In his report entitled “Health Care and Equality of Opportunity”, Sreenivasan argues that equality of opportunity may not be a sufficient rationale for universal healthcare. First, this idea implies that a fair share of opportunity leads to a fair share of health. Second, the equality of opportunity argument assumes that a fair share of health leads to a fair share of health care. Sreenivasan primarily focuses on the second argument, by analyzing the extent to which health care contributes to health. In his analysis, Sreenivasan points out other social determinants that may have an equal or even larger impact on health than health insurance. He states, “suppose that instead of introducing a national health insurance scheme, we had spent the same amount of money on equalizing the distribution of social status – then our society’s gradient in health would have been significantly reduced.”
This idea was very intriguing to me, as equalizing the distribution of social status would not only benefit individuals in terms of their physical health, but also help their mental and social wellbeing. However, one idea that Sreenivasan doesn’t really touch upon is what the idea of universal healthcare means to the individual and to a democratic society. From an economical standpoint, it is easy to understand why many would be against pumping a ton of money into a system that may not have substantial effects on overall human health. However, from a more sociological perspective, the idea of universal health insurance is an integral piece missing from the puzzle that is democracy.
The term itself has developed great meaning far beyond the policy implications that are fervently debated. Upon typing “what health cares means to me” into youtube, thousands of results pop up. Among the results, I watched several accounts of American citizens who recorded videos of their responses. For some, universal health care means being able to take their sick child a doctor without spending a week’s salary. For others, it is a security blanket – a back up plan to rely on if life takes a turn for the worst. And for others, it is a right that they deserve for living in a country as esteemed and developed as the United States. Many of the individuals in these videos don’t have the luxury of thinking about health care in political terms. In one of the youtube videos, a woman talked about her epilepsy that is fortunately controlled by a medication. However, this medication is extremely expensive and without it she would be unable to breathe. Without health insurance, this woman would not have access to the medication and would likely lose her life. It is of utmost importance that policymakers consider these voices that are often muted by political debate and contemplate not just what health care means to them, but to you and to me.
Sources
Sreenivasan, Gopal. “Health Care and Equality of Opportunity”. The Hastings Center Report (2007). Pg 21-31.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsV48GKrEBk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-36kdS7FqY#aid=P-9Ym54MmvM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH0LFrSfl0k
I agree that it is so important to hear the voices of the those quieted by the politicians, but there is so much more than that. Ethically, the baseline care seems reasonable but shouldn’t that baseline include more than just medical coverage? Where do we put public health into that figure?
While the conversations keep surrounding expensive medication and consistently increasing costs. Putting money into universal healthcare would be incredibly worthwhile, do not get me wrong. I am just fixated on the fact that there is so much more that needs to go on as well. If that is true, where does the money go? Especially since we mainly fund on private insurers – is there a way to move any part of that money to a preventative car program?
I really liked your point about how rather than focusing on universal health care, we should potentially focus on equalizing social status. I think that this is a very important point because of the large gap between the fortunate and unfortunate in this country. If we were to equalize other social determinants like you said, I think it would be much easier to attain better health for everyone and, in return, not have to depend on universal health care all of the time.
I also really enjoyed your point about everyone’s voices should be heard. Too often we all have different views on and interpretations to things like “universal health care,” and i think it’s important that it becomes clear to all of us. Again, universal health care is much easier said then done, however, I think that there are many baby steps we can take in order to make universal health care more reasonable to attain.
I like the fact that you brought in outside opinions for your post. As students I feel that we tend to have similar opinions or outlooks on things and forget that there are a ton of other opinions. Specifically in this class we’re looking at healthcare from an ethical standpoint, which limits our discussions. It’s as if the videos act as extra details that would help our discussion, especially of the cases that we see.
There is also variety in who posted these videos to YouTube. Companies and agencies are some of the top videos, but lay people have made their own home videos explaining their situations. It is important that normal people are able to express their opinions because they are usually speaking from the heart. They’re not trying to fulfill a specific niche in a company or support a specific company. These people are just stating how important health care is to them, which helps to humanize the situation.
Of the many points you outlined above, I really liked how you emphasized the need to hear all the voices that are impacted by the health care initiative. Many times we are short sighted and are limited to looking at the overall cost benefit: how much does it hurt the general public if one person, who is uninsured, is treated by a hospital and then unable to pay? I think we must then take a step further to look at the benefits universal health care would provide to the individual, in addition to the greater population.
I also see the major benefits of equalizing the distribution of social status. Social equality is essentially impossible to achieve, but is a situation in which all members of society receive completely equal treatment, opportunity, and access to resources. Under this definition, healthcare would be distributed under “access to resources” while many other societal issues could be dealt with.
I really liked the points you brought up in your argument. I agree with Sreenivasan’s argument against equality of opportunity assuming a fair share of health leads to a fair share of healthcare. If we begin to equalize the distribution of social status, then the point Sreenivasan argued against could become true. Until then, socioeconomic factors such as poor air quality or unclear water contribute to bad health, even if healthcare is present.
I also found the comment, “… equalizing the distribution of social status would not only benefit individuals in terms of their physical health, but also help their mental and social wellbeing” very valid. It never occurred to me that adjusting the unequal distribution of social status could benefit the mental health of those affected; therefore, making them healthier in more ways than one. The focus here is on large groups of less fortunate people; however, as you mentioned healthcare means something different to each and every individual. All in all, it is absolutely necessary that the government take different perspectives into consideration when making changes to healthcare policies.