What defines health? We've started this discussion in class. How ought it to be refined?
After you've discussed that, start an exploration about what a "health care" system ought to cover. Is health care like buying a car? Or more like a collective community responsibility to its members, like education or having police, fire, emergency workers? What kind of a right is health care?
These are both parts of your first exam question.
The definition of health can be defined in several ways or defined in one way with multiple parts. I truly believe that it includes everything in society that increases the well-being of the community as a whole. It should include things like diet, safe drinking water, proper infrastructure, safety regulations, safe cars, good police/fire/EMS departments, even correct laws that help ensure the safety of local communities. This list could go on and on but the point I am trying to make is that health is a combination political, social, economical, and health care systems. For example, obesity is a huge problem in our country. It obviously effects our health by putting us at a higher risk of heart disease (the number one cause of death in the US), but it also effects us socially, politically,and economically. Socially it creates new issues that have not been present before like trying to get obese individuals to buy two seats on an airplane. The rate of obesity is affected economically by the availability of cheap unhealthy food sources (fast food) that is a valuable option for underprivileged families. The government could potentially help solve this issue politically by regulating the fast food industries and coming up with solutions to healthy/affordable options. There are multiple examples of this in our country that touch in all aspects of life and that is why I do not think you can describe the word "health" without including all parts.
ReplyDeleteInteresting case made by Erik, but I would like to now play devil's advocate to his post (a fun past time). I agree that health is multi-dimensional, but I don't think one's health is overly influenced by politics or social systems. I certainly agree that there are political and social implications involved in health, but I do not think health is defined by these implications. Two air plane seats is a social implication. Government trying to regulate food is an implication. I feel your strongest argument for government defining health is if you would argue due to regulations about food quality, safety, FDA, etc. I do want to say you are absolutely right about economics defining health. During my senior seminar research, I found that socioeconomic status had a three times stronger correlation to cavities than an absence of regular brushing and flossing did. I was very surprised by that fact. Overall, good points made Erik. Just wanted to play devils advocate and play with semantics and Dr. Sherron always does.
DeleteDelving further into the social aspect of your argument, could one use religion in order to define health as well? Certain religious practices and traditions may be considered unhealthy, but how do you tell someone that they do not have the right to worship or maintain their beliefs due to health reasons. A practical example when formulating an idea for a healthcare system would be the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding blood transfusion. You can't make them chose to receive blood, even if it may save their life. In forcing your view upon them, you may compromise their spiritual health which may be considered more important by them than their physical health. Priorities of people vary, and what may be considered healthy for one person may not be the same as another person's definition.
DeleteGoing off of Andy's post, not only can religion play a role in defining health, but culture as well, such as countries where female genital mutilation is prominent. It is basically the opposite of health, not even including the unsanitary and dangerous conditions in which it is often performed. However, it is such a big part of some cultures that women who do not undergo FGM may not be able to marry, which will basically doom them socially since it is often performed in countries where men are placed much higher in society than women. A great deal of tact is needed when trying to show how the practice is fundamentally wrong, yet maintain some level of respect for culture.
DeleteLike Erik said, and we talked about in class, health can be defined through many parts. It is in part a personal thing as well as a society/community thing. In some parts of the world health is a very basic, as in people would like to have clean water and food. It other places such as in the U.S. it is much more complex. When it comes to a health care system it is obviously a difficult task since our country struggles to find a good way to do it.
ReplyDeleteMy definition of health is the balance of both the mind and the body. Once an individual can achieve this their overall health will be greatly improved this is something the worldwide community should aim for. As Eric said items such as a well balanced diet and access to clean drinking water, adequate nutrition, and daily exercise are the bare minimum an individual should strive towards to achieve a proper balance between the mind and body. As can be seen however third world countries lack access to clean water which is problematic even today. I agree with Eric in that the definition of health is very broad in that in contains social, economic, and even political aspects. I agree also that the government should more strictly regulate what kind of foods the fast food industry is selling, but its honestly still up to the individual consumers choice to choose whether or not to eat more healthy foods. The fact that some parents work long hours almost causes them to eat fast food in the first place because its conveniently available. A more intensive education system would be another aspect to the definition of health which could significantly reduce the obesity in America. Overall i think in order for the country to reduce the obesity rate families have to watch what other in their family eat and provide encouragement when it is needed. The US health care system id far from perfect and until the country realizes that then it will continue to struggle with finding the right way to handle the problems in our health care system.
