Question #3 In a public health care/insurance system dedicated to meeting the health needs of citizens equally, how do we decide which health needs should be given priority?

Health care is highly significant to human survival. Without health care one cannot take advantage of opportunities and the pursuit of life goals. Although health care is essential, many people agree that it is unjustly distributed. For this paper I will exposit the writings of Ronald Dworkin and Norman Daniels’. Ronald Dworkin looks into how a nation should spend collectively on the treatment and tests each citizen might want and need. I will explicate on his idea that treating people as equals is best achieved by giving people equality of resources. Then, I will highlight Daniels argument that people have rights and entitlements to health care. He argues this by using the fair equality of opportunity principle. Both authors acknowledge that health care is necessary for the normal species to function, therefore no health need can be given priority over another. This paper will exemplify that health care is extremely vital to the condition of life as Dworkin and Daniels’ approaches to equality are phenomenal but not convincible.
In “Justice and the High Cost of Health”, Ronald Dworkin argues that a morally just plan of health care in society would be whatever health care individuals decided to purchase on their own. This idea holds the belief that no health need can be given priority over another health need. The first condition to his argument is providing fair equality in the distribution of resources. The second is that individuals should be informed about the value and costs and side effects of medical procedures prior to considering them. Without a doubt individuals must also be informed about costs and benefits of alternative medical options. He also believes that the government should provide some basic level of coverage under situations where wealth and genetic health are unequally distributed. Dworkin presents an ideal of justice in medicine referred to as the rescue principle. Rescue Principle as two parts. The first holds the idea that life and health are chief among all goods (P245). Everything else is of lesser importance because people can be living good lives regardless of what they are doing, but we cannot go on the stay that people can live a good life without their health. The second enforces the notion that health care must be dispersed equally. Even in a society where wealth is distributed unequally, no cannot be denied the medical care because he unable to afford it. Dworkin rejects the rescue principle indicating it as useless (Dworkin, 245). Dworkin believes that the ideal justice in health care is the prudent insurance ideal (Dworkin, 246). Using the U.S as an example, if there were equality in resources, such that income and wealth were equally distributed and everyone had information about health care options, each person could then act prudently to buy insurance protection of their choice. This could all be done without government subsidies or crooked markets. This approach assumes that people may lead better lives when they invest less in doubtful medicine and more in making life successful or enjoyable (Dworkin, 249). They can even protect themselves against other risks, including economic ones. He believes that the prudent insurance tests answers how much to spend on health care and how should health care be distributed among citizens. Dworkin recognizes that health insurance is important because uninsured people receive less medical care contributing to deteriorating health conditions. Therefore his emphasis on personalized insurance can contribute to receiving the right medical attention, improving each individual’s life. I agree with Dworkin that people should make their own decisions about what lives are best for them, but in my opinion there is one problem with the prudent insurance approach. This argument focuses on personal medical services and not the extensive public health measures or social factors. This hypothetical insurance strategy is not a reality in our current health system. In order for this system to be possible, everyone must be employed and be making the same level of income in order to benefit equally. This to me is not possible to happen in any developed country. Dworkin is not clear about how a policy like this can be designed.
In “Health-Care Needs and Distributive Justice” Norman Daniels writes about the impartiality of the health care system. He argues that healthcare is special because it protects normal functioning, which in turn protects the range of opportunities open to people. In his writing, Daniels’ touches on John Rawls’s theory of justice as fairness. Rawls demonstrates that a social contract among people would constitute three principles. The first one is protecting equal basic liberties, and then comes guaranteeing fair equality of opportunity and lastly limiting inequalities within society (Daniels, 147). Once again, these three principles outline the importance to equal health care rather than prioritizing health needs. Daniels develops on Rawls’s theory by recognizing that health is valuable because it adds to opportunities in life we can partake in. Daniels engages with Rawl’s theory that individuals would not be equally well from the standpoint of justice if they had different health care needs that were not met accordingly. Two individuals with similar wealth but with different healthcare needs could have contrasting conditions of life. Daniels recognizes that health inequalities exist when access to health care or when social factors such as education and income are distributed unfairly. Daniels claims that the fair equality of opportunity theory provides practical guidance that is applicable in the health care system. Daniels urges the claim that if a theory of justice includes a principle for fair equality of opportunity, then health care institutions should be governed by it (P 160-161). The issue with Rawls’ theory is that he assumes that everyone would be healthy throughout his or her course of life. Daniels attempted to build from this theory by advocating for equal access to healthcare. He believes that this would allow people with varied needs to access the public health sector. Daniels argued that society has a responsibility to provide equality in resources, which will guarantee access to healthcare. Catering to these needs is vital in protecting normal functioning, which allows access to the division of life prospects. I do believe Daniel’s has indeed presented a compelling resource theory account of health justice. I find the fair equality of opportunity approach problematic because it does not consider the impact of disease or disabilities when thinking about distributive justice. It builds the idea that good health was important for happiness, but illness and disability may not lead to one’s unhappiness. Even if they prevent some life opportunities to an individual. The fair equality opportunity really means that specific opportunities should be equal at the age of majority among the equally talented. This further marginalizes people within the health sector, rather than providing and distributing necessary health-care. The equality of opportunity proves itself to be unfair to people who suffer from worse health than other owing to factors they did not control. This approach is a principle that is convenient only for the distribution of competitive goods.
Health is not only a product of having access to medical treatment, but to ones experience of social surroundings within their life span. Unfortunately within the contemporary era, the richer people are the healthier their lives are. Norman Daniels and Ronald Dworkin recognize that a state which is committed to equality of recourses and fairness in opportunities promote equality within the public health sector. A health care plan built off respect to the needs and decisions of citizens is truly egalitarian.

BIBILIOGRAPHY: 1. Norman Daniels, “Health Care Needs and Distributive Justice,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 10.2 (1981):146-179

2. Ronald Dworkin, “Justice and the High Cost of Health,”