Reference no: EM131743596

Case Scenario: NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: Bush Vetoes Health Care Plan for Poor Children The political bind for Republicans-particularly those in swing districts-is reflected in polls that show broad public support for covering uninsured children. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) called it "the morally right thing to do." Zaldivar Ricardo-Alonso, Los Angeles Times, October 4, 2007 President Bush, for the second time, vetoed the expansion of the child health care bill that would have provided children from low-income households affordable health insurance. Although the Senate approved the bill, the House failed to get a sufficient number of votes to override the veto. President Bush indicated that the child health care program was meant for poor children and should not be expanded to cover children who were not in need of such coverage. Because of the high cost of health care, the public is concerned that the expansion of the program is necessary to prevent financial ruin in cases of catastrophic illnesses.

1. Discuss why you believe the expansion of the child health program would be the morally right thing to do.

2. Discuss how paternalism and partisan politics might have prompted President Bush to veto the child health care bill.

3. Considering that politicians have been elected to represent the people, describe how the principles of beneficence (doing good), nonmaleficence (avoid causing patients harm), and justice (the obligation to be fair in the distribution of benefits) may have been ignored when President Bush vetoed the bill and the House of Representatives failed to override the veto.