Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Health care rationing, health care as a right, definition of health
One of you exam questions centers on Justice & Health Care. To prep
that answer you might want to collectively review/discuss the Buchanan
article on justice, the article about the NHS, and/or the one by the AMA. What
does your ideal health care system look like? Is health care a right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I dont think that health care rationing is right. Everyone deserves a right to basic medical care and a certain quality of life with respect to there health. So health care should be a right that means that i think that people should be able to receive life saving procedures and basic care for life no matter who they are or what there bank accounts look like. To me this means that someone should receive emergency medication when there is an emergency i dont agree with the way that it is now where emergency medication that is ambulances and ER's are a replace ment for a primary care doctor. for those that cant afford a primary care doctor i think there should be clinics that they can go to when they have issues that require a primary care so that the hospitals are not clogged with colds and flus that can be cared for with a trip to the doctor. So people have a right to the basic life saving emergency care that they need and deserve
ReplyDeleteKelsey: please clarify -- you seem to be contradicting your self in the first line. Do you mean to say that you don't think that rationing care is morally permissible?
ReplyDeleteAlso, what do you all think about this position:
Do smokers and the obese deserve insurance?
January 28, 2013 03:39 PM | MARY ELIZABETH WILLIAMS
www.salon.com/2013/01/.../do_smokers_and_the_obese_deserve_insurance/
yes i ment to say that it is not morally right to ration care to an extent. I believe everyone should receive emergency care when needed no matter who they are. I also believe that there should be clinics for people who cannot afford a doctor to go to that is not clogging out ERs. As far as smokers and the obese are concerned they deserve emergency care like everyone else I may not agree with there life decisions however that does not mean that they should die because of them. That is to say if a drug addict over doses on drugs they should get care to save their life they should no die even though their life choices lead them to that point. I would not be able to stand there and do nothing just because they made some bad choices. If they cannot afford a primary doctor then i believe they should have access to a clinic for medication and services if they need them.
Delete*does that help to make it clear. I know i start to ramble a little when i get going
I believe that, much like education, everyone has a right to basic medical attention. However, how people decide to treat that right is completely up to them. Basic medical attention includes emergency care and doctor's visits. Patients who are overweight and/or smokers should have the initiative to take their personal health into their own hands by focusing on disease prevention and lifestyle changes. The way I see it, if a person can afford to buy cigarettes and support their habit, they can afford additional health care to treat the side effects. On the other hand, there are patients who have done nothing to prompt their illnesses who suffer only due to their inability to pay for proper care. If the government is willing to provide food to the poor via Food Stamps/Welfare, why not basic health care? In a roundabout way, both provide support to an entire family, possibly even aiding with disease prevention due to healthier eating. There are a lot of things to consider (and there always will be) when discussing whether or not everyone "deserves" to be cared for universally. I believe that every person in this country, whether they care properly for themselves or not, has a right to life, and basic medical care is a part of that.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that healthcare is a right, but the degree of care afforded by that right is limited. This degree of care should not only extend to basic levels of care--but to any treatment which is considered to be life saving, with an outcome of that treatment being a definitive increase or maintaining of the quality of life. This would not include measures to artificially increase life expectancy, unless the gained time would be an improvement over the previous condition. For example, patients who are on long term ventilators with minimal hope for improvement would not qualify. The shear cost of supporting such treatment is not feasible for individual or government budgets. If an individual was wealthy and did have the personal means to support their own long term care with a low prognosis then their care would be supported with their personal finances. For another example, consider cancer with a poor prognosis. Instead of engaging in multiple treatments to prolong life, pain management should be considered as it would provide for a pain free death, and would be considerably cheaper than prolonging an inevitable death. Healthcare in the United States, to a degree, is considered a right. Emergency departments are required to accept all patients, regardless of social or financial status. The issue with this is that those without insurance are still treated, despite their inability to pay. This creates a situation where government funding, such as Medicare and Medicaid, pay for the treatment of these patients. The Obamacare program seeks to equalize care to all patients by requiring insurance for all individuals.
ReplyDeleteI think that, as the Buchanan article discusses, the focus is no longer just on individual healthcare, but on public health. I completely agree with Evan. I think that healthcare is a right, but strict boundaries would have to be set. If you could afford it, then you could pay for whatever treatments you would like. Basic healthcare however should be a right. Once check up a year and then the treatments that would save your life increasing the quality of living would be provided. Procedures such as plastic surgery and keeping people life artificially with no chance of recovery (as Evan said) would not be covered. I also agree that financially this may be the best option. The time that people are kept in a vegetative state with no hope that they will recover costs millions of dollars. I think that more people would opt for physician assisted suicide if it were available (the same way that it is in a few states). Again, this would be strictly regulated, but if qualified, it would save some people, who were inevitably going to die in a very short period of time, of agony. Although I think that basic care (which would have to be clearly defined and this may be difficult) should be provided, I do not believe that healthcare should be equal across the board. If people can pay to have better care (extra or specialized treatments) then that should be an option. Some may argue that this is unfair, but it is the way everything works. If you can pay for a better house, then you can pay for a better house. If you can afford to put your children through private school, then you may choose to pay for that. Healthcare is kind of different in that it can impact whether you live or whether you die, but if basic care is provided (and any treatment that is life saving) then the difference may not be as big as some would think.
