THIS IS MY SPEECH FOR THE AFF CASE IN THE FOLLOWING TOPIC. WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK?
disclaimer: all underlined words are cited pieces of work from other authors, otherwise everything else is by me.

Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee universal health care to its citizens.

Chris Li, November/December

Because the governments role in society is to ensure that it's citizens are provided with equality, I affirm.

Ought is a word used to express moral obligation.

Guarantee is defined as a promise, so U.S. citizens will receive healthcare from the U.S. government.

I value morality, as implied with the term ought which expresses moral obligation.

First, governments are morally obligated to act fairly. Rawls writes,

That the principles of justice may be regarded as arising in the manner described illustrates an important fact about them. Not only does it bring out the idea that justice is a primitive moral notion[.] in that it arises once the concept of morality is imposed on mutually self-interested agents similarly circumstanced, but it emphasizes that, fundamental to justice, is the concept of fairness which relates to right dealing between persons who are cooperating with or competing against one another, as when one speaks of fair games, fair competition, and fair bargains. The question of fairness arises when free persons, who have no authority over one another, are engaging in a joint activity and amongst themselves settling or acknowledging the rules which define it and which determine the respective shares in its benefits and burdens. A practice will strike the parties as [is] fair if none feels that, by participating in it, they or any of the others are taken advantage of, or forced to give in to claims which they do not regard as legitimate. This implies that each has a conception of legitimate claims which he thinks it reasonable for others as well as himself to acknowledge. If one thinks of the principles of justice as arising in the manner described, then they do define this sort of conception. A practice is just or fair, then, when it satisfies the principles which those who participate in it could propose to one another for mutual acceptance under the aforementioned circumstances. Persons engaged in a just, or fair, practice can face one another openly and support their respective positions, should they appear questionable, by reference to principles which it is reasonable to expect each to accept.[1]

This implies that a moral agent, the government, must implement fair policies that would maximize equality.

Second, the veil of ignorance can be used to best achieve equality and fairness. Gert writes,

The third method of achieving moral impartiality is best exemplified by attempting to formulate in words what is symbolized by the blindfold on the statue of Justice. Rawls's [the]"veil of ignorance" is the best-known philosophical method of this kind. On Rawl's method, [requires that] all characteristics of a person that would distinguish[ing] her from anyone else are removed. She does not know whether she is a man or a woman or any other fact about herself that would differentiat[ing] her from anyone else. She also has no personality or character traits that are not universal. On this view moral impartiality is achieved only by the total elimination [omission] of individuality. It is a consequence of this view that all persons who are morally impartial must agree, for any features that could lead to disagreement have been [to be] eliminated.

This respects human rights and human worth because there is no hierarchy for special treatment, which maximizes equality. Since governments are obligated to act fairly, by the law of syllogism they must use the veil of ignorance. Because of this, the veil of ignorance is the only moral system in which we can look to.

Thus, the value criterion maximizing equality.
Prefer the standard for an additional 2 reasons:
1. Without equality people are of different statuses which allows for arbitrary rights violations to occur more often.
2. The veil of ignorance would prescribe that in order to maximize fairness, decisions would stem from whatever allows citizens to be equal.

Contention 1: Everyone has a right to healthcare. Zaremski writes,

In a 1948 document, the parent body of UNESCO -- the United Nations -- enshrined a right to health care in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, when it proclaimed that, "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one's family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care." The largest American health care organization, the American Medical Association, scribed a document on "Patient's Bill of Rights" that includes a statement that patients [persons] have a "right to essential health care."

Without offering universal healthcare and making citizens have no access to healthcare would be violating their rights since health is needed for the use of other rights. So, when some people don't have health care, they are at a disadvantage compared to the others that do and when health care is accessible to every citizen, it ensures that all people are equal. Since universal healthcare maximizes equality, the government has an obligation to provide it.

<Contention 2, the government is obligated to provide rights. The U.S. government has the right to determine and enforce health policies across the country and it has the right to monetarily regulate the healthcare industry according to international laws which state that everyone needs some form of health standard. Therefore, the government is obligated to provide health care for its citizens. Alicia E. Yamin states:

Building on work in social epidemiology, a rights paradigm explicitly links health with laws, policies, and practices that sustain a functional democracy and focuses on accountability. In the United States, framing a well-documented problem such as health disparities as a "rights violation" attaches shame and blame to governmental neglect. Further, international law offers standards for evaluating governmental conduct as well as mechanisms for establishing some degree of accountability.

United States government does not provide healthcare for all of its citizens, rights violations occur. The united states must come up with a way to provide citizens with health care, in order to abide to international laws. This links back to the standard since this method links rights to healthcare, where everyone has some sort of minimal level of a right. When everyone has a right, everyone is equal and just, since no one is hierarchic to another.

Contention 3: Universal Health Care allows for affordable costs to all.

Unlike Private healthcare, this system allows for all citizens to have the advantages of free health care, as it is more affordable and is evenly and fairly distributed towards the people. People are all eligible to health care in this system, and this is providing that all persons are equal, thus maximizing equality.

Also, private health care makes health care much more expensive, and leads to some people not being able to afford it. Joseph states:

As seen in Part IV, those who will suffer without coverage will most likely be the poorer members of minority groups in certain areas of the country who struggle without assistance from the state. The rapid growth in health care costs has had a disproportionate effect on these vulnerable populations because of their generally lower incomes and greater need for health care services throughout their lives (especially women). Along with the skyrocketing premiums, out-of-pocket costs such as copays, coinsurance, and deductibles add to the financial burdens.

This can cause many problems in society, where when people are not able to afford it, then the people are left to becoming prone to illness and diseases. this is an inequality amongst the people, as some part of the population can afford healthcare,and receive the proper treatment while the other part doesn't. If the government were to enact universal health care to its citizens, then everybody will be able to have access to healthcare. This method is a morally better method, as this method achieves its moral standing of giving proper health to everyone, while private health care only gives health care to a selective number of people according to wealth.

Thus, i affirm

References:

-Gert, B. (2005). Morality: Its Nature and Justification. Oxford, USA: Oxford University Press.

-Yamin, A. E. (2005, July). The Right to Health Under International Law and Its Relevance to the United States. National Center for Biotechnology Information. Retrieved November 22, 2012

-Zaremski, M. J. (2012, September 21). Miles J. Zaremski: The Ethics and Philosophy of Health Care As a Citizen's Right -- a US Perspective. Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. Retrieved November 22, 2012

-Rawls, John; PhD of philosophy at Harvard University, 1958, Justice as Fairness