The PBS Film “Critical Care: America vs. the World” investigates the political and social outlook of the American Healthcare system comparing it to four other countries. We learn that The US has the most expensive health care system in the developed world but has worse outcomes compared to the countries we look at. The film brings us along its world tour to the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Australia, and Canada.
We start off in Houston, Texas where they have some of the most innovative systems in place to help with less invasive surgery’s, expediting test results and virtual programs to help doctors preform to the best of their ability. We then travel just north of the city and learn the blaring disparities that hit the community next door. In the predominantly minority community, the residents lack basic health insurance and die on average 20 years earlier than their neighbors south of them. People in this community cannot afford basic coverage so they put it off due to the fear of not affording it until it’s too late. The film opens our eyes to the dark reality that coverage is just too expensive for people. They must choose between basic living necessities or coverage, and people are choosing to pay for items to help them keep going everyday instead of health coverage.
In the UK, healthcare is provided to every citizen through the National Health Service (NHS) and the government pays the bill. The government set the prices for health insurance, and everyone can use it. All drugs, services and hospitals stays are free and that’s amazing. You felt the joy in people’s voices when they knew they didn’t have to pay a dime. The UK offers private insurance to people as well. Private insurance is paid by the citizen and that grants them perks to skip the “waiting list” for surgeries or other specialized services. This system seems to work for the people of the UK, and I like it; you can pay a little extra to get faster care or take the free route and get the same care, just might be a little longer.
Switzerland has a Universal Healthcare system, and they view healthcare as a basic human right. The government sets the prices for drugs, services, and hospital bills and all the citizens pay into the universal program. With everyone paying their fair share to the healthcare system it looks out for the people who wouldn’t be able to afford it. Healthcare is provided and required by the government, not employers which would help a tremendous amount in any country. In the US, health coverage is largely tied to peoples’ jobs, where in Switzerland if you lost your job, it wouldn’t matter because you still had coverage through the government. The citizens of Switzerland are different from US in the sense that they listen to whatever their government says vs. the US where we like to question things.
Canada has Universal Healthcare coverage free to everyone while in the hospital, and each of the 13 providences control their own coverage. Once you leave the hospital you are required to pay medications, and those sometimes can be very expensive. Canada has private insurance to bridge the gap for cost to people often obtained through people’s jobs. I do like that you can get coverage for free and just supplement the extra cost after the hospital stay, it seems like it would take a lot of stress off the citizens if they lost their job.
Australia has a public and a private healthcare system and you can choose which you want to partake in. In the film we saw a family with divided stances, the daughter uses and loves the public healthcare, and the parents use the private. With the private coverage you can get better amenities such as private rooms, better food and elective care. The public sector provides the same care just not as flashy. I like that if you choose to want better coverage or want an elective surgery that you can get coverage. If you don’t need or use the healthcare as much you are still covered through the public sector, seems fair and make sense.
With the universal program you don’t have public and private disagreements, they all work together and share the same responsibility to care for their citizens. Basic health coverage should be affordable to everyone in the United States, but we can’t seem to get there. I challenge you to speak up and continue to fight for what is right.
Hey Casey-
I enjoyed reading your perspective on the CBS video. I was reading your paragraph about Switzerland and had a thought. In the US, health coverage is largely tied to peoples’ jobs, where in Switzerland if you lost your job, it wouldn’t matter because you still had coverage through the government. My concern is that if you are receiving healthcare, and it isn’t tied to work, but makes people want to work? I did a little research about unemployment between our two countries too. Unemployment occurs when someone is able to work and either can’t find a position or chooses not to work. Switzerland has a 5.32% unemployment rate right now. United States has an unemployment rate 3.7 % according to the Economics Daily: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. If and when these people with no jobs or health insurance come in to get care in the hospital, they will get the same care as someone with insurance. The problem is who is going to pay for that coverage since they can’t. They do not have health insurance and they will not pay the out-of-pocket balance. If they have insurance, they at least have something the hospital can bill for. If all the hospitals have no income from treating all these patients, they will go into debt. They charge higher prices for services so that they can get more of a return from someone with insurance to try and offset the cost of patients with no insurance. This forces them to charge higher prices, so that they don’t go into total debt. I am saying if there is motivation for people to have to work, to get insurance it will not only help the unemployment rate, but it also helps the hospitals not go into debt and they do not need to charge so much for non-government regulated services.
Casey and Holly – this is a great discussion and often a topic I hear about in my daily work. Tying insurance coverage to only if you can work will not only affect those who are “intentionally” unemployed but also those who are not able to work due to their illness. For example, I saw a metastatic stomach cancer patient who is Hispanic early 20s (crazy and very sad) who was working up until 2 weeks ago when he was fired for missing 1 day due to being in the ER with chemotherapy side effects. He wants to work but cannot due to his illness. I completely understand the frustration of the absorption of costs for the uninsured. However, in a blink of an eye it can be any of us. I am more inclined to encourage healthcare plans to provide cost reductions for positive behaviors like smoking cessation, exercise even if walking around the neighborhood, keeping annual physical appointments, yearly mammograms etc. Most of these activities that promote better health are doable no matter the socioeconomic status as long as we have community clinics and/or public transportation to reach healthcare centers. If we could reduce incidence of smoking related diseases like lung cancer, COPD, heart disease, improve diabetes, I believe we would see reduction in ER visits, hospitalizations, and overall cost of care. Our communities would be healthier, more economically stable, motivated and able to work, and ultimately be able to help shoulder some of the “burden” of caring for our neighbors who suffer from those illnesses which are not always preventable.