HA570 Unit 9 Discussion

 Discuss the implications of providing a “lifetime voucher” that distributes a one-time savings amount to all citizens of the United States. This healthcare resource distribution system allocates the same amount of money to all citizens, allowing them the autonomy to use this money however they choose over a lifetime. Discuss the moral, ethical, and legal implications of using a “lifetime voucher” system. Discuss the implications of this arrangement from the perspective of distributive, compensatory, and social justice reasoning. What is an appropriate age for this “lifetime voucher” allocation to occur? 

In two diferent paragraph give your personal opinion to Paula Switzer and  Valerie Sukolowsky 

Paula Switzer 

Distributive Justice involves a principle of equality view.  A stipend will help inequalities and needs of citizens.  If health care inequalities are met, then everyone has justice through the morality in governing human rights.  For example, if this stipend was spent on healthcare by someone who lacked coverage it would make them equal to someone working and receiving private insurance.  Distributing equal healthcare is nondiscriminatory, doesn’t look at income and helps all society receive equal treatment. 

Compensatory Justice Ethics

When you view a stipend through compensatory justice, I understand situations arise that cause harm. Those in vulnerable areas such as rural communities do not have access to health care.  Should they be compensated because through no fault of their own they have developed chronic conditions.  Blame can be placed on health care practices that have left the area “to counter the negative effects of inequality, the concept of social need is a useful tool” (Purtilo & Doherty, 2015).  Therefore, citizens would benefit from the stipend for such inequality if someone is to blame “compensatory justice involves someone being injured, a person committing the injury, and quantifiable damage…” (Hill, 2002).

Social Justice Ethics

Social Justice involves equal opportunities for everyone. If a stipend was issued and we viewed how it is used between a healthy person and an unhealthy person, would it include social justice.  To explain, the unhealthy person would use it for health care but the healthy has taken the time to control his diet by eating vegetables and exercising so he may use his stipend for a house payment.  This would cause outrage, they “have funds for bettering…but now her needs may be the barrier” “(Purtilo & Doherty, 2015).   Did the unhealthy person have disadvantage because no healthy stores were in the community?  Having a stipend does not correct social justice for all when the big picture is assessed.  Utilitarianism is for the greater good but it leaves some unjustice. 

WHAT IS AN APPROPRIATE AGE FOR THIS “LIFETIME VOUCHER” ALLOCATION TO OCCUR

I believe the stipend should be an incentive pay instead of an age allocation.  After a person finds a way to educate, enter the military or start a business to prove success they should receive the lifetime stipend.  This keeps it fair and focuses on achievement to better themselves in society “benevolent partiality is reduced when people reflect beforehand on what aspects they will prioritize in their donation decision. “Paolacci & Yalcin, 2020). If a person cannot achieve this incentive, the government will have a better picture of society that is putting forth an effort and will implicate necessary actions for justice for all.

References

Hill, R. A. (2002). Compensatory Justice: Over Time and Between Groups. Journal of Political Philosophy, 10(4), 392–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00158

Paolacci, G., & Yalcin, G. (2020). Fewer but poorer: Benevolent partiality in prosocial preferences. Judgment & Decision Making, 15(2), 173–181.

Purtilo, R. & Doherty, R. (2015). Ethical Dimensions in the Health Professions, 6th Edition.  Retrieved from https://www.bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/978032328920

 Valerie Sukolowsky 

The concept of a lifetime voucher sounds more like a crutch than a solution. Morally and ethically, I struggle with the idea of giving people an allotted amount of money when as a whole, the United States already struggles with budget issues (Thinking back to a Balancing the Budget discussion for another class I'm in, here is the link if you want to try http://usa.v1.abalancingact.com/). Simply providing resources to people, in this case money, will not solve any issues if people do not know how to appropriately use those resources. Americans tend to favor short term gains and immediate validation and satisfaction, which leads me to believe that a one-time allotted voucher would be wasted. However, if we did want something like this to work, we would have to work on the conceptual American and switch from an individualistic mindset to a collectivist mindset.