Another very interesting presentation... There are many variations out there, but, as you discussed, the main difference between countries and the way they run their healthcare system, is whether they have a national system of health or a private system of health. America spends more than ANY other nation on health and yet has lesser outcomes than other countries in terms of life-span and illness prevalence. You rightfully point out that Americans are generally fearful of a national health system because it has been tied to 'socialism'.
Who do you think is driving this ideological message? If healthcare is inefficient in the US and our outcomes so lacking, why are we holding on to a privatized system? Who benefits from this system?
Internationally, countries far poorer than the US are nationalizing their healthcare systems....
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/interviews/reinhardt.html
You also mentioned prescription drugs. Most drug companies, of course, are located in first world countries - and they are driven by profit. How do you think this shapes what research is done? And globally, what populations and diseases do you think go unattended?
You use many great clips to show some of your points, but what is one of the problems of relying on commercial media (made in the US) to tell us about the healthcare system? (Think of The Corporation).
15 comments:
The people are not clinging to an inefficient system, but powerful lobbies, like pharmaceutical, AMA and insurance interests are protecting their bottom lines.If there is a general health system in the US that means fees and profits may come under scrutiny or may be held to reasonable levels.
To hell with the underpriveleged and their needs. Profits have always taken precedence ove human concerns.
I think that the government is driving this ideological message. The reason why I think this is because America's government wants nothing to do with socialism.
The why we are holding on to a privatized system is because companies want to stay in charge of health insurance because they are the ones who benefit from this system. The health insurances make a ton of money from this system and do not want things to change.
Drug companies being located in first world countries and are driven by profit. I'm not quite sure how this shapes what research is done.
Globally, populations and diseases in poorer, third-world countries go unattended. For example, in countries such Ethiopia,Chad, parts of India, China, Ecuador, etc... Some diseases are malaria, cholera, and small pox. Even some diseases that we wouldn't expect to be deathly like diarrhea in some countries.
One of the problems of relying on commercial media to tell us about the health care system is that all the information is usually biased and is there to make the corporations look good. In other words, the media might make out the health care system to seem great and unquestionable, when in reality, it has a lot of problems and it isn't the best kind out there.
Some of my answers to these questions are sort of similar to Samar's, and I'm sticking to some of the lines I stated in the presentation.
I think what is driving the ideology here in America is not so much the government, but the health care corporations themselves. America has always been a corporate nation that strives to put lots of money and power into their CEO's. Their mission is simply profit, and will always be that way no matter how much they give back to the people in their community. I don't necessarily think that the government is driving home the ideology because they are tied up between providing universal health care coverage to everyone. This will be even more true if a Democrat is elected to office in November. From a historical prespective, the American government has always been laissez faire when it comes to issues such as these and will only intervene if it means the state of our nation.
Therefore, it is the drug companies that are in the drivers seat. This allows them to be in control like any other company out there (health care or non health care providing). The only government agency that stands in their way is the FDA, but with good reason (to make sure any products that are released are not harmful, but even after approval we can find harmful things out about these drugs, so...). Therefore, the drug companies are subject to such methodology as ideology and systems of representation. They are also in the drivers seat in terms of what diseases they feel should get prescriptions for treatment. Here in America, those diesases and defficiencies seem to be depression, sleep deprivation, allergies, cold/flu, high cholestrol, heart disease, and also drugs that improve sexual pleasure in older people. These are the most drugs that are the most adveritised in America. As you might be aware, research is also being done on Cancer curing drugs and gene therapy because a cure for both is in the best interest of the American people, and the drug companies know that they will make profit. Perhaps showing a lot of videos based on what is going on in Amderica might have been a bad idea because of the way drug companies are portrayed here in America, but the video showing prescription drugs getting flushed down the toilet sure did no make them look as good as they are made to be.
As for universal health care being a socialist ideology, it is something that some American people fear, and is something that the goverment is currently debating. If America was to opt to do such a thing, the biggest consequenct would be that it goes against the American ideology of freedom. On the other side of the token, those that don't have a lot of money and power would benefit from coverage, which is a really important value to some that live here. Something ironic to think about is this: Why don't the CEO's of America contribute something to this effort? They have so much money they don't even know what to do with it! Why not give something back to your people?
