Market vs Social Justice PDF

Preview

Summary

Market vs Social Justice Assignment, Professor Clark ...

Description

Market vs. Social Justice Much like the majority of social and political issues in the US today, healthcare has become a divided issue between proponents of Market Justice and Social Justice. The Market Justice approach to healthcare aligns with the more typically Conservative stances, and minimizes the role of the government in maintaining a healthcare system. The idea that healthcare is a commodity drives this framework, which comes with pros and cons. On the positive side of this perspective, it allows the patient to effectively pay to play, choosing their level of care and the services they want based on what they can afford. Additionally, it puts the onus of health on the individual, which promotes self efficacy. This system also efficiently allocates private resources, though the cost is often inflated. However, the downsides of this system are rather severe: it completely leaves unemployed people or those without work benefits stranded and alone in their payments for health services. It operates in an imperfect market, where insurance companies and other middlemen drive the prices up without acknowledging demand. It takes the person out of the system and makes it like a business (which may be economical when operating perfectly), disregarding the need for good health to even be a viable consumer of these goods. The Social Justice view of healthcare prioritizes the human over the financial aspect, and utilizes the government as a means to this end of universalized health. The pros for this stance are obvious: it allows every person, regardless of finances or condition, to receive equitable health care. This also looks at society as a whole and sees the benefits of healthy individuals on a community, and relies on the community to support this effort: through general tax revenue. This is where there are cons to the Social Justice case: the health of all is also a burden to all when everyone is paying for it, particularly healthy people, and puts little responsibility on the individual to care for themselves and work for their medical services. Additionally, it would require an overhaul of the current system that is employing millions of people, and possible pay cuts for private network and insurance providers who are able to make a very high wage in this current market. A realistic approach to battling this debate is to model a system of healthcare in another similarly developed nation that has had success, like in Canada. This system relies far more heavily on the Social Justice viewpoint, as it provides universal healthcare coverage for a “narrow basket of services” according to a research article in The Lancet, which cover the essential services people need to maintain general good health. This appeals to the Social

Justice viewpoints that health is a human right, not a commodity. With universal Medicare established, like in Canada, the cost of routine services are “free at the point of service, through general taxation” ensuring that every person, whether they have a job or not, deserves and can have access to a general practitioner (The Lancet). Additionally, a system (like Canada’s) that reaches out to indigenous and also rural communities aligns with the Social Justice perspective as it champions equal access: a homeless person with Medicare could more easily reach a doctor than a homeless person in the backcountry, so it requires the institution of service providers and clinics in rural areas. Much like the Social Justice view of heavy government involvement, there is the point that “health care should be based on need, not ability to pay, [as] a defining national value” (The Lancet). This system is realistic for the United States because it does not require overhauling our current system, but minimizing it and putting and end to the current monopolies: instead, “a collection of provincial and territorial health insurance plans subject to national standards” (The Lancet). All of these systemic changes would be realistic for the United States while lining up with the most charitable aspects of the Social Justice viewpoint, ensuring equity and good health for all.

Resources: Martin, Danielle, et al. “Canada's Universal Health-Care System: Achieving Its Potential.” The Lancet, vol. 391, no. 10131, 28 Apr. 2018, pp. 1718–1735., doi:10.1016/s01406736(18)30181-8. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS01406736(18)30181-8/fulltext#seccestitle20...