Michael Moore's Sicko

Link to Sicko's homepage:
http://sicko-movie.com/

Michael Moore's Sicko Trailer:


Image Source: http://www.firstshowing.net/2007/05/22/first-posters-for-michael-moores-sicko/
Clip Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRs-Ca6qfvc

Political Discussions on Healthcare

"President Bush Discusses Healthcare Initiatives":


Barack Obama's Healthcare Address in Iowa City:


Hillary Clinton's Address on Children's Healthcare:


John Edward's Speech on National Healthcare:

What should be done about the global healthcare issues?

There are a varied number of healthcare systems in our world today. While some nations’ healthcare systems share similarities, there are also some that differ quite drastically. Healthcare reform is a touchy issue, and decisions have to be made carefully and thoughtfully. But in order to understand how to best go about making these reforms, we must first take into account the many different healthcare systems in the world.

First, let’s take a look at the healthcare systems of Britain and Canada. It has been suggested that the United States adopt a system that is similar to these two. For one, they cost less than that of the United States (take a look at the expenditure image below). With money being such a big issue, the cost is a definite determining factor. They are both universal healthcare systems, so they guarantee service to all their patients for their patients’ entire lives. Healthcare in these countries is funded by general taxation, the government pays for doctors’ salaries, and the hospital expenses are fully covered. Also, like in America, people have a free choice of physician. But reforms could also be made in these countries. Britain and Canada should focus their efforts on making their healthcare services more readily available, for the wait to receive treatment can sometimes be quite lengthy.

Next let’s look at the healthcare systems of France, Germany, and Japan. These systems share many similarities with one another. All three countries have developed some type of national healthcare system (take a look at the universal healthcare image below). Japan’s national healthcare system provides retirees and the unemployed with insurance and healthcare plans. France and Germany also make insurance available to the unemployed. People in these countries, like in the United States, have a free choice of their physician, and employees are guaranteed health insurance. But unlike the United States, insurers are required to provide minimum coverage, which encompasses a wide range of services, including coverage for physician’s services, hospital care, laboratory tests, prescription drugs, and dental and optical care. In the United States, coverage provided by insurers tends to be much more limited. More recent reforms have been in these countries to restrict their healthcare spending. This has contributed to a reduction in their expenses (look at expenditure image below). Similar reforms could be made elsewhere in the world. But while this might sound like a good idea for the United States, which has one of the most expensive healthcare systems in the world, many Americans are already concerned with the lack of money going towards healthcare initiatives. Recently, a number of healthcare proposals were vetoed, while more and more money was put into our efforts in Iraq.

In Sweden, like in Britain and Canada, healthcare is funded by general taxation. Insurance and care is given to everyone, and medical service is free. There is little private care in Sweden, which could be an area for possible reforms. But interest in private care is not increasing, so there’s no pressing issue to be solved.

One country where reforms have made a drastic difference is Cuba. For one, they have made healthcare available to the entire population. They have also received aid from foreign countries, such as Canada, which has allowed them to get caught up with the latest technology. As a result, once widely spread diseases are now on the decline. In general, Cuba is a good healthcare model for developing countries.


Then there are countries where reforms are desperately needed. Russia and South Africa, for example, lack many necessities. Their hospitals are short on x-ray machines, antibiotics, and even hot water. If possible, the government needs to step in and make changes, or maybe even request the aid of other countries.

One common aspect of many global healthcare systems is the universal plan. Most Europe countries, including England, Spain, Italy, and previously mentioned France and Germany, have universal healthcare systems. The systems in these countries also appear to be fairly successful. Developing similar universal systems in other countries might be one possible solution to relieve some of the issues with global healthcare. There is a constant demand for healthcare, so we have to find ways to increase the supply. A universal plan would guarantee care to the entire population, hopefully eliminating problems with scarcity.

This universal system could possibly be funded by general taxes, as in Britain, Canada, and Sweden, which would hopefully eliminate some of the cost issues. What would be ideal is if we could lessen the monetary value of healthcare, instead giving it more of a personal health value. Our concern for money often gets in the way of our concern for proper health care. For example, take our general lack of preventative medicine. People often don’t pay for preventative medicine because it’s too expensive, but then they end up having to pay for a more expensive medical emergency because they didn’t take the effort to prevent it in the first place.

Above: The logo of the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO is the directing agency for health within the United Nations system. It manages global health issues by setting standards, regulating research, monitoring health trends, and providing aid to countries. WHO aims to improve healthcare on a global level.

Reform goals are currently in place to broaden insurance coverage, improve the quality of healthcare, and to decrease costs. One proposal has been to increase the number of healthcare providers. This would make that are of business less of a monopoly (in the United States, Medicare and Medicaid are the dominating programs that greatly influence the course of our national healthcare). This would also hopefully allow healthcare services to reach more of the population.

If we don’t do anything to better our current healthcare systems, people will not be able to pay for services in the future, especially in the United States. The number of Americans not covered by insurance would increase and the quality of healthcare would decline as prices continued to rise. Canada, Britain, Germany, and France are in relatively in good shape and are in no immediate danger. Yet there’s always room for improvement. But countries such as Russia and South Africa will be left in dire straits if reforms are not made. People will probably be forced to leave the country in order to obtain sufficient healthcare.

