A Divided Nation on Socialized Medicine

Access to adequate healthcare is a prevalent issue around the world. Several nations including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, have all implemented forms of socialized medicine which has drastically changed their healthcare systems.

Socialized medicine is defined as a system of publicly funded healthcare. Its principal objective is to provide healthcare services that are “accessible and affordable” to all eligible members of the population (Okafor,2012). Dr. Maria-Theresa C. Okafor, the author,  is an assistant research scientist at the Center for Aging Studies and researches collaboratively with Department of Sociology and Anthropology at the University of Maryland. As a clinical gerontologist and epidemiologist, her research has helped inform national and international discussions on health and quality of life.  In the article “Socialized Medicine” Okafor discusses the universal healthcare system of countries around the world. The genre is a scholarly article from an online medium. The purpose of her work was to create an incentive for the adoption of a system that prioritizes people’s health. Some argue that if socialized medicine is adopted noncitizens would place a burden on economic cost and the quality of care. Okafor writes in a concerned and understanding tone. It makes sense to block out this policy if you believed immigrants would receive the care that working people would pay for. She believes if implemented that would not be the case. In the United Kingdom regulations are placed on immigrants that allow them access to healthcare under specific conditions. In “Lawful residence” in a country for 12 months will give them access to the National Healthcare Services (Okafor, 2012).

Advocators for immigrants’ rights argue that healthcare is fundamental regardless of whether they are illegal or permanent residents. The United Nations has taken steps in conjuncture with the World Health Organization to implement a proper form of care. In the article “The Promise and Peril of Universal Health Care” by David E. Bloom, et al. a service coverage index which focuses on “reproductive, maternal, child health, and infectious diseases” would be available to all UN nations for comparison (David Bloom, et al., 2018). The genre of this article is a journal and it is through an online medium. This increases the quality of care and effectiveness of treatments offered across the globe. The authors of this article work with the Department of Global Health and Population and gathers data about countries around the world. The audience of this article are the citizens of free nations. It is their job to push the politicians to make decisions. The change in healthcare would directly affect them and, with UN assistance, affect those in countries where the people’s voices are limited. In 1991 the World Health Assembly implemented a subprogram called DOTS in which “free or subsidized” tuberculosis testing and treatment was administered. Countries like India and China, who received higher DOTS coverage had a decrease in reported tuberculosis cases and deaths after ten years (David Bloom, et al., 2018). The purpose of the article was to highlight statistical evidence and efforts being done by the UN to implement a healthcare program for everyone.

The stance that Okafor and Bloom et al. share is support for natural rights. The language that is used emphasizes the necessity for the health needs of people to be met. Okafor’s “ethical standpoint [of] healthcare” is not defined by the government (Okafor, 2012). Everyone is entitled to healthcare. Bloom et al.’s “health for all” ensures that immigrants, refugees, asylum seekers, and citizens would have access to basic health on a global scale (David Bloom, et al., 2018).

The UN General Assembly has endorsed a resolution to accelerate towards universal healthcare. Since 2017 December 12th has been International Universal Health Coverage Day, a day in which political leaders are called upon to act. The Lancet Public Health Journal is peer-reviewed general medical journal that discusses topics that present prevalent health issues. The journal genre comes from an online medium.  A recent issue discussed wheatear the idea of universal healthcare is “realistic and achievable”. The people who have been on the fence about this movement were the intended audience. The logistics for implementation comes into question when the projected cost of universal healthcare funding is estimated at 1177.69 billion dollars globally (The Lancet, 2019). The purpose of the article was to inform readers about this possibility and practical changes that they would see if this system functions. The author uses language such as “need[ing] to do more” and “inefficiencies in current healthcare” to support his stance against switching to universal healthcare. The writers’ tone is skeptical because countries are at different levels of effectiveness when it comes to healthcare. There would need customized paths towards healthcare for all for each country which would be difficult. The quality of healthcare would most likely differ between countries due to varying degrees of medical standards and development.