ReplyDeleteI really like the way that Erick defined health above because I agree that all of the parts that he mentioned (political, social, economical, etc.) do have a great impact on health on a large scale. However I find my definition of health to be much more similar to Adam S's definition. I think health is more of a personal and individual aspect of one's self. I would like to add a spiritual aspect to Adam's definition for my meaning of health. I feel that if one is to be considered healthy, they need to be spiritually healthy as well. When I say spiritually I don't mean necessarily religion or faith, but comfortable with oneself. Someone needs to be comfortable with who they are, their personality, what they look like, and most importantly what decisions and beliefs they have. If someone isn't comfortable or doesn't agree with the actions that they make, I view that as that person being unhealthy. Another way to put is that they have an unhealthy perspective on themselves. If this kind of spiritual or inner confusion occurs, health issues may arise causing other types of harm to the other main parts (body and mind).
ReplyDeleteHealth care insurance in my opinion is more like car insurance than something that is a community responsibility. This brings the insurance companies to determine what exactly health is, which would require more research of the people they insure, which is something I don't think the insurance companies want to do.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that health care should not be the community's responsibility, I do not agree that insurance companies should have the ultimate say in defining what they believe to be healthy. These companies are in the business to make money and therefore the standards that would need to be followed would start to become outlandish, creating extremely small discrepancies that cost the payer more money than they can afford to pay.
DeleteI agree with Emily while it shouldn't be communities responsibility we also need to keep in mind that insurance companies are out to make money just like car insurance... while Craig brings up a point I still feel that insurance should not have the final say so in defining health
DeleteI think Erik sufficiently discussed what defines health so I will touch on what kind of right health care is. I would argue that just as everyone in America has a right to an education, everyone has a right to proper health care as well. The problem with health care now is that it is too much like buying a car as stated above. Owning a car is a luxury, not a necessity. Health, on the other hand, is a necessity and should be treated as such. Instead, the rising cost of health insurance has made good health a luxury as well. In order to have a productive, safe, and thriving community, it must work towards providing its members with good health just as it does with education, police, and firemen. In an ideal healthcare system, proper healthcare should be your right as a human being, not because you have the money to afford it. In an ideal healthcare system, the guy riding a bike is just as able to get in for a doctor's appointment as the guy driving his BMW.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kyle about healthcare. For a very long time I was against universal healthcare, but over the past year I have come to realize the injustice associated with people not having access to healthcare. So many people who initially freak out about healthcare coverage via government think thats its unfair that bums and free loaders will be provided coverage. Yes this is true in some cases, but think of all the families out there whose parents work multiple jobs to make ends meet. These jobs won't give health insurance. Any medical incident could bankrupt a family like this. I imagine there are thousands of families in situations like that. I have come to agree that our healthcare system must change to help cover all citizens. I don't know the ins and outs of actual systems that could make this work, but something needs to happen.
DeleteTo me, health can have many definitions. A general definition could be the well-being of body, mind, and spirit. Just as we discussed in class, one is healthy if he/she has access to adequate nutrition and education, including clean water and healthy food. Another way to define a healthy person is one that operates a normal daily life; this can include consistent assistance and should excluded acute and/or chronic disease. I feel that the way we defined health in class was very general and therefore encompassed all of the ideas I would come up with on my own. We did mention one topic that I feel is debatable: reproductive health. Not all people are able to freely reproduce, despite possibly wanting to be able. I do not feel that not being able to reproduce is a condition that decides whether or a not a person is healthy. However, if very few to zero people were able to reproduce, then the population as a whole should be considered unhealthy. Reproductive health is not something that should be measured on an individual level.
ReplyDeleteLet me start by saying that every person should be granted the right to health care as long as they are productive members of society. If persons sit at home and do nothing to better their community, then the community should not be required to cover their health care. I do realize, however, that even those who apply themselves and have a job(s) do not always have enough means to provide health care for their families. These are the people who deserve to be covered by the government. Chronic, genetic illnesses should not be factored into health care plans when participants are purchasing health care. People cannot help how they were born. But, if they choose to participate in bad habits such as smoking, drugs, excessive alcohol drinking, etc., then their health care plans should reflect that. Every person in this country knows that these types of habits are bad for their body, yet they insist in partaking anyway. Coverage for these types of behaviors should not be placed on the shoulders of those health abiding payers.
