ETHICS AND MORALITY. HEALTH CARE- PT 4. UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE- A PRACTICAL APPROACH.

Thus far I have treated this subject as a question of morality.  That whether or not government has an ethical duty to provide subsidized medical insurance to its' citizens, to alleviate financial hardship.  Well, many politicians ignore this question and say requiring companies to offer such programs will lead to financial disaster.  To avoid such a consequence, they contend, businesses will be forced to downsize and take some of their full-time employees and reduce them to part-time status.  This will avoid offering mandatory health insurance.  However, is this reasoning valid or is it founded in the desire to keep many Americans without health care?  Let's create a fictional scenario;

 

John Doe works for the ABC company.  He works forty hours a week and makes ten dollars an hour.  His job is to operate a machine that combines two or more parts to create a finished product.  While the job is not physically demanding and does not require extensive training, his two years on the job have showed that with trial and error, he has increased his hourly out-put from ten pieces to fifteen.  It was all a matter of working more efficiently.

 

However, the company was now required to offer all of their full-time employees medical insurance, the cost which will be partially subsidized by the federal government.  In the end, the company estimates that coverage for John will cost them fifty-dollars a week.  So, he and other employees are reduced to part-time status of twenty-five hours a week.  Thus, the company does not have to offer health care.

 

This is basically the reasoning of UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE opponents.  The cost is to much to absorb and remain profitable.  However, that is a superficial criticism that avoids many other factors.

• By reducing John Does work week by forty-percent, they are also reducing his total production of finished product by an equal ratio. Since he averages 15/hr it comes to a total of 600 for a forty-hour work week.  However, as a part-timer he now produces only 375 for the twenty-five hours worked.
• Remember, ABC company was satisfied with John Does weekly pay, for that was not the reason for reducing him to part-time status.  It was only the addition of a health care cost that precipitated the change.
• To justify this change, the employer cost of fifty-dollars per week for a medical plan that John Doe was entitled to as a full time employee would cause an unacceptable decline in profits.
• Since there will be a decrease in John Does weekly production, which viewed in the past as acceptable, it must be made up in a way that will be less than fifty-dollars per week.

How could this be done?

• Increase the workload of other employees to make up the deficiency.  If this is possible and there is no decrease in production, why was John Doe not laid-off in the past?  However, is it pragmatic to think that these employees can maintain their current level of production, when they have the added responsibility of making up for the decrease in John Does weekly out-put?
• Hire new part-time employees to make up for the loss in production.  Even if we allow for the fact that they can equal John Does per hour production by working the fifteen hours that have been cut, it would not be of financial benefit to the company.  Even paying these employees minimum wage would still result in a cost of 105.00/wk.  As you can see, that is more than the $50.00 it would cost to cover John Does medical insurance.

Look for the conclusion of this article.

Date- 10/1/2013.

ETHICS AND MORALITY- HEALTH CARE. PT 3.

In the end, subsidized health care is not an economic issue.  When we say that government has an obligation to provide all citizens with affordable medical insurance,  a moral decision has been made.  That does not mean that in the future such a decision will not lead to practical benefits, where the return is not in just doing what is right.  I will get into that part of the equation in a future post, but for now I will stay on topic.

In the debate over Universal Health Care in the U.S, much of the rhetoric ignores the bottom line.  Opponents are using objections that they wish us to believe are valid and on target, but they are nothing more than a smokescreen.  They choose to criticize how the program is to be funded and administered, all the while avoiding answering the most important question;  IS PROVIDING AFFORDABLE SUBSIDIZED MEDICAL INSURANCE TO AMERICANS UNABLE TO ACQUIRE IT, THROUGH PRIVATE SOURCES, A MORAL OBLIGATION THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS TO ALL OF ITS' CITIZENS?

 

The above question is often not satisfactorily answered by the critics of subsidized health care, who choose to attack the mechanics of the new law.  However, the criticisms are often based on misleading, false or incomplete data.  This strategy is a deliberate attempt to shift the debate away from the purpose of the program and focus it on issues that are easy to manipulate.  Many times this is done by using assumptions and conclusions that are not based in reality.

( Look for part 4 in a future post.).

 

Date- 9/22/2013.

ETHICS AND MORALITY- HEALTH CARE. PT 2.

I would like to emphasize something I alluded to in part 1.  Too often, the health care debate gets mired in details that have little to do with the reality that must be faced. Initially, at least, HEALTH CARE BEING APPLIED UNIVERSALLY TO AN ENTIRE POPULATION OF ANY GIVEN COUNTRY IS A MORAL DECISION, NOT AN ECONOMIC ONE.

 

Like other state run social programs in the U.S, Universal Health Care is not designed to turn a profit. Its' goal is to provide affordable medical insurance that will not cripple an individual or families ability to provide for other basic necessities.  This idea stems from the primarily 20th century concept that government has an obligation to provide for, to a certain extent, the basic needs of a portion of the population that cannot do so on its' own.  However, unlike current social programs, Universal Health Care in the U.S differs from other social programs in one major aspect- ELIGIBILITY.

 

As it stands today in the U.S, there are three main groups that have medical insurance.

• Those who have high enough incomes that make attaining quality health care plans a non-issue.
• Private health care plans that are partially or wholly subsidized by an employer.
• Individuals and families with an income that falls below a certain level, which is set by the federal government.

 

These above groups leave out a substantial portion of the population in the U.S.

This segment of society is the real reason that Universal Health Care, or "Obamacare" is being instituted.  The middle class is the target group that will benefit the most, because they do not lie at either end of the financial spectrum in terms of income.  Since paying health insurance premiums will be done on a sliding scale basis, all Americans will be covered in a way that does not end in financial hardship.

See pt. 3 in a future issue.

Date-7/20/2013.

ETHICS AND MORALITY. HEALTH CARE. PT 1.

HEALTH CARE-  PT 1.

I am not going to begin this regular feature by providing a definition that will no doubt bore most readers. In the future, I will define such words, but I would rather open up with a practical article. 

The theme, " When does personal belief conflict with the best interests of society as a whole." 

The subject- Health Care.

Providing Health Insurance to every person residing in the U.S and its' territories, is not an economic question. 

If the federal government creates a program to provide minimal guaranteed medical coverage, 

funding must be there to support those who cannot afford traditional private plans. 

This is the Heart of the matter, and the dilemmas we must face are;

• Do we, as a society, have an obligation to provide minimal affordable medical care to all.
• That many people will, through taxation, provide a service that will be of direct benefit to others and not them personally.
• That in the question of the right or wrong of a given situation, choosing a moral stand is;

              1) The responsibility of the individual who is a member of society.

              2) The obligation of the governing body in society, which is a collection

              of individuals.

To illustrate what I mean, here is an example.  Let us say an individual decides all questions of morality will be answered from a Doctrine based upon the teachings of a given faith.  Now such decisions have two distinct implications;

• Is the individual going to decide the morality of any given situation solely by religious instruction and nothing else. If not, they have invalidated their own moral code, for it is not universally applied. It contradicts any assertion that the doctrine of their faith, regarding morality, is to be accepted absolutely.
• Does the individual wish to establish this system of morality for all of society, and punish any deviations.

 If society is populated by a majority of such citizens, what will be the outcome?

See pt.2 in a future issue.

Date- 6\16\2013.