A critique of the innovation argument against a national health program

Bioethics 21 (6):316–323 (2007)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
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.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
RAJACO
Upload history
Archival date: 2016-02-24
View other versions
Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
66 ( #52,537 of 64,182 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #64,566 of 64,182 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.