Debating the right to healthcare

Week 8: Debating the Right to Healthcare
Moderator: Hello everyone, thank you for coming to our session today. Although some people may believe that basic health care is a natural human right, it is not an enforceable right until it has been created as one and written into law. To make it enforceable requires more than a simple declaration. A rational theory of justice must underpin the claim to such a right. If this theory exists, and if we can pass the legislation, then we can establish an enforceable right.
Considerable changes have brought us closer to these established rights, such as The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act in 1986 and the Affordable Care Act in 2010.
Moderator: Our speakers today are Dr. Jonathan Miller and Dr. Juan Garcia. Let’s begin with Dr. Miller.
Dr. Miller: There is a consensus in our society that we are ethically required to provide a minimum of basic health care to all people. Even though the specifics of these rights are often points of contention, we could all see that this is true even prior to the Affordable Care Act. For example, for many years, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 have
required us to treat people in the emergency room regardless of their ability to pay. In other words, we recognize that it is unethical to leave people to die or fail to provide emergency care when they need it. We also know that providing little or no preventative care to a large portion of the population is more costly in the long run than making such care available. So we have good
financial reasons to provide that care to people, even if we didn’t have an ethical obligation to do
so.
Dr. Garcia: It may be more costly in the long run, but it’s important to determine to whom it is costly. The costs shift drastically if you are proposing a single-payer system, and that burden rests directly on the taxpayer if the government is footing the bill. Furthermore, we may want to more closely at our definition of “health care”. For instance, we have drastically dropped morbidity rate through better sanitation practices and widespread inoculations. If people live longer and are less likely to become sick, as is certainly the care, aren’t we already providing a basic minimum of health care, particularly in combination with the aforementioned act that requires hospitals to take in all patients in need?
Moderator: It looks like we have a follow-up question on that statement from the audience.
Would universal health care really improve American’s health?
Dr. Garcia: Universal health care could actually lower the quality and availability of disease screening and treatment. In countries with universal health care, some treatment outcomes are worse than in the United States. The 5-year survival rate for all cancers in America is 64.6%, compared to 51.6% in Europe.
Dr. Miller: The taxpayer is already footing the bill. When patients use emergency rooms in place of doctor visits, they are more likely to have serious and expensive problems that could have been prevented or cured at a lower cost if the patients had seen doctors sooner. Those using emergency room services will also pay exorbitant prices for their care, many times more than they would expect to pay for an office visit. And if they can’t pay, then the hospital eats the bill, and passes it on to other patients in the form of increased costs for medicine and services.
Dr. Garcia: But those are still costs that are passed on to patients, not the general population, or specifically, taxpayers. In any case, does our concept of social justice extend, rationally, to the point that we feel we must provide such health care? What if a patient is using crack? Who eats the bill for the many health problems of the addict’s ravaged body? And at what point do we stop trying to provide the same care to everyone if out health costs have become a drag on other
industries?
Moderator: Dr. Miller, what do you say to people who argue that we can’t afford to provide health care to every American?
Dr. Miller: Many European countries with universal health care, such as Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, have a lower Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita than the United States, yet they are able to provide health care for all their citizen. The United States spent $8,508 per person on health care in 2011. At that level of spending, we should be able to provide health care to everyone!
Moderator: Thank you

Complete the entire scenario.
Compose your reflection in a Word document and be sure to address, at a minimum, the following questions:
Why do you feel the way you do about the issue presented?
Of the four responses offered in the scenario, which do you feel is the most ethical and why?
Support your conclusions with evidence and specific examples from the textbook, as well as other sources as needed.
Your reflection must be 1-2 pages in length and follow APA formatting and citation guidelines as appropriate.

SAMPLE SOLUTION

Debating the Right to Healthcare
Main Issues
The debate about whether or not health is a right or a privilege is long overdue with proponents and opponents pulling in different directions with divergent views. Proponents of healthcare as a right argue that every US citizen healthcare regardless of their position in a free market system. On the other hand, opponents of healthcare as a right argue that healthcare services are limited resources that require money to operate, therefore its access, just like any other commodity, should be a privilege reserved for those who can afford it (Norheim, 2016).
Most Ethical Perspective
The most ethical perspective is that healthcare should be a right to every US citizen. It is ethical to make healthcare a right to every US citizen because it is costlier, in the long run, to provide little or no preventative care to a large portion of the population as compared to not making such care available. According to Dr. Miller,…