part with this state for the good of society. Hobbes explains that during the time men alive without a commonplace power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war (2). This statement explains the idea that the duration in which mankind is living(a) without a giving medication power, they are in constant war with each other catch up withable to the high levels of competition in the state of nature. FurthermoreIn such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain and consequently no shade of the earth no experience of the face of the earth no account of time no arts no letters no soci ety and continual fear, and danger of violent death (Hobbes, 2)Essentially, this concept in liberalism is that mankind must chuck up the sponge the vicious competition and violence found in the natural state in order for society, industry, and culture to even exist. These aspects cannot be established if man is more concerned with preserving his own life, and ending that of others to get ahead. For this reason out, the liberals are arguing for more equality and less of a business or free market sit in the healthcare field.The second main point of contention in the healthcare debate is the capitulum of who should and should not be entitled to healthcare. It is important to note that both liberals and conservatives agree that everyone should get healthcare. The difference in views is found when it comes the financial aspect of healthcare entitlement. Conservatives believe that if you pay back money to pay for healthcare, you should be compensable for it. They do not believe in g overnment assistance for healthcare if you can pay for it yourself. Essentially, it goes back to the old adage that there is no such thing as a free tiffin except in this case its healthcare instead of lunch. This concept can be explained through the conservative concept that conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence (Kirk, 3). What this means that Any public stones throw ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity (3). Conservatives do not want to just start handing out healthcare for free or at discounted prices because it would have a hefty impact on the economy in the long-run. In the present time, the frequent population would love to have free or even cheap healthcare, but the United States economy is not in the position to be able to do that. This is what the conservatives are thinking about when refusing to take a leak handouts.Conversely, the liberal view is that even if you could pay for health care, you should not go broke for it. This concept can be traced back to the liberalistic idea that the whole purpose of government is the preservation of property (Locke, 3). Furthermore, this connects to their idea of abandoning the state of nature because The great purpose for which men enter into society is to be safe and at stay in their use of their property (Locke, 3). Forcing people to pay for healthcare until they reach bankruptcy violates these ideas. By make people give up all their money for such a basic right like healthcare, the government is no longer preserving the property (or money) of the people in the society.To take this concept even further, there are things that liberals believe a governing body cannot do. Among this list is it doesnt and cant possibly have dead arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people (Locke, 4). It should also be noted that Locke stated that legislature can never have a right to destroy, enslave, or deliberately impoveris h the subjects (5). Making people pay for healthcare until they no longer can, instead of giving government assistance completely goes against these liberal ideals. It is for this reason that liberals prefer to provide assistance for healthcare even if the person has the ability to pay for it.The third cogitate of the healthcare debate is the concept of federally mandated insurance. This refers to whether decisions about laws involving healthcare and health insurance should be left(p) to the federal government or if it should be an issue that is decided on a state by state basis. According to an article by Michael Bihari, MDMandated health insurance laws passed at either the federal or state level usually fall into one of three categories Health care go or treatments that must be covered, such as substance abuse treatment. Healthcare providers other than physicians, such as acupuncturists. Dependents and other related individuals, such as adopted childrenEssentially, what Dr. Bih ari is saying is that the most common mandated healthcare laws involve the coverage of necessary treatments, specialists, and dependents. After getting a good idea of what these mandated healthcare laws typically are, it should be aware that the most common debate on this aspect is who gets to decide if the law gets passed or not. Should each state get to choose if they want to pass and recognize the laws set forth or should the federal government pass healthcare laws for the entire nation? A subset of this question is should people face financial penalties if they fail to comply with these mandates?The conservative view on this matter is that these decisions should be made on the state level, not federal. Furthermore, the conservative party argues against any form of monetary penalties if people fail to attach to these healthcare laws. For example, under the Affordable Care Act, there is fine for people that do not have health insurance. The conservative view is against this conce pt of health insurance mandate compliance. This side of the argument can be traced back to the conservative pillar that conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose forced collectivism (Kirk, 4). Additionally, conservatives believe thatthe decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily. Some of these functions are carried out by local political bodies, others by private associations so long as they are kept local, and are marked by the general agreement of those affected, they constitute healthy community. (Kirk, 4)In laymans terms, conservatives believe that decisions that greatly impact citizens, such as healthcare, should be decided by a governing body close to the population. This big of a decision cannot and should not be made by the federal governing body since each state has a different set of circumstances. There is no way that the federal government is completely aware of the needs of the people of each state. Fur thermore, conservatives are against forced collectivism. Leaving healthcare mandates to the federal level means that these decisions are being made for the entire nation. It is forced collectivism by means of the nation instead of the individuality of each state. Moreover, giving that kind of collective power to the federal government gives way to a standardizing process hostile to freedom and human dignity (Kirk, 4). Each state should have the freedom and ability to decide what is best to uphold or bolster the standard of living created in each. Furthermore, each person should be given the freedom to make their own choices about a personal matter such as healthcare. Penalizing people for not complying with healthcare mandates takes away this freedom of decision.On the contrary, liberals argue for healthcare mandates on the federal level. They also support the idea of monetary penalties for noncompliance. This aligns with the current themes seen in the Affordable Care Act, also know n as Obamacare. The Affordable Care Act is a federally mandated healthcare act that penalizes people that do not have insurance. This view can be explained by the classical liberal idea thatThe only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort as that by their own industry and by the fruits of the earth they may nourish themselves and live contentedly, is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, thay may humble all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will. (Hobbes, 3)What Hobbes is saying is that in order to organize the chaos of the state of nature, the people must decide on a person or group of people to meet all their voices and decisions in one. Additionally, Hobbes further explains the scope of this assembly of menevery one to own and agnize himself to be author of whatsoever he that so beareth their p erson shall act in those things which concern the common peace and safety and therein submit their wills and their judgements to his judgement. (3)This further explanation translates into the concept that liberals believe that government should have a large amount of power and intervention. This is the reason why the liberals are arguing for federally mandated healthcare laws. Another level of that increased government power and intervention is the aspect of financial penalty for noncompliance. These fines are ensuring that everyone is following their mandates.In conclusion, the debate on healthcare has been going on for several years and has shown no signs of stopping anytime soon. The liberal and conservative parties have clashing views on aspects of this debate such as the amount of government involvement, access or entitlement to healthcare, and if healthcare should be federally mandated. The views or arguments of these parties can be explained and traced back to key ideas or pi llars of their party. Conservatives favor less government intervention, prudent reform, and local governing bodies whereas liberals favor more government intervention, equality or less competition, and that a government should not deliberately impoverish their community.https//www.verywell.com/mandated-health-insurance-benefits-1738931