Greatest Common Good - Ethical Question
Recently I read an article which begged a question.The article was on the 'uninsurables' a 1.5 million strong caste of American society who cannot get private health care, usually because of pre-existing conditions.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a4BEIIi_OauQ
There is simply no reasonable market mechanism, as the costs are simply too high. Starting in the 80's, some states set up funds to provide healthcare for such individuals. In one such case--Oklahoma--there is a cap imposed of $500,000 for lifetime benefits.
The case involves a young girl who was born very prematurely. She has many medical issues, and will use up the $500,000 by the time that she is a teenager. The question is quite simple: should further benefits be extended? Should the $500,000 be spent in the first place?
I spent a while thinking about this. Sadly, I think there should be a cap. It is a terrible choice, but from a greatest common good standpoint, and from a standpoint of personal freedom (the cost of subsidizing all 1.5million would be astronomical, imposing a massive tax burden on the rest of the nation), the logical conclusion is that benefits should not be extended, and the cap should perhaps be lowered, so that a greater number of individuals may be served by such programs.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a4BEIIi_OauQ
There is simply no reasonable market mechanism, as the costs are simply too high. Starting in the 80's, some states set up funds to provide healthcare for such individuals. In one such case--Oklahoma--there is a cap imposed of $500,000 for lifetime benefits.
The case involves a young girl who was born very prematurely. She has many medical issues, and will use up the $500,000 by the time that she is a teenager. The question is quite simple: should further benefits be extended? Should the $500,000 be spent in the first place?
I spent a while thinking about this. Sadly, I think there should be a cap. It is a terrible choice, but from a greatest common good standpoint, and from a standpoint of personal freedom (the cost of subsidizing all 1.5million would be astronomical, imposing a massive tax burden on the rest of the nation), the logical conclusion is that benefits should not be extended, and the cap should perhaps be lowered, so that a greater number of individuals may be served by such programs.
Comments
Post a Comment