Abstract

This thesis examines what an ethical health-care system should look like in a pluralistic state. It investigates how people who are from different economic or social backgrounds and have diverse experiences can come to agree on a health-care system that is fair to all. It argues that a deliberative democratic process that encourages equal civic participation is the best process to determine the fairest health-care scheme. This decision-making process, which is inclusive, participatory, empowering, reciprocal, and public, allows citizens to engage in dialogues with each other in determining a health-care system that is acceptable to all. This process allows people of diverse experiences to be more informed and provides them a valuable chance to communicate with each other their respective concerns. It ensures that no one is left out in the decision-making process. ;I argue that when citizens of different economic and social backgrounds are given an equal chance to deliberate with each other, they will likely realize that a multi-tiered system is the most acceptable system. In this system, the government provides universal basic health care to all, while allowing people to purchase various insured and uninsured services in the private market. Such a system ensures that people will not die prematurely, lose their equal opportunity range, or suffer from excessive pain because of poor economic status. It also protects taxpayers' autonomy by allowing them to use their disposable resources as they see fit