National Health System (NHS), U.S. Healthcare System and Sicko


 


            This paper argues on the acceptability and fairness of the premise that “the NHS is more effective than the US healthcare system in meeting the needs of their citizen”. Using the documentary film, Sicko (or SiCKO) by American filmmaker Michael Moore, the following discussion presents evidences from various sources.


            Released in 2007, the documentary film Sicko tells about America’s healthcare system particularly its health insurance and pharmaceutical industry in contrast to that of other Western countries. The documentary film specifically focuses on the comparison between the for-profit and non-universal healthcare system in the US and non-profit and universal healthcare systems in Canada, Cuba, France, and the UK. Gilbey (2007, p. 43) wrote in the New Statesman that Sicko “analyses the state of America’s health-care system, and asks why the nationalised care that has been so effective in other countries has never been implemented in the US.” In Sicko, the documentary shows how “U.S. health care system denies common humanity to some 50 million Americans” (Piljer 2007, p. 30). While this documentary film receives ranting reviews – both positive and negative in nature, the sad reality on the condition of health care system in the U.S. is said to be historically and politically presented. The film conveys the consequences of the U.S. health system based on real healthcare settings, cases, and personal accounts.


            Meanwhile, National Health System (NHS) is considered to be the world’s largest publicly funded health service and among the most admired institutions in the UK. The system is dedicated to provide good healthcare to everyone regardless of wealth. The NHS is always free to all UK citizens (almost 60 million people) except for some charges to prescriptions and optical and dental services. It is also centrally funded from national taxes but managed separately in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The system started with a small budget and increased ten times up to these days, which amounted to more than £90 billion.


It is understood that every known society is given the independence to come up with national policies and legislations that are based on legal considerations and beneficial to all parties concerned. For example, the need of people to avail the most effective health services is significant. Access to healthcare services and development programs is among the basic necessities that every member of a population must have. In most countries and modern societies, the policy background of health has changed significantly. National policies are based occurrences within national borders and given circumstances. The justifications of national policies are rooted on the understanding that such policies are made for a specific population. The mentioned assertion is perfectly understood by looking on a case-to-case basis. In response, I argue that NHS is far different to that of the U.S. healthcare system in terms of organizational factors like funding, structure, and performance. The common denominator is the intention to provide basic healthcare services to all members of the population. The effectiveness of the U.S. healthcare system is not tantamount to that of NHS provided that these two systems are practically different and work within specific principles and processes of implementation.


Globally, health promotion seeks further reinforcement and gets more attention by the national leaders and other related authorities or institutions. In the U.S., there are a variety of policies implemented by the federal government in support to the promotion and interests of people’s health. The current modes of living make people become conscious of the relative importance of health as compared to olden times. Particularly, Larson (1991) describes Americans to be expectant that their health is not merely adequate, but good, if not excellent. This is same as true to other societies and its populations. Jamner and Stokols (2000) supported this fact by saying that Americans are in “critical juncture” of promoting health considering the present living conditions. The national government and its authorities presented developed methods in identifying the most effective strategies for improving the health-related quality of life. Questioning the existing healthcare system of the U.S. is like looking into ancient history, wherein various participants are involved and different versions of the story are to be documented.


In the documentary film, I must agree to other critics that Moore ‘romanticizes’ the NHS. Singer (2008), in a new empirically-based study, describes Sicko as a film that dramatically illustrates a variety of problems in access to healthcare in the U.S. and stated that it became a crisis not only to poor but also the richest Americans. The term dramatically is operational. It has something to do on the media used by Moore. Among the problems identified in the film include the presence of a significant number of uninsured citizens, increased healthcare costs; and other structural difficulties based on national policies and other legislations (i.e. economic factors). While the U.S. is disputably considered as the most powerful and developed country in the world, its weakness in implementing a fairly effective healthcare system makes it far substandard that other developed countries because most of them have universal health care. But considering the universality of health care is not enough to say that the U.S. health systems are not effective. Going back to the case of the movie, it is not apt to create conclusions or basis of performance measurements based on the contents of Moore’s works.


The assertion above is to some extent unfair because Moore is not able to see other factors such as “the cost of Cuban health care, Canadian hospital waiting lists and the privatisation of the NHS” (Cathcart 2007, p. 33). Moore admired the universal healthcare systems in Canada, Cuba, France, and the UK yet this admiration is limited on what he perceived to be aristocratically-based point of view. I also see the weakness of the medium used as it may mean different to every viewer. The documentary presented existing problems in the U.S. healthcare system and provided some solutions worthy of recognition yet this is not enough to use as term of evaluation. There are certain aspects that need to be considered including the measures of quality and the use of funds. It might include arguments for the issues of progression of technology, social responsibility to all patients, people’s rights, and other arguments or ethical issues. 


In meeting the needs of the citizens, national government is not solely in charge. I believe in personal responsibility among every member of either the U.S. or the U.K. populations. Even if the national government has the most outstanding and universally admired healthcare system, people factors are always authoritative. It is argued that NHS might be effective in certain aspects yet it has weaknesses too. The U.S. healthcare system may be problematic yet it is not considered ineffective. Since health is the optimum condition of a person, it is vital to protect and preserve it. I believe that the role of people in the implementation of national government healthcare policies is linked to the immediate needs and basic rights of people. What Moore showed in the documentary film is existent and needed to be addressed. The U.S. should act and do something about the problems that were identified. The challenge is for the current administration to dig into the deepest roots. There are numerous examples to be used and looked upon. However, the point of comparison is impractical.


 


References


Cathcart, B (2007 October) ‘Truth, lies and fools’, New Statesman, 136, 33-4


 


Gilbey, R (2007 October) ‘The medicine man’, New Statesman, 136, 43


 


Jamner, MS and Stokols, D Eds. (2000) Promoting Human Wellness: New  Frontiers for Research, Practice, and Policy, University of California, Berkeley, CA


 


Larson, JS (1991) The Measurement of Health: Concepts and Indicators, Greenwood Press, New York


 


Pilger, J (2007 October) ‘Who’s afraid of Michael Moore?’, New Statesman, 136, 30-2, 34


 


Singer, D (2008 February) ‘The Health Care Crisis in the United States’, Monthly Review, 59: 9, 18-29



Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com


0 comments:

Post a Comment

 
Top