PHIL 335 Lecture Notes - Lecture 3: Political Correctness, Participaction, Human Genome Project
3 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Unit 3
1. What are the basic characteristics of the libertarian health care system, and how does this
system differ from one premised on the modified-egalitarian model?
The libertarian model of health care is linked to freedom, and an example of a country that has a
version of this is the US. In this system health is a service and the marketplace determines its
availability and distribution. There is freedom to produce, offer, and purchase health care
resources, goods, and services. Under this system not even essential health care is available to all
people equally. Health is a commodity and those that can afford health care from their own
finances are in a better position to receive care. In US you are only guaranteed as much health
insurance as you are able to buy. There is minimal coverage for those that cannot afford it,
leaving many people not covered. The freedom is that, those who are healthy do not have to pay
for people who are sick, the problem is that we cannot predict what accidents will happen to us
or what financial or health changes we will encounter. On a larger scale this model supports a
“victim blaming” view of health and undermines the social, political, environment, educational
and more factors that influence health status of a population.
The biggest difference from the modified-egalitarian model is the lack of equality in libertarian
care models. The modified egalitarian model is universally available and publically funded by
taxes. It gives citizens the right to basic health care. In my opinion, this helps to acknowledge the
many social determinants of health outside of the individuals control and offers a sense of
security for the unknown. It demonstrates that society values caring for each other. Other
benefits of the modified-egalitarian model are: limited bureaucracy and physicians have more
professional autonomy (by not being influence by insurance companies and organizations
depicting what treatment can be done).
2. What do you think are the greatest advantages of the modified-egalitarian model as compared
to the libertarian model? Do they outweigh its disadvantages?
The greatest advantage of the modified-egalitarian model is equality. Knowing the social
determinants of health it is beneficial to have health care for all patrons. Personally, as a
Canadian I take comfort in knowing that my basic health care is covered. I am proud that my
country values caring for one another. However, the right to have access to basic health care is a
characteristic that many Canadians are accused of taking for granted. Hence the Canadian model
has been criticized for having poor measures of efficiency and poor incentives for cost
containment. For example, a Canadian may go to their doctor for a common cold, where are
someone in a libertarian system may refrain so that they do not endure the cost personally. On
the other side, someone living in a libertarian health care system may delay going to the doctor
until it is approved by insurance company and miss the chance of having an early diagnosis in
the event of a more serious health condition.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
This system does not come without disadvantages. Disadvantages that have been evident in the
media are the growing concern around how to financially support the obesity epidemic, the aging
population, and cost of advancing technology. The Canadian system has been critiqued for
having long wait times as well. However, by having a heath care system that does not blame the
individual but accounts for social determinants other government ministries can be called upon
to help support the health of Canadians.
3.. Are there changes to the modified-egalitarian model that would improve health care in
Canada? Can your suggested changes be defended on ethical or economic grounds?
The modified egalitarian model is based on the Canadian value to act as a society that treats each
other with equality, thus we have a single tiered system. However the cost of Canadian health
care is ever rising, as is our national debt. This concern amoung others, have lead to debate over
health reform in Canada. One of the most discussed options would be to move to a two-tier
system, the first tier being public and the second tier being private. The first tier would provide
services that are considered “medically” necessary. The second tier would be for treatments seen
as “medically unnecessary” allow for people that can afford to pay privately to access care
outside of the public system. This would simply put those that cannot afford “unnecessary”
treatments at a disadvantage. It would be very difficult to distinguish between what is necessary
and unnecessary in the context of people’s lives. For example, what if a person needed surgery
that was medically “unnecessary” to perform their duties at work, not being able to pay for the
surgery would also make them unfit for work. Stingl suggests that we could reinterpret “basic” to
refer only to services that we can publically fund for all people equally, but this means that some
people will be saved in life and death situations and some won’t be, which obviously does not
seem fair. This becomes very complicated when some people can afford this service.
It does not seem ethical or reasonable to introduce inequalities into our health care system by
creating a two-tiered system, which would put those with greater financial circumstances above
those in lower socioeconomic status and have an unknown effect on the publicly funded side.
To help think about this I will provide an example, you need knee surgery but know that you are
on a wait list and it could be months before the surgery takes place. You are an avid soccer
player and thus your knee is essential to who you are and what you do. A two-tiered system
would allow for you to pay privately to have this surgery quicker. You are able to afford the
surgery and decide it is worth the investment. Plus, now the person waiting for knee surgery
behind you that cannot afford to pay privately will also have their surgery faster. The idea that is
that this two tier system would give people who can pay the option of having the surgery sooner,
and freeing the weight times for the people who cannot afford to pay, it sounds like a win-win
situation. However, under critical analysis there are many reasons to disagree with this system.
Personally, I think this would create disparities. For example, some people think that this will
help reduce wait time for people of a lower social economic status because people who can
afford to pay would have the surgery privately. However, clinicians may have more incentives to
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
The libertarian model of health care is linked to freedom, and an example of a country that has a version of this is the us. In this system health is a service and the marketplace determines its availability and distribution. There is freedom to produce, offer, and purchase health care resources, goods, and services. Under this system not even essential health care is available to all people equally. Health is a commodity and those that can afford health care from their own finances are in a better position to receive care. In us you are only guaranteed as much health insurance as you are able to buy. There is minimal coverage for those that cannot afford it, leaving many people not covered. On a larger scale this model supports a. Victim blaming view of health and undermines the social, political, environment, educational and more factors that influence health status of a population.
