Case Analysis

Universal Healthcare in the United States has been a fairly large topic of discussion over the last couple years, but that’s not where it all started. It was originally discussed back in 1911 by Louis D. Brandeis. Subsequently it was part of Theodore Roosevelt’s platform in 1912 as well as the primary agenda item of the First American Conference on Social Insurance in 1913. Debate continued on the topic for nearly half a century until Medicare was signed into law in 1965. High spending and growing costs caused there to be calls for reform and review of Medicare in the early 1990’s.

President Obama signed into law on March 23, 2010 a bill that was originally introduced on September 16, 2009. This law’s title was H R 3590 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The open congress summary begins as follows:

This is the major health care reform bill, signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 20190. It would expand health care coverage to 31 million currently uninsured Americans through a combination of cost controls, subsidies, and mandates. It is estimated to cost $848 billion over a 10 year period, but would be fully offset by new taxes and revenues and would actually reduce the deficit by $131 billion over the same period. (complete summary can be found here: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3590/show )

The bill was passes amid intense national debate as to the legitimacy of the need for such a bill as well as how the cost for a national healthcare system could be supported. In a country where freedom of choice is one of the founding tenants, the requirement by the government that all citizens be covered by a national healthcare system sounds counter intuitive.

As the congressional summary indicates, there were some 31 million American citizens who did not have medical coverage. The contention was that while some percentage of this population voluntarily chose to not have medical coverage and were able to easily afford it, these were by a vast margin a minority of the population. Most of this group were lower income or unemployed and either unable to afford, or unable to procure medical insurance. The actual break down was debated vigorously on both sides, with proponents claiming it was as much as 95% of the 31 million who could not afford it, while the opposition to the bill claiming that it was only approximate 50% of the 31million who could not afford or have the means to receive medical benefits.

The biggest glaring counterpoint to the whole argument is as to whether it is appropriate to change the entire healthcare industry of the United States for 11% of its population. A rather cold questions to be sure, but the United States has always been a country of the majority, i.e.; The best for the many, not the best for the few. This tact however was never discussed on the larger debate since it would probably be political suicide for whomev

Final - Case 8.8

Question 1: What are the arguments for and against the proposition that the food and restaurant industries should be held liable for the rise of obesity in the Unites States?

Answer:

For: Since these are the industries that have been providing the food, they are obviously to blame. There is a correlation between the increase in meal size offered by these industries as well as n increase in sugars and fats. Also, someone needs to be a scapegoat.

Against: In two words: personal responsibility. Also, No one forced anyone to eat excessive amounts of food on a daily basis. Unlike the smoking industry that is used as an example of a similar situation, food is largely not addictive like nicotine. That between meals the average person also leads a sedentary lifestyle instead of getting a reasonable amount of exercise (or more, if they want to counteract that large intake) is not something that can be laid at the food and restraints feet. The argument that food portions increasing are to blame for obesity can also be argued from the other side as well: Food portions increased because the customer base demanded more value, ie; they asked for it, so it’s hardly something that can be blamed on the provider.

Question 2: In your opinion, should the food and restaurant industries be held liable for the rise of obesity, or not? That is, which side do you support, and why?

Answer: See the Against argument above in question 1. Do I believe that they are a contributing factor to obesity today, yes. Do I think they are liable for it, no. I think they are a symptom of the obesity problem. Sedentary lifestyles, and excessive poor nutritional choices are chiefly to blame, and these are the responsibility of the public, not the food and restaurant industries.

Question 3: If you were a manager for a fast-food chain or food company, what actions would you take with respect to obesity, if any?

Answer: I think it is the responsibility of the company to make the nutritional values of their products available to the public. In the form of a plaque or brochure in a fast food restaurant, or on the menu’s at a restaurant. Carrying a wide variety of food choices varying from very healthy, to the guy bomb would assist, giving the customer both the option and the responsibility for their own health.

Question 4: What do you think is the best solution to the obesity epidemic? What role can the food and restaurant industries, trial attorneys, government regulatory agencies, and individual consumers play in a solution, if any?

