Martha and her partner are both unemployed parents of three children. After the failure of home remedies and realizing that she may have a serious oral healthcare situation, Martha decided to see a physician. To her dismay, though, she understood that she was not going to be able to get the real help she needed as she did not have dental care coverage or the government supplement to reduce the cost of the medical treatment. Martha decided to stick with her home remedies and hope for the best. In the more recent years, a serious issue amongst low-income families has arose. With the costs of healthcare rising and the rate of employment declining, more and more people are becoming uninsured and unable to afford healthcare for themselves and their families. This leads to the question of what to do about this rising issue. Currently, there are policies in place that help offset costs/provide minimal healthcare for children and disabled persons. Unfortunately, though, many people do not qualify under these circumstances to receive help. This leaves people stranded and without insurance.
Utilitarian arguments point in the direction of support for public funding that provides healthcare for all of these people. Which, if agreed upon, is absolutely doable and has been done before in other countries. One of the largest counterarguments to this, though, is the overwhelming “inverse relationships between socioeconomic status (SES) and unhealthy behaviors such as tobacco use, physical inactivity, and poor nutrition” (Pampel). There has been enough credible research done that points out the fact that the vast majority of people that fall under lower socioeconomic status are less likely to carry out healthy practices. Essentially the argument is that they bring the health problems onto themselves. Many anti-supporters of this movement believe it would be a waste of money to invest in healthcare for these persons, as they are going to cost the people and the government too much money due to their unhealthy habits.
While this argument is not necessarily invalid, it is important to realize the correlations between low socioeconomic status and lack of education. It is very likely that many of these people who practice these unhealthy habits are not educated in what is healthy and what is not. I’m sure many of them wouldn’t smoke a pack a day if they were aware of the severe health risks. Ethically, it is wrong that people must be excluded from receiving healthcare to keep them healthy and alive just because they cannot afford it. The right to be a healthy individual is not and should not be considered something that only the wealthier members of society are entitled to. Providing healthcare to all citizens of your government should be a top priority for all countries, as health people are happy people and you have the potential to stop this epidemic of unhealthy poverty stricken areas.
There is even research that shows children with low socioeconomic status are more likely to get sick. This is why it is unethical not to provide healthcare for people of low SES.
Works Cited:
Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford UP, 2001. Print.
Pampel, Fred C., Patrick M. Krueger, and Justin T. Denney. “Socioeconomic Disparities in Health Behaviors.” Annual Review of Sociology 36.1 (2010): 349-70. National Library of Medicine. Web.
Thomas, John E, et al. “Case 2.2: Social Determinants of Health.” Well and Good: Case Studies in Biomedical Ethics, Broadview P, 2014.
Hi Shelby,
I agree with your assertion that healthcare should be an accessible right to all human beings, regardless of socioeconomic background. More importantly, I agree with your analysis that education plays a huge role in influencing the healthy decisions people make. Low socioeconomic status is an important determinant of access to health care. (Becker and Newsom) People with lower socioeconomic status tend to receive less education and visit doctors less often. This may be due to lacking health insurance, but it is also due to other reasons. For instance, in order to attend a doctor’s appointment, they may have to miss work. Missing work is not an option; therefore, being sick is seen as an unimportant nuisance. This attitude transcends the common cold and may even be adopted for more serious illnesses.
In conclusion, low socioeconomic status has potentially deadly consequences for several reasons: its associations with other determinants of health status, its relationship to health insurance or the absence thereof, and the constraints on care at sites serving people who have low incomes. (Becker and Newsom)
References
Becker, Gay, and Edwina Newsom. “Socioeconomic Status and Dissatisfaction With Health Care Among Chronically Ill African Americans.” American Journal of Public Health. © American Journal of Public Health 2003, May 2003. Web. 30 Mar. 2017.
Hi Shelby,
I’m glad you mentioned the counterargument to universal healthcare regarding an inverse relationship between SES and unhealthy habits. However, these people are not in complete control of their health status and a lot of that has to do with the government’s lack of interest in public health when there’s profit to be made. As we all know the most basic principle’s of maintaining a healthy lifestyle are diet and exercise. Our legislature is a very educated group of individuals yet a Happy Meal (hamburger, fries, a side, and a drink) costs $2.49 while on average, a pound of strawberries is comparable at $2.45. Why? Because we’re all paying for it behind the scenes. We, the taxpayers, heavily subsidize corn and soy, two crops that fuel the meat and processed food sectors that we’re supposed to eat the least of. In 2016, farmers got the biggest subsidy this decade as $13.9/$54.8 billion (about 25%) of net farm profit came from federal payments. 57.6% of total agricultural subsidies go to corn, wheat, and soy while fruits and vegetables don’t even make the list as a category as they’re grouped in as “others”. The USDA was created to stimulate and promote the US agricultural industry and became responsible for nutrition guidelines many years later. If we wanted to keep the current national budget for subsidies but shifted them to incentivize farmers to grow more fruits and vegetables, there would be a decreased need for reactive healthcare programs that essentially work to reverse the effects of negative habits formed through the encouragement of the modern food industry.
