Health care reform: a study in moral malfeasance

Area of Science:

• Health Policy Analysis
• Bioethics
• Political Philosophy

Background:

• The Clinton health plan was developed through private deliberations, bypassing public discourse.
• The plan's ideology suggests achieving universal healthcare without additional costs or rationing.
• This ideology is supported by ethical arguments invoking a common morality.

Purpose of the Study:

• To critique the ideological underpinnings of the Clinton health plan.
• To examine the feasibility of universal healthcare without cost increases or rationing.
• To propose an alternative healthcare framework grounded in American pluralism and consent.

Main Methods:

• Critical analysis of the Clinton health plan's stated ideology and ethical justifications.
• Examination of American political philosophy regarding consent of the governed and state authority.
• Development of a theoretical model for a two-tiered healthcare system.

Main Results:

• The study finds no evidence of a 'common morality' to support the plan's claims.
• The pursuit of universal care without cost increases or rationing is deemed unrealistic.
• A two-tiered system is proposed, with a basic, cost-effective tier for the poor and a supplementary private insurance tier.

Conclusions:

• The Clinton health plan's approach is flawed due to its private development and unrealistic promises.
• Healthcare policy must acknowledge American pluralism and the limits of state power.
• A tiered healthcare system respecting individual consent and prioritizing essential care is a more viable model.