They argue that introducing private health care will lessen the burden on the publicly funded system as many well off citizens would simply choose to pay out of pocket or through private insurers for services rather than rely on the public system. They argue that the government cannot do it efficiently. At zero prices there is an increase in demand for health care services. This in turn causes the introduction of expensive technology which increases health costs. With taxes at a breaking point government has little recourse but to try to hold down costs.
Although this is true, I believe it is a human right that does not need to be listed in such a document to be recognized. The cons of Universal Healthcare include a decrease in competition, decrease in quality due to increased demand, and an increase in government spending. This may also prove to be true but quality doesn’t have to suffer as the government could offer incentives for high achieving students to become doctors thus providing well-staffed facilities. Yes, historically when government intervenes with healthcare, spending does increase. Although this is correct, the government uses taxpayer money to fund wars for our “well-being” and safety so why shouldn’t Healthcare also be funded in this way?
I think if a wealthy person has the means to pay restitution to help the family and at the same time this reduces or helps them avoid a sentence, I am ok with it. I think the victim deserves to be compensated and locking up a person who has means is not always the best idea since this person has substantial income; this can only be to the benefit of the victim. If I were the victim, I would rather receive restitution than see the person locked up in prison. I think a hit to the pocket book may sometimes create more of an impact, especially to a person of means,
Both the rich and poor would accept money to help pay for something. Another topic spoken about is how somebody could sell an organ to help pay for college. If this is looked down upon, then why isn’t high risk jobs banned also? Both have severe risks and both pay, what’s the difference. Lastly, he speaks about letting this happen, but have a control on it.
Analytical Essay Overall wellbeing, an extravagant lifestyle, and wealth all come to mind when I ponder the good life but what does the good life actually cost? At first glance, this seems like a loaded question that requires multiple dissertations in order to answer. I even contemplated whether or not the good life had a cost at all. Breaking the good life into separate topics relieves much of the stress when it comes to giving an answer. In terms of consumerism, the good life is damaging to the environment, places too much emphasis on money, and it dwindles the importance of non-market values.
I do not feel along with many others that posted on this article that it is right or ethical any more than selling your organs through the black market. I feel people should be able to choose whether they want to donate or get rid of their organs or not because it is their body no one else’s. I also feel that maybe selling organs is not such a bad idea or so morally wrong. The way I look at it is if we have to many people that are needing these transplants why not sell them??? Yes, people who are going to sell them are most likely the poorer population but if it helps save another’s life then why not?
This creates a downfall in the system because the rich receiving cares while the poor are not. Poor and impoverished receive care, but the waiting may mean life or death. Although patients with long-term diseases receive free care, meaning they can see a special at no added costs. A current issue Ireland is facing is the rise of private insurance, which is forcing the premiums for public insurance to increase. Private companies are offering incentives for joining private insurance.
It is manageable to place these regulations in medical facilities to enhance the medical services being provided to patients. What is difficult and potentially costly would be how following up with the consequences physicians would face when not following these directions. Physicians may feel discouraged to consent to the guidelines due to the dramatic income decrease that would affect them and their families. Physicians could feel pressure to satisfy the patients so, they can dismiss a considerable pay cut which, would lead medical staff to not be strict on the solution at
Consider the political and cultural difficulties that are in the way of making dying more humane, cost-worthy, and dignified. Now picture a new reality: widely available and socially acceptable killing of patients who are terminally ill. Why even mess with raising the taxes for insuring good hospice care for everyone? Why increase research dollars to find and develop more effective pain management? Why take the more difficult road to make the process of dying more humane when there is a shortcut that terminates the dying process itself? Financial pressures also may lead to incentives for active killing by putting a limit on funding for terminal care.
This brings in the economic factors. Majority of patients in favor of physician assisted suicide include economic issues in their reasoning (economic motives 3). Some patients’ motive for their choice is that they wish to leave their wealth to their family than to spend any more of it on health care. We should not deny patient’s wishes of physician assisted suicide solely because he or she is taking economic considerations into account. Less fortunate patients may consider physician assisted suicide because they don’t want to leave health care bills for their family members to take care of later.