Essay --

This paper takes a case analysis get down to considering the good and legal implications of the right to health make do in modern-day America. The case scenario assumes that the government has enacted a new national health disturbance policy. All citizens are guaranteed an annual income of $20,000 and the right to purchase (at an annual make up of $1,500) a comprehensive health restitution policy policy covering both routine medical and hospital cost. People who fail to purchase this insurance plan must pay cash for all health services. If non-insured individuals do not hire the money to pay for services, the hospital and/or physician will deny treatment. This comprehensive insurance package is not without reliable important limitations and exclusions. Notably, no coverage is provided for illness or disability arising forthwith from the individuals own unhealthy behaviors (e.g., smoking, overeating, drinking, etc.).This paper examines the legal and ethical implic ations of this health explosive charge governing body (for individual patients, hospital administrators, health care providers, and the society at large) by looking at the situation set about both hypothetical patients. The first patient, Mr. globefish purchased the $1,500 plan but finds that costs related to the treatment of his lung cancer are not covered (because Mr. Puffer is a long-time smoker). The second patient, Mr. Spender has failed to purchase the insurance plan and is straight off being denied admission and treatment for his acute appendicitis since he has neither insurance coverage nor the cash to pay for the treatment. Both Mr. Puffer and Mr. Spender get off that the hospital has violated their right to health care.Health Care as a Moral Duty versus a Moral RightThe two patients claim... ...only solution to the dilemmas posed in this case is to completely re-design the health care system. It must have as its starting point a system of distributing health car e benefits based on moral values, not grocery values. A good beginning would be adherence to the moral rationale that health care is (as both Mr. Puffer and Mr. Spender asserted) a basic right not a privilege based on income direct or good behavior. If health care is indeed a right and not a privilege, an ethical system should provide for universal get at to health care. Having established these basic guiding principles, the system designers would then have to grapple with the logistics of rationing existing health care resources (as necessarily particular by technology, funding, etc.) in a manner which takes into account principles of distributive evaluator and the underlying values of the society.