Health Care Essay: The Brit Plan
Considered Health Care Essay: The Brit Plan “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union… promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Are you familiar with quote? I would hope so; after all you are a part of Congress. This is the first line of our constitution, the foundation of our whole country. I have come before you today because "A new drug for cancer has been developed, and 70% of patients that receive it are cured completely." This is a significant improvement from current cancer treatments, which lead to only a 50% survival rate. If I could find a way to provide the new drug
…show more content…
"Preventing or curing disease or disability reduces suffering in ways that contribute to aggregate welfare"(Daniels). In order to promote the aggregate welfare of the USA it means choosing the plan that will make citizens the happiest and healthiest and most prosperous. The Obamanos Plan does not accomplish this. Requiring private insurance companies to provide the treatment will cause the price of insurance to rise and therefore fewer Americans will be able to afford insurance. "We must sometimes make a choice between investing in a technology that delivers a significant benefit to few people or one that delivers a more modest benefit to a larger number of people"(Daniels). Although this plan allows some people to receive the new treatment, it takes away some peoples insurance and potentially all their health care, which does not benefit general welfare. In fact, in cross-national comparative data, it states that “high-technology medicine pale in importance when compared to differences attributable to gender, income, and genetic luck” (Engelhardt). Since this is true, the Obamanos plan would cripple the low-income citizens even further, by diminishing any opportunity to attain any form of health care. This would be immoral because it ignores the fact they started out at a disadvantage and need health insurance the most. The O 'Romney plan is essentially the same plan except everyone is forced to …show more content…
The Obamanos plan fails to ensure the well being for all due to the fact that many Americans will now not be able to afford health care, as well as it only providing moderate freedom due to the limited choices it offers. The O’Romney plan provides welfare to all, however it strips freedom from the people because it forces them to buy private health insurance. The Canadia plan does provide health insurance for everyone but doesn’t allow people to choose their package, as well as doesn’t allow anyone to purchase the new treatment even if they have the money. The Brit plan is the only plan that ensures both welfare and freedom. It provides the basic medical care to those in need, as well as allowing the citizens of America to choose the health care plan that fits their personal needs. It also gives the opportunity to purchase the new drug to those who can afford it. No plan will completely solve all the problems with health care, especially with this new expensive treatment for cancer, however the Brit plan satisfies two important moral issues: the right to freedom, as well as
"Preventing or curing disease or disability reduces suffering in ways that contribute to aggregate welfare"(Daniels). In order to promote the aggregate welfare of the USA it means choosing the plan that will make citizens the happiest and healthiest and most prosperous. The Obamanos Plan does not accomplish this. Requiring private insurance companies to provide the treatment will cause the price of insurance to rise and therefore fewer Americans will be able to afford insurance. "We must sometimes make a choice between investing in a technology that delivers a significant benefit to few people or one that delivers a more modest benefit to a larger number of people"(Daniels). Although this plan allows some people to receive the new treatment, it takes away some peoples insurance and potentially all their health care, which does not benefit general welfare. In fact, in cross-national comparative data, it states that “high-technology medicine pale in importance when compared to differences attributable to gender, income, and genetic luck” (Engelhardt). Since this is true, the Obamanos plan would cripple the low-income citizens even further, by diminishing any opportunity to attain any form of health care. This would be immoral because it ignores the fact they started out at a disadvantage and need health insurance the most. The O 'Romney plan is essentially the same plan except everyone is forced to …show more content…
The Obamanos plan fails to ensure the well being for all due to the fact that many Americans will now not be able to afford health care, as well as it only providing moderate freedom due to the limited choices it offers. The O’Romney plan provides welfare to all, however it strips freedom from the people because it forces them to buy private health insurance. The Canadia plan does provide health insurance for everyone but doesn’t allow people to choose their package, as well as doesn’t allow anyone to purchase the new treatment even if they have the money. The Brit plan is the only plan that ensures both welfare and freedom. It provides the basic medical care to those in need, as well as allowing the citizens of America to choose the health care plan that fits their personal needs. It also gives the opportunity to purchase the new drug to those who can afford it. No plan will completely solve all the problems with health care, especially with this new expensive treatment for cancer, however the Brit plan satisfies two important moral issues: the right to freedom, as well as