Sources:
https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/why-a-big-mac-costs-less-than-a-salad/?_r=0
While nearly 20% of healthcare expenditure in the United States is allocated for low-income citizens — with added incentives for families with children — health outcomes for this patient demographic have not reached parity with middle and high income Americans. With a cursory examination, it appears that increases in healthcare spending for low-income Americans is not sufficient for improving outcomes. Over simplifying healthcare to only view expenditure does not address the discrepancies in medical care itself, which is often overlooked by all assuming hospitals provide equal care. It is difficult to separate social/educational factors from facility quality when analyzing health outcomes
I assume most Medicaid recipients live in low SES communities and subsequently seek treatment at facilities geared for this population. If you have ever been to Grady (or any safety net healthcare facility), you are likely aware of the stark differences between public and private hospitals. If you are curious to see what what percentage of medical claims are subsidized for low-income patients, you can search for doctors names in the ProPublica prescriber database (https://projects.propublica.org/checkup/). What I’ve found is that there are “parallel” healthcare systems in the United States, with your SES, employment, and military or civilian status determining which one you can use. While low income families receive financial assistance for care, they will likely find themselves in an overburdened healthcare system, facing long wait times at Grady rather than receiving more expensive care from a Piedmont or Emory Healthcare hospital.
Hi Shelby,
I really enjoyed your blog post and how you were able to see the argument for universal health care from both points of view. I think it is interesting to note that the “United States is the only remaining industrialized country without some form of universal access to medical services” (Light). Why has the United States refused to adopt universal health care? One possible reason that scholars have debated is that the United States cannot afford to cover the uninsured. One of the main reasons the United Kingdom can afford universal health care is because they have increased taxes substantially, and as we all know taxes is a heatedly debated topic in the United States (Post). It would be difficult to persuade the middle-class and wealthy populations in the United States to increase taxes since they are typically the ones that can afford health care and would not appreciate paying higher taxes. In addition, the United States is so diverse and large that they cannot relate to the lessons learned and the benefits acquired from other countries in the world that have imposed universal health care. While I agree with you that everyone should have access to medical services regardless of their ability to pay for the care, I also understand why the United States has struggled to impose this policy.
-Morgan Brandewie
Works Cited:
Light, Donald W. “Universal Health Care: Lessons From the British Experience.” American Journal of Public Health. © American Journal of Public Health 2003, Jan. 2003. Web. 02 Apr. 2017.
Post, Formosa. “Pros and Cons of Universal Health Care in the United Kingdom.” Formosa Post. N.p., 15 Feb. 2017. Web. 02 Apr. 2017.
Hi Shelby,
I really enjoyed reading your post. You clearly explained an aspect of socioeconomics that I had never really thought about before regarding the healthcare system in the United States. Everything in your article makes sense and brings light to the discrimination people face today for necessary and essential care. If there is really a problem of education in our society, however, would it be more impactful and long-lasting to educate people about health rather than attempt to increase taxes (which, as Morgan mentioned above, would be incredibly difficult in itself). As discriminatory as it is to prevent people getting the healthcare they need, the United States must work with what they have, even if it is solely education, to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Thanks!
Elisabeth Crusey
Hi Shelby,
I found that your post was incredibly thoughtful and insightful! I agree with you in that there is a duty for healthcare providers to treat all individuals, regardless of socioeconomic status. In my opinion, healthcare should be regarded as a human right. In fact, the World Health Organization Constitution recognizes “the highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental right of every human being.” Presently, the United States is the only developed country that has not fully adopted this idea into practice, as our healthcare system is primarily for individuals who can afford care. There is a pressing ethical problem surrounding our current system—denying lower socioeconomic individuals access to healthcare is promoting the idea that some lives matter more than others. The issue surrounding the implementation of a universal healthcare system is a complex problem in itself; however, it is imperative that leaders and policymakers recognize the lack of justice in our current healthcare system. If our healthcare system is viewed from an ethical perspective, rather than an economic one, then progress can be made towards increasing universal access to healthcare.
