It would be perfect to be governed solely by social justice, but the reality is that there must be a combination of social and market justice to benefit more the population; this combination must be composed mainly of social justice ideas, a majority of market justice will only harm the population. Since market justice focuses on the population that can afford the health care services, it leaves a big part of the population without coverage and this can escalate into a serious health problem. An example can be that, no matter how sick a person is and how much they need the help, if they cannot afford it they do not receive health services. If the disease is contagious this can develop into a serious problem for the country and puts in danger the whole population. In the other hand, having a major focus on social justice makes possible to give service even if the patient cannot afford it and consequently a major problem for everyone is prevented. The reason why there must be a balance is because, no country has infinite resources to cover all the health expenses of the population, but at least coverage for primary care must be a right for everyone. Not having a control in the resources provided can cause a depletion of them and ended up affecting more the population. There must be a control of resources but an emphasis in primary coverage for
The principle of market justice is a system where medical care and benefits are distributed on the basis of people willing and able to pay. Moreover, the principle of market justice assumes that the free-market forces for supply and demand can govern health care, individuals are responsible for their achievements, and the market works best with minimal inference with the government (Shi and Singh, 2013). On the contrary, the principle of social justice is when health care is equally distributed, and it is a societal responsibility. Social justice regards health care a social good that should be available to all citizens regardless whether they can pay or not. The social justice method assumes that the government can decide through rational planning how much health care to produce and how to distribute it among all citizens. The problem is that the United States does not follow free-market principles, which can be seen in market justice, and social justice has been ongoing and gradual in the United States. Social justice drives publically financed programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. However, market justice drives employer-based insurance (Shi and Singh, 2013). Nonetheless, there are many Americans who cannot afford insurance, or do not have a job and do not qualify for any public programs. The amount of Americans uninsured is because of health care costs. As health care costs go up, the middle class is diminishing. Health care can very well be a factor contributing to
The consumption of health care left to the market assumes certain conditions that are not reliably met in health care. For an ideal market, we seek both equity and efficiency. Efficiency in the sense of achieving optimal health benefits when allocating resources at minimal costs (1). Equity in a perfect market relates to the fair and just distribution of health care services (2). We will see that attempts to leave health care consumption to the market will achieve neither as certain conditions in health care result in extensive failure of the market. The key conditions that do not exist in health care are certainty, consumer sovereignty and symmetry of information between the provider and consumer (1). Externalities are also inherent in health which contributes to market failure in health care (1).
In this paper, I will describe the concepts of market justice and social justice, explain how the two principles complement each other and in what way they conflict in delivery of health care in the United States. Secondly, I will discuss how health care is rationed in the market justice and social justice systems. Finally, I will discuss the types of health insurance that is based on market justice and social justice principles.
The essay discusses the article "Access to Health Care in the U.S", which highlights the key issues of the healthcare system in US and how has it impacted the society as a whole. The healthcare system based on social inequalities has a lot of shortcomings which are discussed in the essay.
From a social justice perspective, quality healthcare is perceived as an innate right of every individual. The problem with this perspective is it is not a universally held sentiment. For example, individuals would argue from an economic standpoint that social justice is a “value” and healthcare is a commodity which drives our nation’s economy, thus presenting
Research has since shown that such models are ineffective and simply perpetuate negative social determinants of health (Raphael, 2009). In Canada, the economic basis for health care administration has been the concept of social welfare (Raphael, 2009). Succinctly defined, social welfare theory advocates for an increased role of the state in administering certain vital functions (Monique, 2007). To a degree, all societies feature some aspect of social welfare, with police,
The philosophy relayed by the book’s author consistently leads back to the moral question that must be asked in the initial design of the healthcare system. That determination has to do as to whether the government has a duty to act when there are those within their own country do not have equitable access to hospitals and doctors for the treatment of their conditions.14
Poverty has usually been the cause of illness and it constructs as a barrier for vulnerable groups ' access to care and pretentious healthcare. Often times people with less favorable financial condition are not able to afford neither private health insurance nor government healthcare. In this paper, I will argue that free/affordable healthcare is ethically obligatory because Medicare is a fundamental right, all lives are equal and healthcare is not a commodity.
In attempting to remedy the unjust nature of the American health insurance system, one cannot determine what a just system should be based on the current assessment of society. Inequalities within the current system cannot foster discussion for what we believe is justice because preconceived notions cloud the judgment of even the foremost health policy intellectuals. Many philosophers therefore turn to creating hypothetical societies where these inequalities do not exist as a means to facilitate the discussion as to what true justice requires. Two such individuals, Ronald Dworkin and Charles Fried, have constructed such situations as a means to assess what a just healthcare system should be comprised of in a truly fair-market economy. Although they agree on issues pertaining to the resources available to individuals in a fair market, they also disagree on what constitutes justice in regards to how individuals may spend their allocations. An assessment of the disagreements between the two reveals that the main consideration for what justice demands of society boils down to the degree to which individuals are responsible for purchasing their share of health insurance as well as their fellow citizens’.
Socialized medicine, single-payer healthcare, or government subsidized healthcare. These are all different terms for describing the same system of healthcare that is universally available to a society regardless of income, race, gender, pre-existing condition, or wealth. This topic is highly controversial, with valid arguments supporting both ends of the spectrum and a wide array of perspectives that come into play when governments decide where to fall between privatized and publicized healthcare systems. Universal healthcare should be implemented because when the government is responsible, for for all its citizens, a healthier population is inspired, corruption is prevented, and support is given to those who cannot support themselves. This
Making America a social justice system with social insurance benefits will allow for the social insurance programs to be funded by everyone and offer benefits to all citizens regardless of their income (Rogne, 2009, p. xxvi). Like any other program, social insurance has its advantages and disadvantages. One of the main advantages of social insurance is that it will prevent individuals and/or families from falling victim to poverty due to unexpected healthcare cost (Normand & Weber, 1994, p. 28). However, the major disadvantage to social insurance is that people will not fully comprehend and accept the concept of social insurance (Normand & Weber, 1994, p. 29). The government should take the time to explain social insurance to the citizens of their country, since this will be something that the country will be considering developing.
The right to health care is tantamount to socialism and therefore should be left as the responsibility of an individual and not a function of the government to secure a person’s health care. Thus government’s provision of healthcare could reduce the availability and quality of healthcare, resulting to enormous government deficits and debts. This paper is going to explore the reasons why the government should not provide free health care to its citizens.
The notion of justice is existence of proper balance of rights and its access under the laws of land. It refers to not depriving any person from availing privileges, opportunities etc. John Rawls writes, "Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override"It means that the interaction in a society must be free from any sort of discrimination such as religion, race, color, caste or sex. It ensures fair distribution of assets and equal opportunity. José P. Laurel defines Social Justice as “Social justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy, but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the state so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated.”