The individual mandate is similar -- where the profit of one individual leads to the suffering of another, the suffering takes precedence -- the money is not as important. Not doing harm to others is the more important imperative, so the sacrifice for the greater good in this case would be the moral course of action according to Kant.
Locke
Locke's moral philosophy comprises two parts. The first is natural law, in that there are divine laws, they are obligatory and humans can understand these. The second is more hedonistic, that pleasures and pains serve to "provide morality with its normative force" (Sheridan, 2011). That these two views seem to contrast is well-established and indeed they lead to different interpretations of the key tenets of the Affordable Care Act. The natural law would hold that one should ensure, if possible, that all people have access to health care. As far a divine law is specified, you are supposed to love thy neighbor, and in wealthy nations it is entirely possible to provide this without undue hardship -- and the individual mandate might certainly reduce the wealth of some but it is unlikely to induce genuine hardship. Thus, the ACA is ethical within the bounds of natural law.
Locke's hedonistic side is more reflective of his views on the individual, as a unit possessing free will, and the importance of preserving individual liberty. All individuals without health care coverage surely have their own free will, and have arrived at this condition of being uninsured in part as the result of decisions...
Thus, if they must suffer, Locke would argue that to be a natural cost for their actions. Furthermore, it would be immoral under this part of Locke's hedonistic moral philosophy to infringe upon the free will of those who are now forced to pay for insurance -- and pay for more than they probably need. That side of the ACA bargain was always on questionable ethical ground where individual rights are concerned. As a practical matter, governments infringe upon individual freedoms all of the time -- the most clear corollary is forcing property owners without children to pay property taxes that go to fund schools, but prisons, income tax and speeding tickets are all further examples of government infringement upon individual liberty. So the question is not whether the government can make this imposition -- it can -- but rather whether the imposition is moral.
In that Locke is ultimately conflicted. His views do not align, though it is worth noting that divine law is not the law of the U.S. -- there is supposed to be separation of religion and state. If there is some divine law that commands you to help others, Locke would argue that would still have the individual right to not help, or at least to set the terms of your helping. If you want to behave immorally, it is your choice to do so, even if here are consequences to that -- such as a fine for not signing up for Obamacare. The ACA oversteps on either of these, and Locke would likely argue that its infringement of individual freedom is morally suspect at best, if not outright immoral.
Conservatives consistently argue for less and less support of the poor and those who cannot fully care for themselves, like children, the elderly, and those with disabilities while progressives argue precisely the opposite. Indeed, this is one of the most important divides between American liberals and American conservatives. Welfare as we understand it today really begins with the New Deal of FDR. Since then it has become more or less
Issues Driving Change in Healthcare Healthcare is driven by policy changes like those embedded in the Affordable Care Act, by shifting social norms and attitudes towards healthcare, and by demographic changes such as the aging population. The Affordable Care Act was revolutionary in that it mandated universal coverage but still fell short of transforming the ethos of a market-driven healthcare system. As a result, the Affordable Care Act did not lead
Current Status of Health Care in the United States Health care in the United States is in a state of legislative flux. The Affordable Care Act was passed in order to reduce the number of uninsured people in the country, as well as start to contain the runaway growth in health care costs through a number of measures that essential brought more of health care under stronger government influence. The ACA
Ethics of Repealing and Replacing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Before President Donald Trump was elected into office, he promised to repeal and replace the ACA within the first 100 days in office. This was probably a ray of hope for all the people suffering under the act. Surprisingly, however, the term 'suffering' is subjective. It is not yet clear whether the majority of citizens prefer the existing health care system
Do the Pros Outweigh the Cons of the Affordable Care Act? Introduction Before the 1970s, the majority of people held hospital insurance. For instance in the ‘40s, only a tenth of the population actually had private health insurance. Just forty years later, that trend was reversed and a little more than 10% were uninsured—everyone else had bought insurance (Morrisey, 2013). This was a result of the subsidization of care by the government,
Republican stance on the Affordable Care Act has been decisively antagonistic and contrarian, and was machinated to address the main problem with the ACA, which is that it was authored by Obama. Likewise, Republican hostility toward the ACA represented the conservative platform's ignorance of the issues and the reasons underlying the ACA in the first place. The ACA was a step forward in creating a more progressive United States