Sicko

This is a little write-up I had to for my "Healthcare Delivery Systems" class. I didn't take much time on it, so don't expect it to be too eloquent. Also, I highly recommend that you see the movie "Sicko," it's a Michael Moore film, so you have to take it with a grain of salt. It does, however, do a good job at illustrating the disparity of healthcare in the US compared to other countries. One more thing: I definitely did not address all of the factors associated with the healthcare dilemma, but there are a few important points in there.

In the film, Michael Moore elucidated many shortcomings within our present healthcare delivery system. There is definitely a method to the way Moore presents the material, a predictable formula of heart-wrenching stories, shortcomings of the US government, a comparison to other industrialized nations, and finally a return the feasibility of instituting changes within the system for the benefit of the masses.
The stories Moore found to portray the awful state of conditions in the US were terrible, despicable consequences of a capitalist society without checks on quality. One example I remembered from the film was when Cigna Healthcare approved a 9-month-old child going deaf for a hearing aid in one ear, but not the other ear. Understandably, this angered the father so much that when he became aware that Moore was collecting stories for his film, the father submitted a letter to Cigna management detailing this, and within a few days, miraculously, the child was approved for a hearing aid in both ears. There is no question this absolutely deplorable, and illustrates exactly the point Moore was attempting to shape by producing the film: that our current system of for-profit healthcare is a fundamentally inept program, because the incentive for healthcare organizations is to provide care, but also concurrently minimize costs to maximize profits. Therefore, it is impossible for a healthcare organization to try to convey a message of caring and extending care to as many people as possible, because by doing so, they lose a substantial amount of money.
Another innerving point the movie made was the footage of Nixon in the White House, discussing healthcare. The decision to use the Kaiser Permanente model for healthcare was the origin of a system structured to meet the needs of masses while remaining for-profit. Given the fact that England developed their national health service following World War II, it’s amazing that US would not have followed suit and developed a similar program. The only rationale that could be provided is that the current system really benefits the upper class and government. And then, when Hilary Clinton really spearheaded the campaign to institute a national health care system, she was amazingly close, if it weren’t for the system’s overwhelming complexity and intense opposition that did a very effective job of convincing the general public that would inevitably lead to a socialist society where the people had no say in the government. This idea is strongly refuted in the depictions of England, France, and Canada, because while all three of these countries have accommodated universal healthcare, they are still are very much a free society.
In summary, healthcare in the US is the best in the world, for those who can afford it. However, due to the increasing cost of healthcare, more and more people are unable to afford it. By moving to a national system, additional taxes would be taken out of individual’s earnings, but at the same time, those individuals would be paying less in premiums. Its time that the our society stopped focusing on an each individual for themselves mentality, because doing slows contributes to a less and less healthy society, which undoubtedly holds considerations for economic implications in the future.