The issue of payment for treatment and health care, in general, is becoming more and more critical every year. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted its importance, and people worldwide have begun to take a slightly different approach to their health. It is perhaps impossible to develop a universal method of medical care for all that does not cost a considerable amount for private companies and the government. People’s health is different; we are all carriers of unique genes. We are involved in different working conditions and live in different conditions; our health also changes with age.
I must say right away that comparing the automotive industry and the medical sector is fundamentally inappropriate and even unethical. Car insurance, in this way, tries to motivate (this is not the primary goal, but one of the goals) drivers to behave carefully and carefully on the roads. Drivers should not rush and disregard the rules; otherwise, accidents are inevitable. For those who are used to ignoring the rules, a monetary form of execution is provided, consisting of an annual increase in insurance price.
It also applies to people for whom it would be better to use only public transport, but they persist in the driving year after year, which provokes some accidents. Health and driving are not identical spheres, so it is unfair to put the same responsibility on human shoulders for road accidents and injuries received under different circumstances.
There are two interested parties who are concerned about their physical and financial condition. They are interested in opposite things; they are healthy people who are confident in the state of their organs and people who are used to going to the doctor often and, accordingly, using insurance. We have no right to condemn them for the diseases they have to deal with. However, in the context of health insurance, economic ethics, and medical ethics are manifested here.
Medical ethics is based on mercy and compassion, on care. Accordingly, health insurance prices for sick people should not go up. Perhaps the high costs of such insurance will reduce the number of people who go to the doctors because of their hypochondria (or people suffering from Munchausen’s syndrome). However, a large percentage of older people will remain who need support. Such support is necessary for children and adolescents and people whose work is affiliated with hazardous factory production and premises.
I could suggest taking into account the age of patients, their place of work, and other factors. These factors affect the number of visits to the doctor, and often they do not depend on the person. From a pragmatic point of view, if sickly people have inflated medical service prices, they will eventually ignore going to the doctor. Their diseases will progress, and they may even infect other people without receiving complete therapy and consultations. Sections of the population prone to hepatitis and HIV will especially zealously ignore doctor trips.
Providing society with medical services is not a problem for some harrowing people; it is always a public issue requiring discussion. People will transmit diseases to each other without being fully informed about the precautions. We can quickly get a whole ill society from a group of sick people. When addressing the ethical issues of medicine, especially public health, it is essential to think about this.