I hope this covers all of the bases based on the questions posed. I will post comments to the other blogs later today probably!
Respectfully Submitted,
Shamus
Oh, just realized that I forgot to mention diseases that are going untreated in other countries that we people in first world countries take for granted. As shown in the presentation, diarrhea is definitely one of them. Malaria, cholera, tuberculosis, hepatitis, measles, mumps, rubella, and AIDS are definitely some others, but humanitarian efforts are helping out as much as possible in the third world countries. These efforts are a tremendous help to the world and definitely should continue. I also agree with others that universal health care coverage is a good model in these countries because the governments in these countries have more money and power to perhaps do something about it.
OK, I think that covers everything!
Shamus
Very interesting, Samar and Shamus. I think you're spot on re: insurance companies and drug companies driving this ideology. What should be noted, though, is the intersection of corporations with government. The lobbyists and financial backers of our lawmakers (i.e. the drug and insurance companies) play a powerful role in shaping policy and political rhetoric. Connecting national health care, for example, to socialism with the aim of engendering social anxieties and fears is a carefully crafted and strategic ideological representation which encourages people in the US to vote against their best interests (that is, not supporting political candidates and parties which promote universal healthcare). Research study after research study indicates that the US's system is inferior when it comes to delivering healthcare services to their citizens. And it's more costly too!
As for global diseases... What has disturbed many critics, is the fact that drug companies will not financially back research into combatting diseases which affect poor people... why? Because those people are poor and the product they would produce would not create a lot of profit. A vaccine or cure for malaria, as an example, would save millions of lives, yet little research is going into that disease because it will not create extensive profits. At the same time, drug companies realise that they can create more markets in the US and Western world by developing drugs which do not save lives, rather, they are drugs which are meant to make us happier (for example, diet pills and viagra...). WHy? Again, for profit.
Also, drug companies originating in the US have a terrible track records as they try to stop other nations developing generic, more affordable versions, of drugs. Famously, this was the case with the HIV cocktail. To protect their global stake, they fought hard to stop the Indian government from making those generic drugs... Again, for profit... even while it meant more people would suffer and die.
Very interesting stuff!
Alex
America clearly identifies a universal health care system with a socialist culture. We have already established our ideologies towards socialist cultures, such as communist societies, and don’t want to associate our cultural identities with socialist cultural identities. We only cling to the privatized system because it identifies us and separates us from a socialist identity. The biggest benefactor of this system is the government, concerning how the privatized system influences their identity as a democracy.
With prescription drugs and research, it only makes sense that the richest and most developed countries would undertake the research of producing drugs, because they have the best conditions to create drugs that the world needs. Because only the riches countries have the capabilities to develop drugs, the illnesses and problems in those countries take immediate precedence over illnesses and problems that the country is not affected with. What this means for smaller, third-world countries is that any problems that are not addresses by these richer countries may not take be developed or distributed as much as is needed. The needs of the country creating new drugs will come before the needs of other countries that may not be able to develop the drugs they need. Any diseases that are not influencing richer countries may be allowed to go untreated because they aren’t a priority to the country developing drugs, despite how they may be influencing other countries.
The biggest problem trusting American drug media is that the government is biased and may avoid giving us the whole story on universal and privatized health care. We can only get the whole story on health care by researching ourselves.
Stuart
What's problematic, some think, is that the drugs developed in the West (mostly in universities and thus paid for my tax payers, more often than not) for the West are mostly drugs that are not necessary - and not life saving. In fact, they can often be extremely powerful and harmful. All the while, diseases in developing nations go untreated... and because of economic stratification it is difficult to create infrastructures within those countries so that drugs might be developed there.
And then there's the issue of generic drugs..
A
I really liked this presentation because it caused me to start paying attention to issues I never knew existed before. Unfortunately, I think samar and shamus are definitely right about the fact everything is driven by profit. Drug companies are focused on selling drugs that will make a lot of money because they improve the quality of life, yet some people in other nations are dying from untreated diseases that we cure easily in America. Seems unfair.
I can see where universal health care would be controversial because it goes against so many American values, but it also seems as though it may be necessary to properly care for everyone. Underprivleged people need a way to remain healthy, and their lack of money should not take away their option of that.
