Abstract
This article argues that health policy debate is dominated by the language of economics; that this approach makes it difficult to support equity concerns; and that recasting debate in public interest terms would balance equity and efficiency more effectively than "right to health care" claims. The public interest is presented as governmental-therefore binding-action that addresses the common good. Drawing on speech act theory, I suggest that policy language not only describes situations, it also shapes the way we identify and choose solutions to problems. Public interest language may therefore help us deal with tough issues like the growth of for-profit health care so that the pain inherent in societal choice does not fall on those members of society least able to bear it.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