I like Emily's definition of what health is it ties into what i was thinking in regards to a perfect balance between the mind and body. Along with having access to bare necessities. I believe that those who suffer from genetic disorders should not be looped in with a group of healthy individuals its not fair because what happened to them is not their fault. Those who have jobs and are able to afford at least some healthcare should become insured if they have optimal health. I feel that if everyone participates it will significantly benefit those who maybe cant afford to have health insurance in the short term until they can get a job.
DeleteI don't necessarily agree that a person's lifestyle choices should affect the quality of healthcare that they would receive under a universal system. This is using a stick to insure that people do what they are supposed to and only breeds anger and frustration among the populace. I think we should instead work on providing incentives and encouragement to people for making good choices, or the proverbial "carrot." I think there will always be those who abuse the system, but you can't necessarily use them as an excuse to not provide the best coverage possible. Just think about how many people you are touching instead. These people may not have the ability to live the healthiest lives due to their personal situations, but are you still going to fault them for their lack of health. If a healthcare system is considered universal, then it should be equally distributed to all.
DeleteI agree with Andy. As much as I dislike that people use drugs, excessively drink alcohol, eat fatty/sugary foods, etc. you cannot simply disregard their need for healthcare either. It is unfortunate they choose to hurt their own health in these ways but at the same time, drug addiction and alcoholism are diseases as well and should be treated as such. Neglecting to provide these people with healthcare is not much different than neglecting to provide someone healthcare who has pre-existing conditions (asthma, diabetes, etc.). To Andy's point, it would be great to create incentives for people to make better health decisions. How you actually go about doing this could be a challenge. That would be something that public health departments would have to tackle. All in all though, if you want to promote good health among a population, you have to make healthcare accessible to everyone, including those who make poor health decisions.
DeleteI think that Erik made a great point. It is extremely easy to define the optimal health for the most people; however, it is even harder to obtain it. This is why I believe that health care system should be available to everyone. I believe that every person should pay money towards health care in some way. If you dont want health care, that is your right to decide; however, I believe they should still pay a small tax so that it lowers the premiums for everyone else. Health is one of those things that everyone can benefit from and it go be taken from you at any time. I feel that it is not too much to ask for everyone to contribute something no matter how small to equal it out for the good of the whole. I am completely utilitarian on this topic and feel everyone should contribute something to provide cheap and basic coverage for the most people.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the definition of health is striving to reach what is defined as "normal" living conditions. This includes attempting to give those who are disabled the greatest semblance of what we consider a normal life. The idea of a normal life can vary based on the culture and environment that the person is present in. For example, what may be considered standard conditions for health care in a third world country will bare little resemblance to the conditions seen in the first world. Those in proper health are sound in mind, body, and spirit as appropriate to their given culture. I think that people must take care not to use an individual's health as a means to discriminate and should also strive to insure a person's autonomy. At what point this autonomy is forfeited is highly subjective, though I would maintain that it occurs when the person poses a serious threat to their own well-being. In order to help avoid this situation, I believe that a proper health care system should incentivize a person's ability to remain healthy. For lack of a better analogy, it would be similar to car insurance companies rewarding those who go without an accident. A person's will to be healthy is also dependent on the culture at hand. It is society's responsibility to educate and provide the best examples for a healthy life in order to give its citizens a kickstart/motivation to be fit (in mind, spirit, and body). This turns into a positive cycle and soon the majority could be working on living the best life they possibly can.