Not only do the advocators for standardized medicine have to promote a basic degree of care, but they must also propose the political and economic benefits. The United States is the only country of a high income that does not offer universal health coverage. In the article titled “U.S. should adopt universal healthcare.” the political components of healthcare are addressed. The genre of this article is a column through an online magazine medium. The current system of health coverage is dominated by private companies; however, most Americans receive government-subsidized Medicare or Medicaid. Though they are receiving aid, most medical practices will not accept that form of coverage (Column, 2012). People are left to deal with crowded emergency rooms instead of their doctor. The intended audience for this piece are the working Americans who depend on the government for access to medical care. The Affordable Care Act was the United States first attempt at universal healthcare. Political debate had been sparked by this law and it has since been defined as unconstitutional. In the meantime, recipients struggle to deal with health costs. The author wrote this column as an informative piece. Its purpose was to push for the United States to join the other developed nations in guaranteeing healthcare for its citizens. The authors’ stance is evident in the title of the piece and he describes the drawbacks this brings for the nation.  The result is the United States “lag[ing]” behind other developed nations in several areas such as life expectancy, infant mortality, and potential years of life lost (Column, 2012). The language used by the author presents the United States in a not so promising light.

One of the crucial arguments that Okafor highlight is the type of care received. People argue that the “quality of healthcare” received will diminish; however, researchers have found that our existing healthcare system is not superior. The United States comes second to last in the number of practicing physicians and is below average when it comes to the number of hospital beds. The “length of stay for acute care” is also below average. The author writes in an ironic tone because instead of offering universal coverage to its citizens the U.S. is paying more for “subpar healthcare” (Column, 2012).

In an article titled “Socialized Medicine: Good, Bad, And Even Deadly” the author, Jeffrey B. English, believes that the socialized medicine works similarly the Health Maintenance Organization (English, 2011). Once you are healthy, it’s wonderful. If you don’t have a job you will still receive care. However, the system works at its extremes. If your need for care is urgent, then under socialized medicine you are prioritized. This may delay care for other patients. The online medium allows English to reach his intended audience, those who support socialized medicine. English takes an opposing stance on the issue and wants supporters to consider the long-term effects. The purpose of this article is to speak out about the risk socialized medicine can have on the lives of others. Is the lack of a financial burden worth the delay in medical care? English is empathetic of situations around the world such as a “referral to a specialist take[ing] up to 2 years” in Canada (English, 2011). In the authors’ eyes putting this system in place would do more harm than good.

On one hand, by providing universal healthcare to everyone, including immigrants, the overall health of communities would potentially improve. Preventive care can be crucial in reducing the long-term costs of untreated conditions. On the other hand, a uniform healthcare system would increase taxes and diminish the accessibility to care. With the spread of different opinions on implementing universal healthcare, there is no way to know if or when this action will take place.

 

Works Cited

“Column: U.S. Should Adopt Universal Healthcare. (Column).” UWIRE Text 2012: UWIRE Text, June 20, 2012. Web.

https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?&id=GALE|A303890950&v=2.1&u=cuny_ccny&it=r&p=STND&sw=w

David E. Bloom, Khoury, Alexander, and Ramnath Subbaraman. “The Promise and Peril of Universal Health Care.” (2018). Web.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/361/6404/eaat9644.full.pdf

Jeffrey B. English “(2/2011) Socialized Medicine: Good, Bad, And Even Deadly. (Healthcare Issues).” Basilandspice.com (2011): Basilandspice.com, Feb 13, 2011. Web.

https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?&id=GALE|A249072109&v=2.1&u=cuny_ccny&it=r&p=ITOF&sw=w

Okafor MT.C. (2012) Socialized Medicine. In: Loue S., Sajatovic M. (eds) Encyclopedia of Immigrant Health. Springer, New York, NY

https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-1-4419-5659-0_718

The Lancet Public Health. “Universal Health Coverage: Realistic and Achievable?” The Lancet Public Health 4.1 (2019): E1. Web.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468266718302688?via%3Dihub