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
of those who are better off. Through the philosophies of Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, and Thomas Hobbes, this essay will examine the ethics of health care as a right versus as a privilege.
Access to health care has risen to the top of the social justice agenda – is it a government’s responsibility or a benefit of wealthier means? Those in favor of universal access speak of the contributions made by health to the opportunities people may have – equal health assures equal opportunity. As a moral imperative, health care ought to be viewed as a right: something that when people go without, inhibits their individual ability and thus their liberty. Over 50 million people in the United States have restricted access to health care – either due to unemployment, social status, or insurance status. Understanding the ethics of such access is important in proving the need for government intervention in our society.
Aristotle is an empiricist, like Plato he likes and understands the concepts of ethical virtues, but also rejects the idea that one can apply ethical rules absolutely.
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
state of living that ought to benefit those who require medical help the most. If, according to Aristotle, every person requires some minimum level of health in order to properly function as an active member of society, then this system of morality surrounding universal health care can be extended through Kant’s categorical imperative.
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
inequality. This preservation of human worth is what forms the basis of the argument for universal health care as a right. Across religions, societies, and cultures, this principle can be seen as a sacred part of what defines our “humanity.” Simple reasoning would dictate that the basic ethics of health care benefit society in all components of development including socially and economically. In this way, Hobbes advocates for the ethical system that increases the likelihood of positive results as opposed to negative ones – his social contract theory. While Hobbes would think less on the moral grounds of health care than both Aristotle and Kant, he would agree on the basis of social, political, and economic reasons – understanding that to follow such an ethical system would require more than the simple reliance upon man, but the backing of a powerful government such as the one present in the United States today. In line with the laws of nature set out in Hobbes’s Leviathan, establishing a system that maintains equal opportunity enables a level playing field for a positive lifestyle and the ability to meet one’s appetite and desires. In this particular case while the ethical reasoning may differ, the ultimate decision for universal health care is still supported. Only this time, Hobbes sees it necessary more so as a governmental mode of efficiency and productivity, rather than a human right inherent in each and every person in society. The availability of health care depends entirely upon the circumstances of the country. It is the conflict between a person’s id and superego that ultimately determines the ego of the nation. The unavoidable battle between satisfying one’s own higher needs and the basic physiological needs of others. In seeing universal health care not as a privilege, but as a right, requires an understanding of the purpose of health care for both individuals and society at large. Health care, as both a commodity and a common good, is at the center of a resource struggle. On one side the challenge is economic and political; on the other side it is a moral challenge and contends with the basic concept of health itself. The issue thus becomes one of interpretation – how do we define health as a right when taking into account the very effects such a right has on a portion of the population. Can individuals hold the government accountable for their irresponsible actions? Can the government dictate the hours and wages of medical employees and force them to work for the people? Where can one draw the line in terms of the division of labor and equality of health when the incentive for providing health care comes entirely from the free market? Put simply, government must take a role in health care. A role that does not inhibit individual liberty, promote socialism, or “steal” profits from health care providers. Rather, the government must focus on the underlying reason for developing a health care system that incorporates the public and private sectors to provide the ability for citizens to receive medical care and for others to benefit from providing such services. The idea of health care thrives on the moral obligation to act altruistically, but for universal health care to work, it is the government’s duty to create a selfish incentive.