Hi Shelby, your posts highlights on a lot of key issues in regards to socioeconomics and health care. I would like to draw on the point you made about one argument against public health care, which was the that the low income citizens have unhealthy habits which make them unqualified for the public healthcare. Unfortunately this is an idea that is held by a lot of individuals, and it’s just baffling to me. It’s kind of like the argument that was made a while ago about how ‘poor people should give up their IPhones in order to have money to pay for certain things’. I think that in general, health care is a right, irrespective of anyone’s health practices. I think that people should have the opportunity to be able to care for themselves when they are not able to afford it. And a lot of those ‘unhealthy habits’ are attributed to their circumstance. Also, when there is a decision made to deny someone a right because of their circumstance, that to me is considered unethical, because there is a lowering of their moral status, and it’s basically saying that the person is less important because they can’t pay. I think your post raises a lot of good discussion topics about the way healthcare is approached in society!
Hey Shelby,
I really liked what you wrote and completely agree. There is a growing issue in the US of being able to provide health care to everyone. I believe a lot of the issue is rooted in the mentality of our nation -specifically altruism & doing things for others. Our mentality to help other does not arise unless we are confronted by it in some way or form. I do not think it is often intentional to not care about other suffering; rather, people are just not aware of how socioeconomic issues are relevant in topics such as education and healthcare. That being said, I agree that educating people is a fantastic solution, but one that goes both ways. People, in general, need to become more aware of the problems that others are facing.
Alex
Hi Shelby,
Great post! I absolutely agree that healthcare services should be available to everyone regardless of their status. I would also like to highlight the point about people with low SES bringing health problems unto themselves. I would first like to say that people with low SES should not be blamed for their unhealthy practices. Some people have reasons for doing so. People with low SES are not give the same opportunities as those with high SES. The lack of access to those opportunities can lead to poor health decisions.
You mentioned the lack of education and I agree with that. Some people with low SES are not aware of the negative health outcomes being done to their bodies. My question is, if we do educated these people, can we ensure that they have will have healthcare services to help with their health issues? How much will educating do for them if their access to healthcare is limited? How much will educating do for them if they do not trust the healthcare system?
Hi Shelby,
I like your argument on the need for more accessible and affordable healthcare for all individuals regardless of socioeconomic background. I also agree with the assertion that many of these individuals are sick due to a lack of education about what it means to be healthy. Zip code and wage level are large determinants of health. The gap here is in education but also in exposure to healthier foods and super markets. Many people live a distance away from organic super markets, which in themselves are very expensive. This creates constructions of food deserts that can negatively affect low income Americans. Fast food is cheaper and readily accessible for socioeconomically poor individuals, so it becomes the better option. What happens when the better option is leading to poor health, which in our society today also comes with a hefty bill? This is an interesting question because the U.S. is such a wealthy country yet we refuse to adopt universal health care. This narrative causes stratification in our society that further shows a distinction between the rich and the poor. The distinction then turns from rich and poor to healthy and sick. However, the way in which the medical system currently works in this country makes it very difficult to make the shift to universal health care. We have forms of socialized healthcare such as Medicare and Medicaid but the country as a whole is far from fully moving in that direction. While I agree with you that universal healthcare should be a right not a privilege, I also understand the reality in implementing such a law.
Works Cited:
Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford UP, 2001. Print.
Thomas, John E, et al. “Case 2.2: Social Determinants of Health.” Well and Good: Case Studies in Biomedical Ethics, Broadview P, 2014.
Hey Shelby,
I really your post! I felt that your post highlighted the fundamental issue of this case: the direction of causality. Does a reduced socioeconomic status result in compromised health care or visa versa? Like you, I felt that is unfair to assume that individuals with a reduced socioeconomic status are aware of healthy techniques to maintain personal wellbeing and agree that education would greatly improve health care. My only issue with this argument is that many individuals with reduced socioeconomic status lack the means to obtain an adequate education. Such individuals are less informed about sexual health and personal hygiene. How do we equalize the education system to ensure that all people, regardless of socioeconomic status, receive an adequate education to maximize their health.
Have a great weekend!!!
Hi Shelby
As we all agree with the idea that the government should be able to provide universal health care system. However, the first important thing is for people to be literate about their health condition. Healthcare should be something more for prevention than for treatment. There should be less go to doctor; rather, maintain the good condition.
I have personally looked into the importance of health literacy. According to research studies, persons with limited health literacy skills are more likely to skip important preventive measures such as mammograms, pap smears, and flu shots. When compared to those with adequate health literacy skills, studies have shown that patients with limited health literacy skills enter the healthcare system when they are sicker.
While we stress a lot about the socioeconomic perspective of healthcare system, it is important to know that poor people with little socioeconomic support are bonsai people. There is just no strong base supported for them. The moment they have more education and support, they would have the chance to live in a healthier life.