According to the National Coalition on Healthcare, nearly 47 million Americans go without health insurance (NCHC 2008). That means that sixteen percent of the American population cannot afford to get treated when they are sick, injured, or possibly dying. Within that number, seventy percent are employed. Therefore, the statistics show that middle class American's are either not being paid enough to cover the expense of healthcare, or that the healthcare system has changed from a service industry into a manufacturing industry where supply and demand override quality of life. This issue has spread into the public mainstream via pop culture avenues, such as Michael Moore's documentary Sicko, which promotes socialized medical care by comparing foreign policies with America.
[...] However, many claim that reforms are just a way of ‘passing the buck' and that “there is little if any agreement about how that coverage should be provided and who should pay for (Benko 2003) The call for universal healthcare coverage in the United States creates hope for the millions who live without that security. But it also creates division among medical experts, religious activists, economists, government representatives, and the American people themselves. Besides financing, which takes dominance above all other factors, ethical dilemmas cause all potential program developments to stop short. [...]
[...] Of all the states, Oregon has come closest to drawing up what could be a model for a universal healthcare system. Oregon's state insurance, the Oregon Health Plan, is systematically one of the best plans in the country. Unlike other states which factor in such issues as family structure, income level, alternative support systems, and the like, Oregon insures everyone who falls below the federal poverty line. While the number of insured citizens was dropping around the nation, Oregon was providing health insurance to over a hundred thousand more people under the plan. [...]
[...] of economists, sociologists, doctors, and blue-collared workers, who pooled their expertise into designing a system which took the responsibility of healthcare costs away from the individual alone by adding the employer and state government contribution. The bill was reformed many times, but ultimately met with severe opposition in the state of New York. Critics of the bill used terms like bolshevism to deem this system of healthcare undemocratic. While the Bolshevik revolution was a hot topic during the time and the seeds of the red scare were in the early stages of being sown, the term was also used against those who supported the bill. [...]
[...] But Stroeder's story reflects a very troubling aspect when it comes to universal healthcare; the ethical question of who gets what. The medical community is a scientific community. From treatments, medication, testing, x-rays, to procedures, all aspects of the health industry take their cues from scientific research. But science is objective; a field based on logic and statistics. It lacks human characteristics like compassion and hope. Therefore, if two terminal patients need a heart transplant, but there is only one heart, science dictates that the one with the higher survival rate should receive the transplant. [...]
[...] Retrieved on May from http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/07/07/brandy/index1.html Benko, Laura B. (2003). “Universal Appeal.” Modern Healthcare Vol issue 15. Bloche, M. Gregg, M.d., J.D. (2007) “Health care for The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 357:1173-1175, No Cannon, Michael & Tanner, Michael. (2007) “Universal healthcare's dirty little secrets.” Los Angeles Times. Retrieved on May from http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-tanner5apr05,0,2227144.story Chasse, Dennis J. (1994). American Association for Labor Legislation and the Institutionalist Tradition in National Health Insurance.” Journal of Economic Issues, Vol Gratzer, David. (2007). "Who's the real sicko." National [...]
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee