This paper takes a case analysis approach to considering the ethical and legal implications of the “right” to health care in contemporary America. The case scenario assumes that the government has enacted a new national health care policy. All citizens are guaranteed an annual income of $20,000 and the right to purchase (at an annual cost of $1,500) a comprehensive health insurance policy covering all routine medical and hospital costs. People who fail to purchase this insurance plan must pay cash for all health services. If non-insured individuals do not have the money to pay for services, the hospital and/or physician will deny treatment. This “comprehensive” insurance package is not without certain important limitations and exclusions. Notably, no coverage is provided for illness or disability arising directly from the individual’s own unhealthy behaviors (e.g., smoking, overeating, drinking, etc.).
This paper examines the legal and ethical implications of this health care system (for individual patients, hospital administrators, health care providers, and the society at large) by looking at the situation facing two hypothetical patients. The first patient, “Mr. Puffer” purchased the $1,500 plan but finds that costs related to the treatment of his lung cancer are not covered (because Mr. Puffer is a long-time smoker). The second patient, “Mr. Spender” has failed to purchase the insurance plan and is now being denied admission and treatment for his acute appendicitis since he has neither insurance coverage nor the cash to pay for the treatment. Both Mr. Puffer and Mr. Spender contend that the hospital has violated their right to health care.
Health Care as a “Moral Duty” versus a “Moral Right”
The two patients’ claim...
... middle of paper ...
...only solution to the dilemmas posed in this case is to completely re-design the health care system. It must have as its starting point a system of distributing health care benefits based on moral values, not marketplace values. A good beginning would be adherence to the moral principle that health care is (as both Mr. Puffer and Mr. Spender asserted) a basic right not a privilege based on income level or “good behavior.” If health care is indeed a right and not a privilege, an ethical system should provide for universal access to health care. Having established these basic guiding principles, the system designers would then have to grapple with the logistics of rationing existing health care resources (as necessarily limited by technology, funding, etc.) in a manner which takes into account principles of distributive justice and the underlying values of the society.
Healthcare in the United States is an extremely often discussed topic on whether it is morally a right or just a charity to those who cannot afford it. Plenty claim that health care is too expensive and not affordable so they demand aid from the government. On the other hand, the rest presume that the state is not morally accountable to take this type of action, since not every citizen and human being is equally eligible to receive the same healthcare.
One of the most controversial topics in the United States in recent years has been the route which should be undertaken in overhauling the healthcare system for the millions of Americans who are currently uninsured. It is important to note that the goal of the Affordable Care Act is to make healthcare affordable; it provides low-cost, government-subsidized insurance options through the State Health Insurance Marketplace (Amadeo 1). Our current president, Barack Obama, made it one of his goals to bring healthcare to all Americans through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. This plan, which has been termed “Obamacare”, has come under scrutiny from many Americans, but has also received a large amount of support in turn for a variety of reasons. Some of these reasons include a decrease in insurance discrimination on the basis of health or gender and affordable healthcare coverage for the millions of uninsured. The opposition to this act has cited increased costs and debt accumulation, a reduction in employer healthcare coverage options, as well as a penalization of those already using private healthcare insurance.
Membership Services (MSD) at Kaiser Permanente used to be a modest department of sixty staff. However, over the past few years the department has doubled in size, creating minor departmental reorganization. In addition the increase of departmental staffing, several challenges became apparent. The changes included primary job function, as well as the introduction of new network system software which slowed down the processes of other departments. These departments included Claims (who pay the bills for service providers outside of the Kaiser Permanente network), and Patient Business Services (who send invoices to members for services received within Kaiser Permanente). Due to the unforeseen challenges created by the system upgrade, it was decided that MSD would process the calls for both of the affected departments. Unfortunately, this created a catastrophic event of MSD receiving numerous phone calls from upset members—who had received bills a year after the service had been provided. The average Monday call volume had risen from 1,800 to 2,600 calls per day. The average handling time for each phone call had risen as well—from an acceptable standard of 5.6 minutes to an unfavorable 7.2 minutes. The department continued to be kept inundated with these types of calls for the two years that these changes have been effect.