ReplyDeleteAs we defined Health and Health Care in class I believe that the definition of health is not only the absence of acute or chronic illness or diseases. It also needs the aspect of education because believe or not there are some people that don't know how to eat healthy... From personal experience I was taking care of a patient in my OB rotation she was 13 and came into the er because she had been vomiting no stop for two days... long story short she needed to be getting better nutrition since she was pregnant. When asking her grandma what she eats she replied chicken nuggets and skittles are her favorite things when questioned about vegetables and fruit her grandma looked shocked and asked she needs to be eating those things? now many of people think that nutrition should be common sense but obviously my example shows that is not always the case. Health also includes preventative care which can be put into the aspect of health care as well. While each person has a different definition of what is considered health, healthy, or health care systems it all comes down to the main theme of being educated and taking preventative measures to ensure we stay healthy
ReplyDeleteThere are aspects of the blog posts that I agree with and disagree with. Health is made up of many different aspects that assures a person lives a virtuous life. Good health is something where preventable diseases are prevented and treatable diseases are treated. Good health entails keeping the body's physiological functions at a normal level and keeping the immune system at high enough efficiency to protect the body from the array of pathogens that it encounters each day. To Andy and Kyle's point I think that the type of healthcare a person gets should be directly related to the type of lifestyle that they live. Obviously if someone gets a basic infection that should be treated without hesitation, but if someone is an alcoholic and lives the "rock and roll" lifestyle and needs a liver transplant, should they get the better healthcare and be put on the waiting list before someone who happens to develop some form of liver cancer? Or someone who is born with a form of hepatitis and needs a liver transplant? If you dig your own grave you have to be willing to lay in it. Everyone should get basic healthcare and everyone has a right to free health, but if they neglect the healthy lifestyle then they shouldn't be awarded.
ReplyDeleteAnd to build on the other questions that Dr. Cate asked, I would say healthcare is like buying a pair of shoes or a car. No one should go without shoes in today's world (especially in the U.S.), just something that every person should have on a day to day basis. But those who are successful obviously have the ability to purchase better and more expensive shoes. The same goes for healthcare, the people who can afford it have the right to buy better healthcare, in our current system. But healthcare is something that every person has the right to. The people who are successful, by default of acquiring success, through the principles of solidarity have a moral obligation to help those in need to get shoes, or basic healthcare. I feel that basic healthcare is when preventable diseases are prevented and treatable diseases are treated, and people don't die from minor things like these.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Healthcare is needed for every person. But I disagree with the shoe metaphor. I believe that everyone should have access to the same healthcare. Should someone who is dying have to wait longer in a waiting room because someone can afford better insurance. When it comes to health, money should not matter. Everyone should be treated. And i understand this is never the case and is just in my perfect world. Even the people who would have access to the basic healthcare probably still would not be able to afford to see a doctor because they still can't afford it. So, it will not be beneficial tot hose people unless everyone was on an almost even playing field.
DeleteBut that isn't really the problem that we see today because if someone is dying the doctors in the ER must treat them and will treat them. The health insurance and health care kick in after the fact on payment as well as seeing a GP. Someone who doesn't have health insurance, or quality insurance (in reference to the shoe metaphor)they will go to a clinic or urgent care when they have an issue. Someone who is successful goes to a nice doctor's office and sees a physician that they know, not a doctor at a clinic that gets paid on how many patients he/she can get in and out each day; the healthcare at the doctor's office will be of better quality. As long as the basic needs to healthcare are met at the clinic, then all is just.
DeleteNews story from today's New York Times
ReplyDeletehttp://nyti.ms/11Ui10v
The story is about the high cost of cancer treatment.
DeleteGoing off of what we talked about in class today in relation to what level of healthcare everyone should receive- It just wouldn't be practical to cover everyone with cancer-level treatment. As the article said, some treatments cost up to $100,000 for certain types of cancer drugs. With respect to basic ethics and morals, providing universal treatment should be a no-brainer. However, providing that sort of care to every single person who walks in a hospital with some form of cancer would bankrupt the system at an extreme rate. This is where some form of balance must be reached between sustainability and justice. It might come down again to turning down patients who have just been diagnosed but having to save those in immediate risk of death.
DeleteI believe there is quite a bit of truth to the last quote in the article, "Pharmaceutical companies have lost their moral sense". The amount of money they are charging for their drugs is absolutely overly-inflated. In an ideal healthcare system, everyone has access to this top of the line treatment. Unfortunately, as stated in the article, the prices being charged for these drugs is simply unsustainable for healthcare providers. I respect the fact that the hard work that goes into researching and discovering these drugs should be rewarded however, these pharmaceutical companies are taking advantage of the huge demand for these highly effective drugs. It's actions such as this that discourage people in America on the idea of universal healthcare and rightly so. No monetary system could make drugs at these prices readily available to anyone who needs them. People should not be able to survive cancer simply because they can afford it. Instead they should be able to survive cancer because we have medicine that is available to make that possible.
