Optimizing Utility: Morally Preferable Policies for Healthcare

Abstract

Argument Analysis What policies currently work against overall utility? What policies, if adopted, would be morally preferable? Economically, the utility remains associated with consumers' satisfaction from purchasing and consuming a good or service. To this effect, any policy/factor that can hinder such satisfaction threatens the overall utility. Government policies may either affect overall utility negatively or positively. Paying close attention to the health department, one can argue that some government policies hinder the flow of services, especially those requiring donations of lifesaving parts. Funding is one of the major public policies that, in most cases, work against the overall utility, especially in the health department. For instance, the cost of medical services in the United States is relatively high, requiring substantial funding to enhance service delivery. To this effect, the public funding policy must ensure its effectiveness in supporting hospitals to ensure all service that remains directed to saving lives remains under consideration. However, this is not the case as this funding policy limits the potential and willingness of well-wishers to donate body parts and fluids of relevance in saving lives. The National Organ Transplantation Act prohibits payments for donations of lifesaving bodily substances and parts like bone marrow and kidneys, limiting the donors' urge to risk their lives for others, as argued by Nicole Brochu. Though such an Act argues life from the priceless point of view, the effects of limiting funding from the hospitals result in a limited number of donors, thus losing the priceless life that the policy aims at protecting/valuing. The Act dictates that it is illegal to pay people for bone marrow and kidney nations though the same government offers payment for blood donations. To come to equilibrium, the American government should change its perception towards healthcare service delivery and view...