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
to all cancer patients that would be ideal, but alas, the drug is very expensive to produce and cannot be provided to everyone. A distribution plan for the drug needs to be developed and I am here to guide you in the right direction. There are four proposals. The Obamanos Plan requires private insurance companies to cover the new treatment and allows people to purchase the treatment out of pocket. The O 'Romney Plan requires private insurance companies to cover the new treatment and requires everyone to buy private health insurance. The Canadia plan abolishes private insurance companies and levies a tax on all citizens so that it can provide healthcare for all including conventional cancer treatment. However, the new treatment is not available through insurance or to buy out of pocket. The Brit Plan levies taxes on everyone and uses the money to provide basic medical care to those who need it. Conventional cancer treatment is included, but not the new treatment. However, the new treatment is still available for purchase out of pocket with this plan. As a member of the United States congress, it is your moral obligation to distribute this drug in a way that best promotes the general welfare and freedom of the people. If the well-being and liberty of citizens is aimed to be preserved, then it is my professional opinion that the Brit plan will best accomplish this when compared to the other proposals. Welfare is the health, happiness, and prosperity of a person or group.
"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
purchase the private health insurance. This is beneficial to the welfare of the people because everyone is insured and the insurance rate is less affected by the incorporation of the new treatment. However, this may anger citizens and decrease their happiness because they are being forced to pay for services that are not necessarily needed. The Canadia Plan is beneficial to the general welfare, but to a lesser extent. The government uses tax dollars to fund healthcare. Everyone has access to basic healthcare and conventional cancer treatment. Unfortunately, no one is allowed to receive the new treatment, which makes the approach less appealing. The Brit plan aids the citizens by levying taxes in order to provide basic healthcare to all citizens. This plan allows people to pay for the new treatment out of pocket, which may be expensive, but it encourages citizens to work harder and become more prosperous.
The O’Romney plan violates the basic right of freedom completely because it requires everyone to purchase private health insurance. In congress, it is you’re responsibility to exercise moral authority and “Moral authority will not be the authority of God or reason, but of consent, agreement, or permission” (Engelhardt). By forcing your people to purchase private health insurance against their will, it takes away their right to freedom of choice and violates the Constitution, a document in which our country has lived by for over 200 years. The Canadia plan is similar to the O’Romney plan in how it also, strips all freedom from the people. This is true because now everyone will be forced to pay a tax to acquire a basic, one plan for everyone type of health care. This eliminates the freedom of choosing to have health insurance, as well as then being stuck with just one type of plan which could lead to problems such as, “…so called beneficiaries may not offer more money for a covered service in order to gain access to a premier physician“ (Engelhardt). The Obamanos plan does exercise limited freedom by allowing its costumers to choose not to have health insurance. However, they still do not offer more basic packages of health insurance, which limits its consumers to only two things, buying the more expensive health care, or having no health care at all. Many people do in fact yearn to have universal health care to promote a so-called equality and fairness, however one must realize that “…there are even stronger grounds for recognizing the morally problematic character of this desire” (Engelhardt). The only plan that still allows all Americans to pursuit their right to freedom is the Brit plan. It allows people to choose if they want health care, as well as what kind they would prefer based on their own “…moral vision concerning matters of equality- and concerning the appropriate ways to regard reproduction, birth, suffering, and death” (Engelhardt). Even though it does not provide everyone with the new treatment, it allows people who can fiscally afford the product, to purchase it, unlike the Canadia plan that restricts anyone from buying it. This too, allows a further sense of freedom in comparison. Freedom is the right to make your own choices, and “To be free is to make choices that have nonegalitarian results” (Engelhardt). This means that with the freedom to choose what health care plan you want, not everyone will end up with the same results, and in this case, it is the new treatment for cancer.

After looking at the different proposals and their pros and cons, it is now clear that the Brit plan is the right plan to implement.
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
welfare.

Works Cited
Daniels, Norman. "Is There a Right to Health Care And, If So, What Does It Encompass?" N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. Print.
Engelhardt, H. Tristram. "Freedom and Moral Diversity: The Moral Failures of Health Care in the Welfare State." Social Philosophy and Policy 14.02 (1997): 180-96. Print.