DeleteI agree, the amount of money some medications costs is ridiculous and no way the normal population can afford them. But at the same time one must think of all that goes into finding a suitable drug that cures a disease. Years of research and use of expensive machinery, the people who are conducting the research are professional level graduates (the more schooling the more money is how our society works), and often times it takes teams upwards of 20-30 people to finally make a safe and effective drug. So if you add up all these expenses and suitable salaries for people, it isn't really hard to believe why medications cost so much, because no one wants to work for free, that's just not how life goes.
DeleteMore schooling does not always equal more money: I have plenty of friends with advanced degrees in the arts and humanities who do not make a lot of money. "Payoff" isn't always about money. Even scientists who work for the government don't usually make a lot of money. Let's rethink this assumption.
DeleteI think that "health" is a multifaceted, loosely defined term that can change as new things are added or modified. The first things that come to mind when thinking about it are physical health (basic needs met- food, drinking water, and shelter) and the absence of illness, but it also encompasses a much wider field such as mental or spiritual well being. In addition, things like laws created for the public health or safety could be included in the definition. I think that everyone should have access to at least some basic level of healthcare- it is part of our duty as human beings to ensure social solidarity and help those less fortunate than us. Does this mean that we are required to give all of our earnings away to people who sit around all day long? Of course not, but for those who are in actual need of help, they deserve some support to get back on their feet. Unfortunately, you can't always differentiate between those who take advantage of the system, but I think that the positives ultimately outweigh the negatives
ReplyDeleteJust thought of something else to add to my post in regards to the negative side of universal healthcare. The waiting list for certain doctors or procedures may increase dramatically if everyone has access to healthcare, and this goes back to what we talked about in class about the low numbers of general practitioners in the U.S. with specializations being the main focus of many doctors (more money!). However, with the increased demand for more general practitioners, this may create an incentive of higher pay to draw more to the field and balance it out some. Just a thought, I know it's exponentially more complex than that simple situation laid out.
DeleteIn regards to your comment Luke, with Sweden's universal healthcare system for many years they had an issue with waiting times for patients (sometimes it took up to 2 or 3 years for patients to receive the medical procedures they needed)! So the issue you described is a very real possibility. On the other hand, they were able to solve this problem by creating more medical schools and producing more doctors. As a result, they were able to make a guarantee that any patient could be seen within 7 days for doctor's appointment and 90 days to see a specialist. Thus, it seems that a critical piece in making universal healthcare efficient is having a high doctor to patient ratio. Sweden was able to achieve this high ratio and this is largely responsible for their successful healthcare system.
DeleteI agree wholeheartedly with Kyle as earlier today in class we began to discuss this topic. One of the ways that was mentioned in class to produce more doctors was providing incentives to those graduating with a medical degree. This would allow a greater number of people to be able to chose a vocation as a physician by freeing them up from financial concerns. This could be done through the forgiving of some of the student's accrued debts coming out of medical school.
DeleteAlso, one way to insure that more people could be seen (and a shorter waiting period) in this healthcare system would be to persuade students to become general practitioners so that they can care for a greater number of people.
Impressive discussion, good students!
ReplyDeleteHealth and Health Care are things that have multiple definitions, and multiple explanations depending on many different factors. I think most people define health as "being in good physical shape, being satisfied emotionally, and being in touch spiritually". This definition is accurate, but it barely scratches the surface as to what the term 'health' really covers. The same goes for health care. I would think most people would describe it as caring for ones basic health needs, on top of treating any illness or injury one encounters. This again is an accurate description, but way too broad of one.
ReplyDeleteHealth has so many categories and even subcategories, like some of the ones we've discussed in class. Health includes mental health, spiritual health as well as physical health. This also includes the unity of mind, body and spirit. There are the obvious aspects such as treating, managing, and preventing diseases. There are also less obvious aspects like preventive care, and adequate nutrition and exercise.
I think you're on the right track. I would lump preventative care and exercise under the blanket of health education and maintenance, which I believe should be included into all healthcare systems. It's always easier to prevent or avoid a disease then to have to deal with it after having contracted it. Resources should be made available to the general public in order to insure that they are able to do self-examinations for various cancers and that they know how to live a healthy lifestyle no matter what their occupation may be. If they see signs that contradict what they know to be healthy according to the literature, such as malformed growths on their body or obesity, then they should be able to obtain free screenings and consultations to make sure that any possible problem they have does not escalate further.
Delete