Ronald Dworkin's Prudent Insurance Approach To Universal Health Care

Ronald Dworkin argues that the prudent insurance approach provides justice in health care and is a satisfactory method of providing universal health care in America. This is in contrast to the rescue principle, which, according to Dworkin, is completely inadequate and has done more harm than good. Here, I respond to Dworkin’s argument by pointing out an issue with prudent insurance. The prudent insurance approach fails to consider the fact that there are different types of health care needed by different people depending on their age and gender. If this point is taken into consideration, it becomes evident that the prudent insurance approach is flawed. In Dworkin’s paper, he looks for an answer to the question of how we, as a country, can develop a society in which health care is available to everyone. He briefly mentions the health care plan developed by President Clinton. This plan introduced the idea of health care rationing, in which everyone would have access to a basic health care package. However, treatments would be rationed depending on whether or not they were deemed “necessary and appropriate” by a National Health Board (SLA pg. 240). This health care plan failed however as it was considered to be too complex and poorly developed. Some argue that no universal health care plan

He encourages the reader to imagine a society in which wealth is equally distributed, everyone has the same knowledge about medical treatments that doctors have, and no one, including insurance companies, has any knowledge about the likelihood of a person contracting a particular disease or illness. While this society would be ideal, it is well known that our society is imperfect and unjust (SLA pg. 243). Yet, these corrections were still used as guidelines to decide what health care should be provided to everyone, and attain justice in health