In the modern day, health care can be a sensitive subject. Politically, health care in America changes depending on whom is President. Obamacare and Trumpcare are different policies regarding health care, which many people have passionate feelings towards. However, not many Americans are informed about Norman Daniels’ view on health care. Throughout this paper I will be outlining Norman Daniels’ claims on the right to health care, and the fundamental principles in which he derives to construct his argument. By means of evaluating Daniels’ argument, I will then state my beliefs regarding the distributive justice of health care.
According to editorial one, universal health care is a right that every American should be able to obtain. The author provides the scenario that insurance companies reject people with preexisting conditions and that people typically wait to receive health care until it's too much of a problem due to the extreme costs. Both of these scenarios are common among Americans so the author uses those situations to appeal to the readers' emotions. Editorial one also includes logical evidence that America could follow Canada's and Europe's universal health care systems because both of those nations are excelling in it.
The US Commissioner Report (2011) details the rise in patient dumping from in the last ten years. Previously, hospitals were in their legal right to refuse health care to patients. It was not until the ~1980’s that a law was bought in to stop patient dumping and the refusal of treatment. Patient dumping occurs when patients are either uninsured, immigrants or lack funds to pay for medical bills that hospitals ‘dump’/relocate in a dishonourable way those patients to over hospitals. In doing so, that hospital is therefore not liable to provide treatment to the patient. It is now estimated that 250,000 US patients annually are denied medical treatment, in addition 15.4% of US citizens do not have health insurance. Recent research (Blalock & Wolfe,
America is known for democracy, freedom, and the American Dream. American citizens have the right to free speech, free press, the right to bear arms, and the right to religious freedom to name a few. The Declaration of Independence states that American citizens have the rights including “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” America promises equality and freedom and the protection of their rights as outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. But with all the rights and freedoms that American citizens enjoy, there is one particular area where the United States seems to be lacking. That area is health care. The United States is the only industrialized nation that doesn’t have some form of legal recognition of a right to health care (Yamin 1157). Health care reform in the United States has become a major controversy for politicians, health care professionals, businesses, and citizens. Those in opposition to reform claim that health care is not a human right, therefore the government should not be involved. Supporters of reform believe that health care is most definitely a human right and should be available to everyone in the United States instead of only those who can afford it, and that it is the government’s responsibility to uphold that right.
The United States (U.S.) has a health care system that is much different than any other health care system in the world (Nies & McEwen, 2015). It is frequently recognized as one with most recent technological inventions, but at the same time is often criticized for being overly expensive (Nies & McEwen, 2015). In 2010, President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) (U. S. Department of Health & Human Services, n.d.) This plan was implemented in an attempt to make preventative care more affordable and accessible for all uninsured Americans (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, n.d.). Under the law, the new Patient’s Bill of Rights gives consumers the power to be in charge of their health care choices. (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, n.d.).
In recent years, the number of Americans who are uninsured has reached over 45 million citizens, with millions more who only have the very basic of insurance, effectively under insured. With the growing budget cuts to medicaid and the decreasing amount of employers cutting back on their health insurance options, more and more americans are put into positions with poor health care or no access to it at all. At the heart of the issue stems two roots, one concerning the morality of universal health care and the other concerning the economic effects. Many believe that health care reform at a national level is impossible or impractical, and so for too long now our citizens have stood by as our flawed health-care system has transformed into an unfixable mess. The good that universal healthcare would bring to our nation far outweighs the bad, however, so, sooner rather than later, it is important for us to strive towards a society where all people have access to healthcare.
Despite the established health care facilities in the United States, most citizens do not have access to proper medical care. We must appreciate from the very onset that a healthy and strong nation must have a proper health care system. Such a health system should be available and affordable to all. The cost of health services is high. In fact, the ...
