Monday, August 29, 2011
My Own Healthcare Experience
Personally, my healthcare experience over the years has actually been pretty pleasant. Considering my involvement in outdoor activities like sports and other leisure activity, I have accumulated my fair share of injuries. At 3 years old I broke my right leg when I fell off of my bunk bed. At 13 years old (if I remember correctly), I broke my right ankle after a four wheeler accident. In college, I had 2 concussions in the span of 8 months from football practice. Basically between the years of 12 and 20 I've had every type of break, sprain, bruise, scrape, and bump you can imagine. Needless to say, I've had my share of doctor's visits and overall, my insurance (to my knowledge) has done a pretty decent job of covering my expenses.
My response to "Unnatural Causes"
As I stated in my previous post, I am coming into a great deal of enlightenment regarding the political "ins and outs" of our country's healthcare system. The statistics given on the health status of Americans regarding their income is very drastic and mind boggling. The documentary "Unnatural Causes" gave a great amount of detail on this subject matter.
Out of the entire documentary (which was pretty extensive), there was a phrase that registered with me heavily, "Economic policy is Health policy" ,said by a scholar who gave commentary throughout the entire viewing. What he meant by this is that our economic status in this country makes a heavy contribution to our health. The film gave scientific evidence that a lower class citizen's health is much poorer than counterparts in higher tax brackets. The reason for this is stress. Stress over extended periods of time can cause serious health problems for a person. What causes this stress? Naturally if a caretaker or guardian is not able to provide proficiently enough for their family, it can induce a great deal of stress and worsen their health. What is even more mind boggling to me is how our country's wealth is distributed.
"Wealth = Health." is another quote that stuck out to me in this documentary. Another one of the scholars in the movie stated that "Countries where wealth is more evenly distributed are wealthier." This particular idea of healthcare reform would also be known as Universal Healthcare, a topic that has brewed a great deal of controversy in recent years. But does this man have a point? Could the reason why our country is so indebted be because of how our wealth is distributed on top of our spending habits? The film gave shocking statistics that showed that American citizens that are of a poorer economic status are actually paying MORE for healthcare that higher class citizens. To me this equation makes no logical sense. Why would our country charge someone with less money more for something that they need? 1. Statistics have shown that these people with lower incomes are more stressed out and have bad health and 2. They are not able to work their way into financial freedom because of the unfair percentages placed on their taxes and healthcare. It's a trap that many are not able to crawl out of.
Overall I think this was an excellent documentary that gave great perspective on how our country's healthcare system is being operated. I will now undoubtedly say that reform is needed.
Out of the entire documentary (which was pretty extensive), there was a phrase that registered with me heavily, "Economic policy is Health policy" ,said by a scholar who gave commentary throughout the entire viewing. What he meant by this is that our economic status in this country makes a heavy contribution to our health. The film gave scientific evidence that a lower class citizen's health is much poorer than counterparts in higher tax brackets. The reason for this is stress. Stress over extended periods of time can cause serious health problems for a person. What causes this stress? Naturally if a caretaker or guardian is not able to provide proficiently enough for their family, it can induce a great deal of stress and worsen their health. What is even more mind boggling to me is how our country's wealth is distributed.
"Wealth = Health." is another quote that stuck out to me in this documentary. Another one of the scholars in the movie stated that "Countries where wealth is more evenly distributed are wealthier." This particular idea of healthcare reform would also be known as Universal Healthcare, a topic that has brewed a great deal of controversy in recent years. But does this man have a point? Could the reason why our country is so indebted be because of how our wealth is distributed on top of our spending habits? The film gave shocking statistics that showed that American citizens that are of a poorer economic status are actually paying MORE for healthcare that higher class citizens. To me this equation makes no logical sense. Why would our country charge someone with less money more for something that they need? 1. Statistics have shown that these people with lower incomes are more stressed out and have bad health and 2. They are not able to work their way into financial freedom because of the unfair percentages placed on their taxes and healthcare. It's a trap that many are not able to crawl out of.
Overall I think this was an excellent documentary that gave great perspective on how our country's healthcare system is being operated. I will now undoubtedly say that reform is needed.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
My thoughts on "Health Status and Health Care Access of Farm and Rural Populations"
I will first admit that my knowledge of our country's healthcare system and politics in general is limited. I think to a certain measure I purposefully ignore it because every time i do take a moment to listen in on what's going on with our country's policies it is more times than not upsetting. But anyways, after reading the article assigned I gained some insight on the contrast between healthcare coverage of rural and farming households verses urban and non-farm operated households.
As the article states, "The recently identiļ¬ed gap between metro and nonmetro mortality rates opened in 1990 and has widened continually since then." Part of the reason for this is because of the nature of the environment these households are in. Farmers are much more prone to fatality or injury because of the harsh conditions they work in, the dangerous chemicals they are exposed to, and the dangerous equipment they use in order to carry out the duties of their job. Obviously people in more urban and suburban areas don't encounter these same kind of scenarios in their lives.
The article then continues on with giving statistical information about the socioeconomic status and health risks of non-metro populations. Apparently, "The nonmetro population is older, is less likely to be from a minority group, and has lower education and income levels than the metro population.". Naturally mortality rates are higher because of this. Also, for whatever reason non-metro non-elderly households are paying more for healthcare than their metro counterparts despite their incomes being lower. Why hasn't their been an adjustment in healthcare expenses for lower income, rural populations? Non-metro households are less educated, have higher mortality rates, and earn lower wages than metro populations. Why hasn't any federal program intervened to fix this issue?
While lack of healthcare is a problem across the board for the U.S., many things could be implemented to fix these issues, especially in rural, low income households.
As the article states, "The recently identiļ¬ed gap between metro and nonmetro mortality rates opened in 1990 and has widened continually since then." Part of the reason for this is because of the nature of the environment these households are in. Farmers are much more prone to fatality or injury because of the harsh conditions they work in, the dangerous chemicals they are exposed to, and the dangerous equipment they use in order to carry out the duties of their job. Obviously people in more urban and suburban areas don't encounter these same kind of scenarios in their lives.
The article then continues on with giving statistical information about the socioeconomic status and health risks of non-metro populations. Apparently, "The nonmetro population is older, is less likely to be from a minority group, and has lower education and income levels than the metro population.". Naturally mortality rates are higher because of this. Also, for whatever reason non-metro non-elderly households are paying more for healthcare than their metro counterparts despite their incomes being lower. Why hasn't their been an adjustment in healthcare expenses for lower income, rural populations? Non-metro households are less educated, have higher mortality rates, and earn lower wages than metro populations. Why hasn't any federal program intervened to fix this issue?
While lack of healthcare is a problem across the board for the U.S., many things could be implemented to fix these issues, especially in rural, low income households.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)