Healthcare Rationing and Rights

Libertarianism

In what sense is Judge Napolitano's view of health care libertarian?

There are several reasons it is libertarian. First, libertarianism is against the healthcare mandate in that they would be against a person being forced to buy anything, even healthcare. Also, Napolitano in particular does not believe healthcare is a right as it is not defined or stated in the United States Constitution. Indeed, the United States was founded in the late 1700's and such an idea would be foreign. Further, Social Security and Medicare did not come into its current form until the 1930's and 1960's. However, libertarians hold that they should be allowed to buy healthcare if they want but that mandating the same and calling it a right are both wrong (Wilson, 2014; YouTube, 2016).

How does Daniels relate health care to fair equality of opportunity? If health care is related to equal opportunity, and given the fact that the elderly doesn't really have a range of opportunities before them, should we withhold health care from them? How does Daniels answer this question?

Daniels addresses the plight of the elderly by saying prior that a properly designed healthcare system will be constrained by budgets that are reasonable and proper. He comes back to that argument by stating that healthcare allocations should not matter due to stage of live. At the same time, he notes that treating people differently based on stage of life is not the same thing as doing the same thing for different race and age. In response to this factor, Daniels asserts that healthcare should be properly allocated over the lifespan of a person rather than given in one chunk at any given time. This may run counter to the idea that many to most healthcare expenses are incurred by a person as they reach the end part of their life but Daniels does not really make a mention of this as a caveat (Daniels, 2016).

3. What solution does Daniels offer to the rationing problem of limited health care resources?

Daniels is pretty clear in his words that "pure" rationing by age is "permissible." The precise quote is "under conditions of scarcity, this implies "pure" rationing by age (where age is not proxy for other traits) is permissible" (Daniels). He further says that there is the need to set priorities in terms of how care should be allocated. He says it is a requirement of justice and wraps up the point by saying meeting healthcare needs is not and should not be a "bottomless pit." However, he admits that there will be controversy in doing so. He asks out loud "under what conditions should we accept as legitimate the moral authority of those making rationing decisions?." The bottomless pit reference before is a good thing to look to as some would say that the money should be available and spent regardless if someone needs medical care. However, the point Daniels is trying to make is that we live in a country and world where money and other resources are scarce and thus some sort of protocol and yardstick needs to be used to establish and map out who money will be spent on and who it will not be spent on. Age, in the end, if the one thing that Daniels points to as being a point where one has to say no more. He also says that decisions like that which involve race, gender, etc. are not moral or right and thus age becomes the default metric to use. He also makes an argument that is rather utilitarian in nature when he talks about the "fair chances/best outcomes" thought. He suggests that those that get the best outcome and/or the use of resources that gives the benefit to the most should win out over the opposite of other. In other words, whatever leads to the greatest good should be done. To personally interject an example, the author of this report would suggest that giving a pacemaker to a 95-year-old patient would not fall under the priorities espoused by Daniels but giving treatment of pneumonia to a thirty-year-old would, if one had to make a choice between the two of course. He also talks about waiting times and "queues" as being a bit of a rationing device. These lines can be adjusted if the public gets angry about them (Daniels, 2016).