Disparity in American Healthcare: Wealth, Health Insurance, & Medicine

While the wealthy in our country do not concern themselves with the cost of health insurance or healthcare in general, the majority of the population works just so they are able to afford it. The dichotomy and disparity of the wealthy and lower class are more profound than ever in today’s Capitalist society. A citizen’s worth in the perpetual wheel of American life is very valuable, as, without solidarity in the workforce, the functions of business would cease, and a decline would ultimately reveal itself. A person’s reliance on medicine is important, as it is a means not just for survival, but to keep the flow of work progressing into the future. After the industrial revolution, the population of this country and the entire world nearly tripled very quickly, and with that, a necessity was created, to maintain the health, vitality and livelihood of our country’s citizens and economic future.

In this chapter, I will attempt to explore the importance of medicine and healthcare in today’s society by elaborating on three significant topics and correlating it with my interpretation of what Durkheim, Simmel, Marx, and Weber would feel regarding them. The first of which is the notion of Health insurance in America and how it is utilized to offer a means of protecting one’s welfare and social vitality. The second topic I have chosen is the Economics of healthcare and how money (both earned and inherited) plays an important role in the way medicine and healthcare are dealt with, managed and offered to citizens both rich and poor in the United States. Finally, I will elaborate on the ultimate availability of medicine and the positive and negative impacts it has on the American people.

HEALTH INSURANCE IN AMERICA

Health insurance is very important in our lives and we will never know until we are left to battle with many medical bills. With health insurance you are able to pick if you want a PPO or HMO plan, this determines the providers you may see. Having health insurance allows you to be able to see a provider with little to no out-of-pocket expenses. If you pay for health insurance benefits, it limits the amount of debt that you may have for medical expenses. There are many different types of health insurance plans that may help pay for medical expenses. Emile Durkheim, considered to be the father of modern sociology, was known as a “diagnostician” of the woes of society. He perpetually implied that the functionality of society is dependent on the notions that drive society forward. In the case of capitalist America today, there is an increasing reliance on the individual to provide their time and labor for their employers in order to make their companies grow. Durkheim recognized the positive virtues of a Capitalist society (employment and means to survive) and its negative aspects; in which where people in stressful work environments are more susceptible to sickness and poor health. An increase in stressful work can cause a person to become sick. I concur that Durkheim would agree with the notion and availability of health insurance, which would allow society to continue to function. Karl Marx, a strong and vehement opponent of capitalism, would also agree with the availability of health insurance. Marx’s opposition to the perpetual exploitation of the workforce would concurrently place him on the path of acknowledging the importance of healthcare. Overworked citizens would require a means of healthcare, especially if due to the stressful environment of their workplace. Health insurance that is provided with a low rate would give access to people of the lower working class. Marx would most certainly oppose this, as he would be a proponent of healthcare being provided by the state, and thus allowing all people the chance at receiving the care they need.

Georg Simmel, who viewed human culture as a dialectical relationship between what he termed “objective culture” and “subjective culture” would acknowledge, according to a general perception, the positives, and negatives of the notion of health insurance. He would regard the positive aspect of health insurance as it being a central theme of high moral character. All citizens would have the opportunity to receive the care they need, especially if they are employed and are afforded an opportunity by their respective employers to provide for their own families with a job. The objective notion would be that, the employers would have to pay for their employees’ insurance, which would cause a large sum of money, thus possibly hindering their ability to grow their business and allow them to grow. Max Weber, who cherished the notion of the Protestant work ethic (where people who worked hard have a clearer path to spiritual salvation), would most likely have been against the notion of health insurance. His capitalistic concepts would counter the notion of health insurance, as he would most likely a proponent of people paying out of pocket for healthcare. However, he was an advocate for calculability and methodical behavior and would have most likely supported a method where healthcare was eloquently delivered to its citizens in an efficient manner.

ECONOMICS OF HEALTHCARE

Health care costs have continued to increase in the past few decades despite the numerous health reform initiatives. Currently, these expenditures account for a decent percent of GDP in the United States, a percentage that is expected to continue rising significantly. Karl Marx would be a proponent for the expenditure of the state to be at a much higher rate. Citizens who are solely dependent on the state should, in turn, be taken care of. Marx’s notion of communism would entail the proletariat be in control of social and economic matters, disallowing the upper class to control the narrative when it comes to expenditures in healthcare; not just in healthcare, but in all matters. Increased health care costs have considerable impacts on households, insurance companies, and government budgets.