ReplyDeleteThis is a hard subject to state a firm opinion because I am not completely educated on this subject. What I seem to be able to compare it to to understand it better is education. I think everyone should have the right to healthcare. But like education there are "different" kinds. I compare this to the public and private school systems. The basic healthcare is compared to a public school it is provided to everyone and the people should take it seriously and responsibly. Then the private school can be compared to the private insurance sector. If people are able to afford and want to have a different/ what they think is better insurance then they should also have the right to do that.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there has to be regulations and rules on the universal healthcare system. This may seem impossible but people taking advantage of the system and draining doesn't help anyone. There has to be limits but also make sure the people who are critically ill get the care they need. This is an extremely controversial issue. How do we help those who need to be helped but not enable those who are just taking advantage. It is a never ending problem of how to do it.
So, I do think that everyone should have the right to healthcare. Those who can afford and want a private insurer should also be able to do that without the government telling them what docs to see, etc. And somehow, some way the universal healthcare should have regulations so it is not taken advantage of.
I think that health care should be a right to all individuals as long as they fall within certain boundaries. Right now the private health care insurance companies prescreen applicants to search for preexisting medical conditions in order to decline them or increase their costs. I do not think that it is fair for people to be limited to the healthcare they receive based on factors that they cannot control. On the other hand, I do not believe that people who intentionally partake in activities that cause harm to their health, such as drug abusers, alcoholics, and the obese population, deserve the same rights as people who make healthy decisions.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Gina that there somehow needs to be rules and regulations in place for the universal healthcare system. Unfortunately, there is no easy approach to fix this problem that will make everyone happy. While I believe everyone should be allowed a basic right to healthcare, there will always be people who will always take advantage of the system.
I agree with Gina. I feel that everyone has the right to healthcare, and those that are able to afford what they would consider "better" insurance can use that insurance. To deny people insurance because of weight or a preexisting medical condition seems unreasonable. I am an insulin dependent diabetic, which is a preexisting condition. Therefore, it would be difficult for me to be insured now without a job that provided it, or if I was not under my parents' insurance. That does not seem right to me. As for obesity and smokers, I feel that these people deserve healthcare as well. Many smokers have medical conditions completely unrelated to smoking. Is it right to deny those people healthcare just because they smoke? The same goes for obesity. That being said, there should be regulations to control the healthcare system being taken advantage of. For instance, if an alcoholic contracts hepatitis, or any other alcohol abuse-related disorder, they should be put on some type of probational period where they are to stop drinking, and if they do not, the privilege of healthcare is taken away.
ReplyDeleteSmokers and obese people should not be denied health care, even if their illness is directly related to their bad habit. From a legal standpoint, these people did nothing wrong, because unhealthy eating and smoking aren't against the law. From an ethical standpoint, it is debatable whether or not these people did anything wrong. It could be argued that they should be handled by the health care system the same way that illegal drug users are handled. It could also be argued that illegal drug users should be handled in the same way everyone else is. It's all arbitrary- where do you draw the line between who is covered and who isn't?
ReplyDeleteI think everyone should have some form of basic health care, no matter what they've done to put their own health at risk. Human life should be preserved above all else, even if that means we are paying for other people's bad decisions out of our own pockets. I I also agree that a higher quality of health care should be offered to those that can afford it. I don't, however, think that these two types of health care should be divided up as private and public. The reasons for this are mostly political rather than ethical. But it makes sense to me that if you want superior health care, you should be able to pay for it with your own money. Health care is a right, but extended health care is a privilege, just as education is a right but higher education is a privilege. I don't feel it is my obligation to pay for someone else to see a highly skilled specialist or receive top-of-the-line drugs. I also agree with Evan that if a person has a very low probability of recovery and he or she does not have insurance, their life should not be prolonged for an extended period of time. Even if this person has insurance, their medical bill is being covered partially out of the pockets of other insurance payers, and this is part of the reason why health care today is so costly.
I believe that health care is a basic human right just like education. However, only the basics such as emergency health care and yearly physicals should be provided by the government. Anything above and beyond that should be taken care of by the individual or their private insurance company. Also, citizens should be able to choose private care if they do not want to receive the public care. This is just like education as well. You are provided with the public schools. If you are not happy with the performance of public schools, you can attend a private school. The private schools cost much more but often provide a better education in the long run. It is completely up to the individual to choose which health care they would like to receive, private or public. My ideal health care system would be run very much like an education system.
ReplyDeleteI believe that we all have a right to health care. We should not be turning people away who are simply unable to pay. However, I do believe that the government needs to respect and allow those who wish to pay extra for the care that they prefer. The government should provide the basic care for everyone, and for emergency situations. I agree with many of the previous comments when they point out that individuals who choose to smoke, or choose to overeat, should be limited to the basic healthcare of that of any healthy individual, issues directly connected to their addiction should cost extra. In the long run, a free, but limited healthcare system is what I believe in; respecting those who choose something else, but still providing for everyone.
ReplyDelete