In America the affordability and equality of access to healthcare is a crucial topic of debate when it comes to one's understanding of healthcare reform. The ability for a sick individual to attain proper treatment for their ailments has reached the upper echelons of government. Public outcry for a change in the handling of health insurance laws has aided in the establishment of the Affordable Healthcare Law (AHCL) to ensure the people of America will be able to get the medical attention they deserve as well as making that attention more affordable, as the name states. Since its creation, the AHCL has undergone scrutiny towards its effects on the government and its people; nevertheless, the new law must not be dismantled due to its function as a cornerstone of equal-opportunity healthcare, and if such a removal is allowed, there will be possibly detrimental effects on taxes, the economy, and poor people.
Our healthcare system has developed into a burden for most people and has terrible consequences for others. It consists of everyone paying for healthcare as a whole, instead of people paying for themselves. This system of healthcare has burdened the people who take care of themselves and have money, but extends the life of people who do not take care of themselves and live in poverty. This is not pleasant for the one’s who decided to go to school and make well over minimum wage. In turn, they are the individuals who end up paying for the people who decided to make bad decisions in their life that put them in the minimum wage position. Clearly, laws regulate the insurance companies but these regulations do not make any sense to many. Balko explains that, “More and m...
Health Care workers are constantly faced with legal and ethical issues every day during the course of their work. It is important that the health care workers have a clear understanding of these legal and ethical issues that they will face (1). In the case study analysed key legal and ethical issues arise during the initial decision-making of the incident, when the second ambulance crew arrived, throughout the treatment and during the transfer of patient to the hospital. The ethical issues in this case can be described as what the paramedic believes is the right thing to do for the patient and the legal issues control what the law describes that the paramedic should do in this situation (2, 3). It is therefore important that paramedics also
Health insurance, too many American citizens, is not an option. However, some citizens find it unnecessary. Working in the health care field, I witness the effects of uninsured patients on medical offices. Too often, I see a “self-pay” patient receive care from their doctor and then fail to pay for it. Altogether, their refusal to pay leaves the office at a loss of money and calls for patients to pay extra in covering for the cost of the care the uninsured patient received. One office visit does not seem like too big of an expense, but multiple patients failing to pay for the care they receive adds up. Imagine the hospital bills that patients fail to pay; health services in a hospital are double, sometimes triple, in price at a hospital. It is unfair that paying patients are responsible for covering these unpaid services. Luckily, the Affordable Care Act was passed on March 23, 2010, otherwise known as Obamacare. Obamacare is necessary in America because it calls for all citizens to be health insured, no worrying about pre-existing conditions, and free benefits for men and women’s health.
Healthcare professionals want only to provide the best care and comfort for their patients. In today’s world, advances in healthcare and medicine have made their task of doing so much easier, allowing previously lethal diseases to be diagnosed and treated with proficiency and speed. A majority of people in the United States have health insurance and enjoy the luxury of convenient, easy to access health care services, with annual checkups, preventative care, and their own personal doctor ready to diagnose and provide treatment for even the most trivial of symptoms. Many of these people could not imagine living a day without the assurance that, when needed, medical care would not be available to themselves and their loved ones. However, millions of American citizens currently live under these unimaginable conditions, going day to day without the security of frequent checkups, prescription medicine, or preventative medicines that could prevent future complications in their health. Now with the rising unemployment rates due to the current global recession, even more Americans are becoming uninsured, and the flaws in the United States’ current healthcare system are being exposed. In order to amend these flaws, some are looking to make small changes to fix the current healthcare system, while others look to make sweeping changes and remodel the system completely, favoring a more socialized, universal type of healthcare system. Although it is certain that change is needed, universal healthcare is not the miracle cure that will solve the systems current ailments. Universal healthcare should not be allowed to take form in America as it is a menace to the capitalist principle of a free market, threatens to put a stranglehold on for-...