Essay --

This paper takes a case analysis approach to considering the ethical and legal implications of the honest to wellness care in contemporary America. The case scenario assumes that the government has enacted a new national health care policy. All citizens are guaranteed an annual income of $20,000 and the right to acquire (at an annual cost of $1,500) a comprehensive health insurance policy covering all routine medical and hospital costs. People who fail to obtain this insurance plan must pay cash for all health services. If non-insured case-by-cases do not have the money to pay for services, the hospital and/or atomic number 101 will deny treatment. This comprehensive insurance package is not without certain important limitations and exclusions. Notably, no coverage is provided for illness or disability arising directly from the individuals own unhealthy behaviors (e.g., smoking, overeating, drinking, etc.).This paper examines the legal and ethical implications of this he alth care system (for individual patients, hospital administrators, health care providers, and the society at large) by looking at the situation facing two hypothetical patients. The first patient, Mr. Puffer purchased the $1,500 plan but finds that costs related to the treatment of his lung genus 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 now being denied admission and treatment for his intense appendicitis since he has neither insurance coverage nor the cash to pay for the treatment. Both Mr. Puffer and Mr. Spender contend that the hospital has violated their right to health care.wellness 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 care benefits based on moral values, not food mark et values. A good beginning would be adherence to the moral principle that health care is (as both Mr. Puffer and Mr. Spender asserted) a basic right not a privilege based on income level or good behavior. If health care is indeed a right and not a privilege, an ethical system should provide for universal access to health care. Having established these basic guiding principles, the system designers would then have to grapple with the logistics of rationing active health care resources (as necessarily limited by technology, funding, etc.) in a manner which takes into account principles of distributive justice and the underlying values of the society.