The 2013 review of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act: a call to action.

In September 2013, Congress again will review the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009. Fourteen states cover the fetus only (and not the pregnant woman) under the "unborn child" provision of the current law. That the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act continues to make it possible for states to provide health insurance coverage to the fetus only has been critiqued for unnecessarily politicizing the law, dragging abortion and personhood debates into the matter of children's health insurance and creating unacceptable tensions between maternal and fetal health. Although the 2009 reauthorization attempted to remedy this issue by also providing coverage for the pregnant mother, it is imperative to review these changes and their effect before the 2013 reauthorization. To ensure optimum health care for both the fetus and the woman, we urge for removal of the "unborn child" pathway and promote coverage of both the fetus and the pregnant woman.

The ethics of national health insurance: a personal essay.

As the number of uninsured and underinsured American citizens increases, there is new interest in developing some sort of national health plan to ensure what many consider a basic right in industrialized countries. The debate is no longer merely between the "socialized medicine" advocates and those who believe the government should stay completely out of health care delivery. Now between those who agree that some sort of national health plan is necessary, there is conflict between the "incrementalists" and the "revolutionists," who have differing ideas on how to best expand health care access to those without.

A critique of the innovation argument against a national health program.

President Bush and his Council of Economic Advisors have claimed that the US shouldn't adopt a national health program because doing so would slow innovation in health care. Some have attacked this argument by challenging its moral claim that innovativeness is a good ground for choosing between health care systems. This reply is misguided. If we want to refute the argument from innovation, we have to undercut the premise that seems least controversial--the premise that our current system produces more innovation than a national health program would. I argue that this premise is false. The argument requires clarifying the concept 'national health program' and examining various theories of human well-being.