With the U.S. presidential election approaching, many candidates are voicing their opinions on national healthcare and proposing possibly reforms. John Edwards is aiming for a step-by-step process, beginning by giving all employees health insurance and eventually requiring all citizens to have health insurance. While this plan sounds fairly expensive, Edwards plans to use tax credits. By making taxpayers pay for healthcare costs, it would become a more universal effort and would make the costs seem less expensive because you would pay in increments. Mitt Romney also wants to provide everyone with health insurance, but his plan involves a little more government control. Barack Obama wants to provide affordable healthcare of better quality and promotes preventative medicine. Hilary Clinton would like to offer new coverage choices for both the insured and uninsured, ensure affordable health coverage for everyone, lower premiums, and increase security of services. She is an advocate of shared responsibility when it comes to fixing the healthcare system, and is aiming for a fiscally responsible plan.

While no single country has all the answers to the global healthcare issue, most have aspects that are working well. Each country must put the best aspects together in a way that works for them. Hopefully then global healthcare will improve.

Sources:
http://www.who.int/en/
→Health Topics, Data and statistics, Countries
→http://www.who.int/topics/health_economics/en/
http://www.eldis.org/health (periodicals)
→http://www.eldis.org/go/topics/resource-guides/health/health-and-the-
millennium-development-goals
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/article/close-personal-taste-socialized-medicine-243439.html (periodical)
http://johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/health-care-fact-sheet/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/summary.aspx
http://www.pwc.com/extweb/pwcpublications.nsf/docid/0A43A30BC3DE09B6852572C100541487

Images:
http://www.canadiannetworkoncuba.ca/Documents/images/cuba-medical-aid.gif
http://www.painpolicy.wisc.edu/whologo2.gif

Global: Universal Healthcare Systems (Image)

This image shows which nations have a universal healthcare system, which nations are working towards adopting one, and which nations lack one. The issue of whether the United States should develop a universal healthcare system has been under debate for quite some time.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WORLDHEALTH2.png

Breakdown of Global Expenditures on Healthcare (Image)

This image shows the total expenditures (per capita) that every nation spends on healthcare. Red is the lowest ($25), and dark blue is the highest (more than $5000). As illustrated, developed (1st world) countries tend to spend more on healthcare than developing (3rd world) countries.

Source: http://www.who.int/nha/THE,cap%20US$_2004(200dpi).PNG

The Story of Healthcare and International Healthcare Organizations

The history of healthcare in the world is simple too broad of a topic to talk about within a mere blog entry so all I am able to is focus on a section of international healthcare and its life's story. The world cannot yet be seen as one entity and is still seen as many countries. Each country has grown differently so obviously, their healthcare systems have had different approaches to growth as well. There isn't a health corporation out there that has completely globalized yet and can call itself an international company. However, there are international health organizations that exist worldwide. Not only do they exist, but their numbers and impact in society are both extremely big. International Health Organizations are known throughout the world as the savior of the needy. But, how did these organizations come to be? How did they get inspiration and what processes took them to where they are today. What are the differences between, for example, The Red Cross and The International Medical Corps? Well, let's get those questions answered.

Here's a brief history about the Red Cross. The Red Cross is perhaps the most renowned international health organization. The symbol of the red cross, which is...a red cross, can be identified by almost everyone in the world, just like how the McDonald's famous golden arches are. The largest health organization in the world, with a presence in over 178 countries and over 115 million volunteers, the Internation Red Cross (and Red Crescent Movement) began in 1859, following the lead of Henry Dunant. This particular organization's original goal was only to relieve the suffering of those who had been ravaged by the horrors of war. However, now, in the 21st century, the Red Cross has expanded its goals and now tries to help those who are in need of the necessities that are needed for a proper standard of life. Many basic clinics have been created throughout the world for the countries who are either too poor to afford proper healthcare for their citizens or are too corrupted to look after their own people. By providing doctors, training, and fundamental medications and supplies, the Red Cross has been able to bring longevity to places where everyday living was a health risk. However, even though the Red Cross has effectively brought healthcare to places where medicine and doctors were luxuries, they can't provide the constant medical attention that is needed by people. But, there is a global organization that can.

The International Medical Corps isn't as popular or renowned as the Red Cross. However, the services they provide are forever felt by those who they affect. The International Medical Corps, or IMC, is completely focused on providing adequate healthcare to anyone that needs it. It's not exactly health insurance, but it is free and actually good medical help. Formed much later than the International Red Cross, the IMC was formed in 1980 by Doctor Robert Simon of UCLA. He proposed that the less fortunate people of this world shouldn't receive poor, meager health services, but instead those equal to a community hospital. Many doctors felt the same way and decided to join his cause. The IMC has created dozens of hospitals in the world, each monitered by volunteer medics. Every region that bears one of the IMC clinics have bettered the health and lifestyles of the people living there.

