A critique of the innovation argument against a national health program

Bioethics 21 (6):316–323 (2007)

Authors
Alex Rajczi
Claremont McKenna College
Abstract
President Bush and his Council of Economic Advisors have claimed that the U.S. shouldn’t adopt a national health program because doing so would slow innovation in health care. Some have attacked this argument by challenging its moral claim that innovativeness is a good ground for choosing between health care systems. This reply is misguided. If we want to refute the argument from innovation, we have to undercut the premise that seems least controversial -- the premise that our current system produces more innovation than a national health program would. I argue that this premise is false. The argument requires clarifying the concept ‘national health program’ and examining various theories of human well-being.
Keywords health care  national health insurance  innovation  health care markets
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2007.00559.x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
48 ( #173,037 of 2,265,064 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
8 ( #147,223 of 2,265,064 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature