The reading level for this article is All Levels

     Gostin finalizes his argument for universal health care by objecting the use of market theory in health policy. Since he has established that health care is a necessity and everyone is ethically entitled to it through Rawlsian theory, Gostin then sets out to prove that health care cannot exist in the free market.  He questions the justness of the medical industry by claiming they would collude in a monopolistic fashion to maintain high prices.  Since free markets work on the concept of supply and demand, he also asserts as demand for health care increases so will the prices.  Therefore, based off these concepts of the marketplace, Gostin concludes competition in health care does little to increase access to health services for the lower class.  Just as his thesis states, if the health system remains at status quo then there will be adverse effects on the economy once demand for health care starts to rise. Gostin has proved the need for health care reform, but unlike Veatch he fails to offer a solution to the problem.

      Veatch finalizes his case for an equal right to health care by building a solution around the behavior of individuals in an unjust society.  He assumes people will take advantage to universal health care and therefore suggests we use the egalitarian principle of justice, under the condition the right to health care is equal to the health care needed (58). The second part of the health care solution essentially eliminates the misuse of funds in an equitable health system.  Assuming everyone uses their right to coverage only when needed, Veatch also speculates there will be an equality in the net welfare of society as well.

      My objection to the argument that Veatch makes arises in its justification by Rawlsian method. Veatch reaches his conclusion and adds the clause that health care can only be provided when needed. When placed under the “veil of ignorance,” I find it hard to believe that people would choose a system that only allows for health care when it is needed.  My basis for this objection is that preventative health care is never needed, it is a precaution used to keep an individual from becoming sicker.  If the individual is to wait until medical attention is needed, then it will cost the government and medical providers more money when treating those individuals. Veatch’s solution also creates one tier of medical services available to the population.  Many tax payers and insured individuals in the United States value their personal relationships with their health care providers. The system that Veatch proposes eliminates the intimacy between the insured and their providers, which many will admit is an integral part of their lives.  When making my decision about health care in the original position, I would much rather have equity in access to health care with the option of a private provider instead of Veatch’s one tiered system that only provides when needed. 

This Economics & Policy article was written by Colby Almond on 5/11/2010