What are the ethical questions raised by this article?
This article is based on the ethical issues in the healthcare sector in America. Questions raised here include: why does the medical care system serve in favor of the end-year renal disease patients only? Also, if the government is working towards having ‘Medicare for more,’ why doesn’t it revise and reinforce the A.C.A. instead of dismantling it and bring up a new coverage system? Also, how comes there is open readiness to pour in more funding towards kidney diseases. At the same time, there are other severe and life-threatening diseases like Leukemia and Diabetes that can be funded by Medicare? Why should the Trump administration want to develop a system whose fundamental principle is the A.C.A.? Lastly, is it ethical to have health policies that make the sick feel unfairly handled?
- My first reaction to the ethical issues raised by this article:
Medicare is a crucial federal responsibility that cannot be overlooked in any way. However, it is not fair to have the government channel a significant amount of funds in covering one disease that is barely affecting 1 million people. Yet, there are other life-threatening medical conditions, whose treatment costs are even less and are affecting a good percent of the society. Reforms in the Medicare system should be intended to have more people covered, especially the low-income earners, as well as cover more diseases. Saving 750,000 people with over $34 billion a year is a show of biased health coverage. The one-disease carve clearly explains the inadequate universal coverage and brings about a sense of poor cost controls.
The politics going on behind the scenes makes it slightly a long stretch in having better health coverage. It is less costly to reinforce the already stipulated laws than coming up with entirely new ones.
- Someone taking the opposite point of view might say:
The Trump administration is on the right path. The A.C.A. has been active in that the universal coverage is comprehensive. But the renal disease cost can be very overwhelming for patients as compared to most of the others. Even dialysis is expensive. So this act that put a health cover on all kidney patients does cushion them from the costly treatments which they would have to pay for.
Again, the administration is on its way to stop this spending on end-year renal disease. It is proposing a new cost-saving measure, which will encourage kidney donations under certain compensations. This is also lifesaving.
- What I think after considering these issues further and why I feel the way I do:
I think that it is essential to give all patients equal attention, especially in terms of health coverage. It is true; the 1972 act may have had some loopholes. But when it comes to ethics in line with medical attention, no sickness should be assumed. Other life-threatening diseases need to be considered for coverage to all people.
I also think the Congress has a lot to do in terms of making health insurance over certain illnesses not seem ‘private.’ Before going too far in adopting a new medical care system, the current system should be reviewed, and a new one is an improvement of what was.
Finally, slashing the cost of end-year renal disease is a logical move. Less cost-effective and home-friendly treatments can be employed on kidney patients. This includes putting up some incentives for dialysis and generic medication.
- One connection I can make between this article and something else I know about (whether from personal experience, television, another class I’m taking, a book I’ve read, etc.):
I watched this story on the news channel one night. A mother was working with an N.G.O, which offered a private employer-based medical cover. This served the whole nuclear family all-round the year but only for some diseases. However, there was an age limit for the children. One of her sons needed some urgent medical attention, which, unfortunately, he had to source out for money to pay since he had exceeded the age limit soon after he enrolled for the universal cover.
With subsidized prices on drugs and treatment cost, and reining costly insurance covers, the overall result of universal health coverage would be lifesaving.