Healthcare is nice, but (morally) expensive

Robert Samuelson at the Washington Post does some moral cost/benefit analysis on healthcare reform.

Pro-reform: 

…almost everyone thinks that people in need of essential medical care should get it; ideally, everyone would have health insurance.

Con:

First, the country has other goals — including preventing financial crises and minimizing the crushing effects of high deficits or taxes on the economy and younger Americans — that “health-care reform” would jeopardize. And second, the benefits of “reform” are exaggerated. Sure, many Americans would feel less fearful about losing insurance; but there are cheaper ways to limit insecurity. Meanwhile, improvements in health for today’s uninsured would be modest. They already receive substantial medical care. Insurance would help some individuals enormously, but studies find that, on average, gains are moderate. Despite using more health services, people don’t automatically become healthier.

The first point reveals the problem of prioritization I discussed in an earlier post and the second shows, once more, how the factual and empirical invade the moral.

 -Jake

Related posts:

  1. More on healthcare and choice
  2. Healthcare reform raises tough moral questions
  3. More healthcare anxiety
  4. Subsidizing spiritual healing
  5. Public healthcare, private practice

November 16, 2009 · Filed Under Equality, Jake, Obligations/Duties

Comments

Leave a Reply