This article takes a case analysis approach to consider the ethical and legal implications of the “right” to health care in contemporary America. The scenario assumes that the government has implemented a new national health policy. All citizens are guaranteed an annual income of $20,000 and the right to purchase (at an annual cost of $1,500) a comprehensive health insurance policy that covers all routine medical and hospital expenses. People who do not purchase this insurance plan must pay cash for all healthcare services. If uninsured people don't have the money to pay for services, the hospital and/or doctor will deny care. This “everything” insurance package is not free from some important limitations and exclusions. In particular, no coverage is provided for illnesses or disabilities resulting directly from the individual's unhealthy behaviors (e.g., smoking, overeating, drinking, etc.). This paper examines the legal and ethical implications of this healthcare system (for individual patients, hospital administrators, healthcare providers, and society at large) by examining the situation of two hypothetical patients. The first patient, “Mr. Puffer” purchased the $1,500 plan but discovers that costs related to treatment of his lung cancer are not covered (because Mr. Puffer is a longtime smoker). The second patient, “Mr. Spender” failed to purchase the insurance plan and is now being denied hospitalization and treatment for his acute appendicitis because he has neither insurance coverage nor money to pay for the treatment. Both Mr. Puffer and Mr. Spender allege that the hospital violated their right to health care. Healthcare as a “moral duty” versus a “moral right” The statements of the two patients... middle of paper.. ....the only solution to the dilemmas posed in this case is to completely redesign the healthcare system. It must have as its starting point a system of distribution of health benefits based on moral values, not on market values. A good start would be to adhere to the moral principle that health care is (as both Puffer and Spender have argued) a fundamental right and not a privilege based on income level or “good behavior.” If healthcare is truly a right and not a privilege, an ethical system should ensure universal access to healthcare. Once these basic guiding principles are established, system designers should then grapple with the logistics of rationing existing healthcare resources (as they are necessarily limited by technology, funding, etc.) in a way that takes into account principles of distributive justice and underlying conditions. values ​​of the company.