-Lauren
I agree with everyone on this discussion. I believe That universal health care may never happen in this country because this country was founded on capitolism and with a large fear of social programs. This to me is inacceptable because health care should be affordable for anyone. I also notice that many life threatening conditions are not covered with health insurance such as hemophilia for example has very poor health inusrance coverage causing the affliction to not only be traumatic and life threatening but also a huge financial burden. I believe the presentation covered many key points very well and overall was both shocked and apalled with a large protion of the topic. I agree with the point about the drugs made primarily now are not made for life threatening conditions. It disgusts me to think about how over medicated this country is knowing that there are many people dying in other counties of things such as diarrhea or vitamin deficiencies such as scurvy (an easily treated condition).
Sorry I forgot my name, The above comment was from me
Sam
I believe with all thats been said. This country was founded on capitalism and everyone has their hand in everyone elses pocket, so why would we switch to a system where corporations and the rich would not be in control and not making the profits that they are seeing now. People in third world countries are dying from diseases that we have drugs for but to give you a little hint about what presentation is coming today that corporations that make up the WTO protect pharmaceutical companies "right to profit" so these countries can't afford the drugs thats one of the reasons why generic drugs were made so they would be cheaper, but the WTO needed to get in on that too so its harder now for these countries to even get generic drugs. These coporation/ governmental organizations hate socialism and hate to risk the profit that they are receiving now by screwing the "little people" over and commercial media is sooo biased because whoever gives a little donation to whoever than they can publicize whatever they want to make themselves look good even if they are killing people and destroying the environment.
I think that healht insurance company is putting force to keep a privatized health care system in America, since they are getting huge money from that system.
I think the pharmacetical, government, FDA, and media are all driving the ideology of using more and more drugs. Even though America is spending tons of money for researching new cure, inventing new drugs, the more and more people are getting cancer, obesity..etc. It is all about money. I think that drug companies are putting great effort to get more profits, but not to treat or prevent disease. Why so many people die because of side effects? Why more people getting disease, even though more money is spending for health care? I read the book by Kevin Trudeau,"They" DON'T WANT YOU KNOW ABOUT. He is criticizing drug companies and FDA, and promoting natural cures. I am not saying that drugs are unnecessary, but people need to think of side effects of druds, the hidden aspects of drug companies.
One of the problem of commercial media (made in the US) to tell us about the healthcare system, is that commercial media is largely sponsored by the huge drug companies, I think. Media need sponsors to get monay. And the sponsor can use advitement. So, it means that media can be contolled by drug companies and so that media promotes using more drugs. Media rearely say drugs are dangerous! or should not be used by commercial.
Susumu Ikeda
It seems like the media and the government are trying to manipulate people into believing there is something wrong with themselves, half the time. Also, a company that makes one tiny change to a drug will advertise it as new: a new label, a new catch phrase, a new price.. universal health care might cause a change in perspective, where there is less focus on profit, and more on giving people jobs/internships. The demand for medical workers would be heavier, so students & companies could expand their systems to other [under-developed] countries? I think it could go a long way just to have vaccines reach third world countries.
Fallon
I know that the drive for success is often what keeps the world going, but it also causes a lot of problems too. The business I work for now is a very small business with only 2 full time employees, myself and the owner, and then some of his friends who help when they can. We process Velvet Antler which comes from Deer and Elk antlers, harvested humanely :) It is a struggling business because we are unable to advertise the benifits of taking VA due to FDA regulations. I will tell about one ailment that many people take VA for, and that is Arthritis. So many people suffer from different arthritic problems, and there is not a whole lot that can be done to help besides joint replacement and pain medication. Joints need substances called Condroitin Sulfate, and Glycosaminoglycans...sorry about the APP talk...which resist the compression forces of bodily movements. These are two of the primary elements in Velvet Antler, but we cannot advertise the business based on these claims.
The clip had a good point-- By relying on commercial media, people are asking about drugs before knowing what they do, and there is less of an emphasis on the side effects.
The companies with the best advertising may not have the number one quality drug. Drug A could be very similar to Drug B, but Drug B is "newer" therefore "better". It's interesting that the FDA approves any drug that is more effective than a sugar pill..
-Fallon
Post a Comment