In Justice and the High Cost of Health, American philosopher Ronald Dworkin makes it evident that the prudent insurance ideal could be a possible approach in determining what sorts of health care society needs on the grounds of justice. There are two problems that need reform in American health care; the first is how much America should spend on health care overall, and the second is how should that health care be distributed among the people (242). The purpose of Dworkin’s prudent insurance ideal is to be able to answer these questions and possibly use it as our abstract ideal of justice in health care. In order for this ideal to work, Dworkin recognizes problems of a free and unsubsidized market in healthcare and creates a more idealized,
…show more content…
Throughout the passage Justice and the High Cost of Health, Dworkin uses the method of providing several examples where multiple, different health insurance policies are laid out and he chooses the option he believes the public would most likely have chosen. He requires that the the prudent insurance test have a diverse group of people in making decisions for cost-benefit calculations and the public’s sense of priorities if prudent insurance ideal is practiced in real society. In this way, the members of society would have fair rights to deciding which decisions are favorable to them. Analoging a “single-payer” government-run health service in Britain, he emphasizes the fair relationship, where both doctors and prudent insurers are able to make their personal opinions and judgements on the value of different kinds of treatment (246). While Dworkin explicitly explains the doctor making decisions for the allocation of scarce resources, he makes it very vague in what decisions the prudent insurers would make. That brings less credibility in this relationship because doctors are much more knowledgeable about health resources and prescribe medications, while insurers have limited health knowledge and may only be given the right to choose from options given by
Throughout the passage Justice and the High Cost of Health, Dworkin uses the method of providing several examples where multiple, different health insurance policies are laid out and he chooses the option he believes the public would most likely have chosen. He requires that the the prudent insurance test have a diverse group of people in making decisions for cost-benefit calculations and the public’s sense of priorities if prudent insurance ideal is practiced in real society. In this way, the members of society would have fair rights to deciding which decisions are favorable to them. Analoging a “single-payer” government-run health service in Britain, he emphasizes the fair relationship, where both doctors and prudent insurers are able to make their personal opinions and judgements on the value of different kinds of treatment (246). While Dworkin explicitly explains the doctor making decisions for the allocation of scarce resources, he makes it very vague in what decisions the prudent insurers would make. That brings less credibility in this relationship because doctors are much more knowledgeable about health resources and prescribe medications, while insurers have limited health knowledge and may only be given the right to choose from options given by