So what's different about the Red Cross and IMC compared to privately owned national health corporations. Simple. Money. Since money is not the main goal of these organizations, then the true main goal can be seen clearly, which is bettering the health of others. Unlike the money sucking corporations that call themselves "hospitals", these organizations are only intent on the helping of others. That's what our governments and private health corporations need to do. They need to start thinking less about money and more about people. This way, global health can start strengthening.

Wealth is Health: The Current International Situation

The chart above shows infant mortality rates throughout the world. Not surprisingly, the countries with the lowest infant mortality rates tend to be the richest. The United States and Western Europe have the minimum infant mortality rate, while Central Africa loses more than 150 per 1000 babies born. A nation’s ability to take care of its most helpless members reflects on its overall healthcare system. Therefore, with regards to most nations’ healthcare systems, wealth is an indication of health.

The main issues concerned with the healthcare systems of first world countries are promptness of treatment (the time you wait to see a doctor), quality of treatment, choice of who treats you, and price (operation and prescription drugs). Many European nations have developed a nationalized healthcare plan. Countries with nationalized health plans, such as France, Britain, and Canada, offer their citizens government sponsored, total health coverage. This somewhat socialized healthcare system makes sure 100% of their citizens are covered. This plan eliminates excess costs for healthcare, as the government bears the burden of its taxpayers’ health problems and prescription drug needs. Taxes are higher in these countries, but according to medicaldesign.com, “Nationalized healthcare could be the safety net that keeps families from falling into poverty and the first wrung on a ladder that lets them climb out.”

The burdens of a Nationalized system are numerous. Under a nationalized system, if a patient’s problem isn’t an emergency he could be on a waiting list for months. Quality of treatment is also an issue. In Britain, “When government planners do get the urge to cut costs, they will short-change patients. In a few years, equipment will likely be out of date or malfunctioning.” (-medicaldesign.com) Lastly, since the government sponsors all of its citizens, a citizen loses his choice of doctor and hospital. It is a large enough challenge to simply fit him into a government hospital’s busy schedule.

Middle-class to wealthy Europeans are finding a way around their nation’s constrictive healthcare systems. Private hospitals exist around Europe so that people of substantial means can receive prompt, American style healthcare. According to “The Sunday Telegraph,” people can also purchase “International Healthcare Plans” that allow the insurance holder to choose any hospitals around the world that best treat his condition. If a European wants to include hospitals in the United States and Canada on his IHP, it will cost the individual around 3,335 pounds.

Outside of the first world, with few exceptions, healthcare systems are dilapidated. Since wealth is health, the third world is generally sick.
Cases of Leprosy Worldwide:


Leprosy is probably not a disease that’s on the radar of most westerners, but it is plainly prevalent in the southern hemisphere. Leprosy, once viewed as an unsightly judgement from God, modern medicine has made it treatable with a very high success rate. Countries with lepers are lacking most modern prescription drugs, and the populace generally cannot afford any non-traditional form of healthcare. If a country has trouble treating leprosy, imagine the trouble it has treating expensive, complicated diseases, like HIV.



In 2006, 2.9 million people died from AIDS. 18,000 were from the USA… 2.1 million were from Sub-Saharan Africa. AIDS is a major modern health concern that researchers around the globe are attempting to find a cure for. Like Leprosy, its early form, called HIV, can be treated to some extent with expensive drugs. Poor countries don’t have access to these drugs, once again proving that wealth is health.

Due to the interconnectedness of our modern world, treating illnesses is becoming increasingly difficult. In the time of our great grandfathers, airplanes didn’t exist to transport a person infected with the Ebola virus (which kills a person in less than a week) across two continents in less than a day. Now, each section of the world has the ability to share its ailments with the others efficiently. Our globalizing world has improved our worldly knowledge, but it has greatly complicated the world’s healthcare practices. Potential pandemics, like bird flu, would require quick responses from drug researchers to find a cure/vaccine. Illnesses remind us that we are all in the same boat, within coughing distance. Of course, wealthy people are in the sanitary section of the boat with trained doctors ready to operate in case of emergency, while the world’s poor rely on their wits and genes for survival.

Sources:
http://www.medicaldesign.com/articles/ID/12731
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7307/248
http://web.lexisnexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=c44e282ae3b6f949dd27e3b7e05276fc&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkVk&_md5=defa7bd41e914277028095eed09e8fb4
http://web.lexisnexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=8d33876fbdfaa7c7457516a88b445b1f&_docnum=16&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkVk&_md5=c1a52ffb8985325eab6683af6a61b216
http://www.globalhealthreporting.org/diseaseinfo.asp?id=23
http://web.lexisnexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=11f524db1beb1606ad0fd358767099fa&_docnum=34&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkVk&_md5=de173c1e9e95dafd0a7af282cf3f333e
http://www.leprosymission.org.nz/aboutus/statistics.shtml

Images:
http://www.leprosymission.org.nz/aboutus/images/statsmap.gif
http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/01.whostat2005map_under5mortality.jpg
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~neils/africa/images/namibia/aids.gif