Households with employer-financed, health insurance will have a progressively minimal portion of their total compensation in the form of take-home pay. On the other hand, a progressively larger fraction of compensation will be in the form of employer-provided health insurance. The way the trend is appearing to point towards, the American Government, as well as other capitalistic governments, will be forced to cater to more health care expenditures if they continue to increase at historical rates. Therefore, the current trends in healthcare economics continue to have significant impacts on households, health insurance companies, governments, and healthcare organizations. Durkheim, who analyzed labor from a social perspective as opposed to an economic one, would agree that in order for the social and moral consciousness of a nation to continue an upward trend, it would have to do all it can to control the expenditures of governments when it comes to the ever-increasing price of healthcare. In order for Doctors to find it economically feasible. Simmel viewed the notion of money as a structuring agent that helps us understand the totality of life. He recognized the duality of the concept of value, moral and monetary. He would agree that it is a moral right for a citizen to at least be able to afford some sort of healthcare, even if he monetarily inept. The health of the American citizen is of value, thus, it should be protected as such, because it is in the nation’s best interest to do so. Weber’s theory of rationality is prudent in the exploration of healthcare and the economics that guide it. Weber regarded rationality as a progressive calculation of efficiency. Weber would have opposed any aspect of the economic management of healthcare that would inhibit the efficiency in which it was delivered to the people (tradition, piety, charity). He would have had a sincere opposition to any hindrance of monetary profit.

AVAILABILITY OF MEDICINE

In today’s society, people experience many different forms of health care for their specific needs. Poor societies, no matter the place in the world, often have lower life expectancies and more illness. With this, households suffer more in impoverished societies because they usually depend on a single person, and if that person becomes ill or injured, they lose their income. This would not normally occur in a communist society envisioned by Marx. He had proposed that a government-run by the proletariat would control and monitor all aspects of social welfare, which includes healthcare and medicine. Whether you are poor or rich, you had equal access to some sort of healthcare (albeit at a much lower standard than capitalist societies like the United States).

Health in poor societies have a much higher rate of early deaths and major illness, especially when there isn’t enough income to receive any sort of treatment for the issue. Weber would suggest that the implementation of a method and modest, yet thorough protestant work ethic would give any citizen the right to a high standard of living (which would include access to medicine that would otherwise be unavailable). When this occurs, especially for people of lower social status, obtaining the proper medicine is incredibly difficult. An example would be construction workers who are not insured and make minimum wage; if they are hurt on the job, the consequences they face may be extremely disastrous as they may have to resort to a highly addictive and illegal substance to numb their pains. The same issue can be to those are well off and can afford the drugs they are prescribed. They can just as easily resort to severe drug addiction. Simmel’s subjective view would be to allow all citizens the option to pursue some form of healthcare so as to have access to needed medication. However, he would also be objective indirect access to medications that would be detrimental if they were addictive in chemical nature. Pharmaceutical companies exist for the noble cause of providing medicine to those that need it. However, in a capitalist society, there aren’t enough checks and balances to halt their propensity to increase the prices. It’s a cycle that seems to consequently repeat itself. Durkheim’s theme of functionality would provide a purposeful reason for pharmaceutical companies to exist. He would, however, oppose the heavy mark-up in prices that pharmaceutical companies implement to raise profit rates. Medicine, a tool that all citizens need at some point, should be available to all, and just a few.

CONCLUSION

Medicine and healthcare are not just tools and a methodical standard created so the sick and the dying can be cared for. Depending on the government and the politics in place, all citizens whether poor or rich, are ever turned down by a hospital or clinic. It’s the method of payment and availability (in turn) that decides whether the form of healthcare is adequate and beneficial or detrimental to society. Though I personally believe that healthcare and access to it should be a human right (all over the world), there are checks and balances in place in the United States that prevent it from being completely actualized. Though a hospital and clinic can never turn down a sick person, if that person does not have the means to pay, the obligation falls to the hospitals and the average taxpaying citizen. It’s a social dilemma that theorists like Karl Marx would have had an answer to with his communist philosophies (as the state would control the healthcare industry thus allowing all to seek and receive the care they need). Compassion and our drive to help our fellow man is an inherited and eloquently sincere virtue that most of us have. It all depends on the nature and intention of our democratically elected governments to help direct us toward the future we may or may not need, especially in the subject of Medicine and Healthcare.