|
pubmed:abstractText |
When advocates of insurance-privatization consider whether private insurance-dominated systems achieve justice at all, they tend to rely on an incomplete set of criteria for a just healthcare system. They also mistakenly assume that it is enough to show that justice is in principle achievable within a private insurance-dominated system. This essay offers a more complete set of criteria for a just healthcare system. It then argues that the motivational assumptions needed to make insurance-privatization at all plausible (on grounds of choice, efficiency, and quality of care) are inconsistent with the motivational assumptions needed to show that in practice a private insurance-dominated system will achieve justice. A private insurance-dominated system can be expected to satisfy the criteria for just healthcare only if (a) there is extensive and effective regulation to constrain the normal competitive behavior of private insurers or if (b) generous public funds are provided to fill the gaps in access left by the private insurance market. Yet the assumptions about the motivations and abilities of the public, regulators, and public officials needed to satisfy conditions (a) or (b) contradict the privatization advocate's explanations of how privatization will maximize efficiency, choice, and quality of care.
|
