It is ideal to have a health care to every body's benefit; however, there are limitation resources knowledge and also disagreement what is right or wrong in peopl's mind because of limitation and disagreement. so we need accept the policy that has both moral diversity and inequality.
We have to recognize that people who want to have better quality of basic health care benefit through private resources by their own freedom of choice that is a way to purchase their health benefit; however, if people who can't afford to purchase their own private insurance, then, there should have a state system for funds, for those people, for their basic health care benefit. People should agree and accept that our health care system would not be equalized same as moral diversity and disagreement in our social setting.
In equalization in health care system would have limits people who like to purchase private insurance by their own ability. Our disagreement about equalization in health care system is similar to those people who disagree about abortion right, artificial insemination, assist suicidal euthanasia that not resolvable in general moral secular terms and lot of disagreement in public norms for fairness.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Karen raises a good point that equalization in health care would limit people's ability to purchase more expensive plans if they wanted to. And this really confuses me. Why not let someone spend more money on health care if they value their health a lot? And why force someone who cares very little about their health to pay for health care? It seems fundamentally flawed to me, but I may be missing something.
ReplyDeleteI think that one of the author's strongest arguments for addressing equality in health care would be to concentrate on the issues of those who suffer most, namely people of low economic status, children and men. If equality is ever to be achieved (and I don't believe it ever will), it makes most sense to start by helping those who seem to have a disproportionate number of illnesses leading to shortend life and therefore a shortened normal opportunity range.
ReplyDeleteThere are so many special interests that our society makes allowances for that to have absolute equalization in health care would be impossible. Just as the author noted, there will always be conflict when measured against the concepts of equality and long life. Some will always have more than others regardless of whether we are measuring money, faith, looks, strength or overall health. It is the diversity of values, natural abilities and curiosities and desire (or lack thereof) for change that makes issues like health care so interesting.
Even if there is a cure available for the most hedious diseases, some will want it for the sake of living a bit longer while others would prefer to endure its consequences so as not to deplete the resources available to ones survivors. How can we determine if anyone's individual goals for their health are any more or less important than anyone elses? Universal Health care is clearly not the answer because it imposes on individual values just as much as it can help. Where is the justice in that?
Since you can't buy the best here is the basic version? It is scary to think the disadvantaged are take what they can get because they can afford nothing else. Since you have this state insurance Mr. Smith you have to go to this hospital, use these generic drugs and let them experiment on you every now and then. (It's really not that unbelievable that is where we may find ourselves.) Mr. Smith, values are diverse and if you valued your health you would have found the money to support it. It is wrong to target the sick and forgo educating those who aren't. Providing preventative care to all makes for less sick people. Instead we support a system that promotes sickness just to make sure there is never a shortage of disadvantaged sick people.
ReplyDeletePoint 2
If saving myself means depleting the financial resources of my survivors I may choose based on only that. Therefore, I am stripped of my autonomy. If that cure was a right of mine as with universal healthcare I am free of constraint when deciding on whether to take the cure.
It seems as though our health care system will not ever be equalized in the way everyone can agree with. But I do feel that people that live in unfortunate circumstances with regards to not being able to pay for healthcare should have the highest priority of attention. Freedom of choice is also important in our country, and I agree with karen: people who want to have better health care can choose to do so, whereas people who can't afford it should be helped by some other means.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it seems ridiculous for a health care system to provide basic care for all, but also limit additional spending for those who want additional health care. Last class I had mentioned that I believed this would be the best approach to universal health care because everyone seems to benefit from this approach. However, I will admit that I could understand why Engelhardt was arguing that this type of health care is hardly fair or equal.
ReplyDeleteAs presence mentioned above, I also agree, as a egalitarian, that the prevention of pediatric deaths over improvements in geriatric medicine is justifiable and needed. In agreeing with this, am I truly an egalitarian? This view could suggest that I value the life of a child more than that of an older individual. Or does this just mean that I believe that all individuals deserve the right to a long life and since the elderly have already had it, they don't really need additional health care as children do?
I agree that attempts to equalizing health care will never be something that everyone agrees with, but I feel that the best policy is one that is representative of what the majority wants, as well as one that does not limit additional health care spending by those that can afford it. Basic health care for all is necessary, while additional services should only be granted to those who are willing to pay for it.
To play devil's advocate to cchristi's point that the best means to equalize health care is for the government to provide a policy that is representative of what the majority wants, would that not border on the idea of the tyranny of the majority?
ReplyDeleteWhile this is more a criticism of democracy than simply deciding on and implementing a health care system, I believe it still applies.
As both Karen and mighty skunk pointed out, the equalization of health care would force individuals to the center of health care. People would be removed from both the fringe of not receiving adequate health care, but also from those who chose to sacrifice in order to afford more expensive insurance/treatment/etc.
If a decision is voted into law by the majority to either provide universal health care or not, there will exist a large number of people (potentially 49%) that are disadvantaged by the decision.
christi said "Last class I had mentioned that I believed this would be the best approach to universal health care because everyone seems to benefit from this approach. However, I will admit that I could understand why Engelhardt was arguing that this type of health care is hardly fair or equal."
ReplyDeleteI do not think it would be unfair to give everyone basic health care coverage and then allow those who would like to add coverage or options to do so at their will. Ensuring at least the minimal care for everyone would equal "the playing field" or equal the normal opportunity range as we spoke about last class, yet allow for individuals who would like better coverage more autonomy in their health coverage.