Answer: I take issue with calling obesity an epidemic. Obesity is a symptom of sedentary lifestyle and poor nutritional choices (in the vast majority of cases. I do not take issue with those who have legitimate health concerns that cause this). The primary actors to solve this issue are the individual consumers. Assuming that we’re to continue living in a free society, were we get to choose what we eat, when we eat it, and how much of it we want to eat, then it is up to the individual consumer to make those choices. The roll that the other mentioned entities should play is to make sure that the information necessary for informed choices is easily accessible and accurate. The food companies should make it available; the government should ensure it’s accurate. The necessary infrastructure is already in place to do all these things, as well as for those who are obese to correct their health issue, in the form of ‘outside’ and exercise complexes.

Final - Case 7.14

Question 1: Describe the Daniels’ Ethical standards:

Answer: Their ethical standard is purely based upon money. If an activity is not illegal, than while it may be considered immoral, it is not unethical. Since their activities do not directly contribute to any deaths, and the use of the weapons they sell could be purely for recreational uses, it can be reasoned that they are not morally to blame if a weapon is misused.

Question 2: Are the Daniels persuasive in disclaiming responsibility for what guns do?

Answer: Depends on your personal view on what a gun is. My view is that a gun is a tool. It can be used for a myriad of things. If you accept that a gun is a tool, and that the Daniels are merely the provisioners of that tool, then they are persuasive in their claim that they are not to blame. Arguably, the issue is not limited to the guns they sell that are now illegal to produce. The argument in a slightly different view would be whether the producer or distributer of a hammer are to blame if that hammer is misused in a violent crime. I think the moral standard of society currently is that no, the person who committed the act is to blame, not the person or company that created the implement used to carry out the heinous deed.

Question 3: Aren’t the Daniels just fulfilling a market need?

Answer: Yes and no. The fact that they are able to sell the item for 15x the price it was once sold at shows that yes, they are indeed filling a market demand. But since society (the government to be more specific) has outlawed the creation of these weapons, then they are also in what many would call a grey zone. Society as a whole (for this arguments sake) has deemed their product undesirable, so while they are fulfilling a demand, it’s not necessarily a demand that the society actually has a desire to be fulfilled.

Question 4: Could you work for the Daniels?

Answer: Yes. I don’t actually see much difference between this business and any other fringe hunting products or specialty products that are really just niche to collectors. For instance companies that sell swords. This product has absolutely no use other than for display or entertainment (legal). However, it could be miss-used, and cause great bodily harm or even death. I see little to no difference between the two beyond the fact that a firearm can do the same thing, just with greater ease.

Final - Case Study 7.8

Question 1: What are the ethical issues in the production of songs with explicit lyrics?

Answer: From the creators’ side, the issues are whether the content being created is truly ‘artistic’ or if it’s simply being ‘explicit’ only for the shock value that comes with such lyrics. Others ethical items that should be considered are the possible negatives of the material falling into the hands of a demographic that it is not intended for, such as minors.

Question 2: Will Voluntary regulation work for the recording industry?

Answer: Voluntary regulation is sort of a misnomer. Left to its own devices, the industry would not have regulated. It wasn’t until groups were formed that lobbied for legislation that the industry ‘voluntarily’ self regulated and we have what we have today. That said, self regulation is a quicker way to meet what the public desires, vs. government legislation, which can take years to be realized. Granted the industry could instantly and on a whim change to a less strict regulation, but this is unlikely, as it would bring the wrath of the government and take the perceived choice of self regulation out of the music industry’s hands. To specifically answer the question, I think voluntary regulation is as effective as government regulation and serves to meet the needs of the public faster. Should the solution of self regulation not meet the needs of the public, the ensuing threat of government regulation will cause stricter or more correct self regulation to take place.

Question 3: If you were a record producer, would your company sign artist who sing explicit lyrics?

Answer: Yes. These artists will be signed by some company at some point whether I choose to make a ‘moral’ stand against it or not. The only question is will I be in a position to reap profits from it. The fact that these artists are known and successful means there is a public demand for it. By extension this means that regardless of what would be a largely symbolic stand against explicit lyrics, I would effectively only be passing the potential profits on to some other record producer who would sign these artists. I’d rather have my hand in the honey jar too.

Question 4: If you were a record producer, would you feel an obligation to do more than put a warning label on albums with explicit lyrics?

Answer: No. Those who are of age to make informed (or to choose to not make an informed decision) don’t need to be informed beyond the fact that there is an explicit lyrics label. Those who are too young to do so (by law), cannot purchase such albums without the assistance of someone who IS of such an age. In this arrangement, just as with R rated movies, it is up to the judgment of the guardian to choose whether the material is appropriate for the underage person.