Moving Beyond Capitalism for Our Health

2020 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 458-462
Author(s):  
Howard Waitzkin

Deepening crises now affect not only the capitalist health system in the United States, but also the national health programs of countries that have achieved universal access to services. In our recent collaborative book, Health Care Under the Knife: Moving Beyond Capitalism for Our Health, we analyze these changing structural conditions and argue that the struggle toward viable national health programs now must become part of a struggle to move beyond capitalism. Privatization, cutbacks in public-sector services and institutions, and public subsidization of private profit-making through transfer of tax revenues into private insurance corporations have worsened under neoliberal policies. Financialization of capitalist economies includes the increasingly oligopolistic and financialized character of health insurance, both public and private. Those struggling for just and accessible health systems now need to confront the shifting social class position of health professionals. Due to loss of control over the work process and a reduced ability to generate high incomes compared to other professional workers, the medical profession has become proletarianized. To achieve national health programs that will remain viable over a long term, a much more fundamental transformation needs to reshape not just health care, but also the capitalist state and capitalist society.

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn Hughes Tuohy

AbstractIn 1965 and 1966, the United States and Canada adopted single-payer models of government insurance for physician and hospital services – universal in Canada, but restricted to certain population groups in the US. At the time, the American and Canadian political economies of health care and landscapes of public opinion were remarkably similar, and the different policy designs must be understood as products of the distinctive macro-level politics of the day. Subsequently, however, the different scopes of single-payer coverage would drive the two systems in different directions. In Canada, the single-payer system became entrenched in popular support and in the nexus of interest it created between the medical profession and the state. In the US, Medicare became similarly entrenched in popular support, but did so as part of the larger multi-payer private insurance system. In the process universal single-payer coverage became politically iconic in Canada and taboo in the US.


1997 ◽  
Vol 23 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 319-337
Author(s):  
Loretta M. Kopelman ◽  
Michael G. Palumbo

What proportion of health care resources should go to programs likely to benefit older citizens, such as treatments for Alzheimer’s disease and hip replacements, and what share should be given to programs likely to benefit the young, such as prenatal and neonatal care? What portion should go to rare but severe diseases that plague the few, or to common, easily correctable illnesses that afflict the many? What percentage of funds should go to research, rehabilitation or to intensive care? Many nations have made such hard choices about how to use their limited funds for health care by explicitly setting priorities based on their social commitments. In the United States, however, allocation of health care resources has largely been left to personal choice and market forces. Although the United States spends around 14% of its gross national product (GNP) on health care, the United States and South Africa are the only two industrialized countries that fail to provide citizens with universal access.


2015 ◽  
pp. 1159-1176
Author(s):  
Raymond K. H. Chan ◽  
Kang Hu

This chapter analyzes the issue of primary health care utilization in Hong Kong and introduces the case of Hong Kong where a special division between public and private sectors has developed in the field of primary health services. The chapter argues that in the foreseeable future, it is likely that the division of health care between the public and private sector will be maintained. In recent years, more and more individuals and families have purchased private health insurance so as to gain more options. The idea of universal health insurance was rejected by the public in recent consultations; the current alternative is government-regulated private insurance. Although private primary health services will continue as usual in the near future, public primary health services should be maintained or even expanded. Given the costliness of private services (especially specialist services), it is recommended that more resources should be invested in corresponding public health services.


Author(s):  
Courtney S. Campbell

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) has not addressed the structure of health care delivery in the United States that is simultaneously expensive far beyond the levels of any other nation and yet fails to provide access to basic health services for nearly 10% of the population. The concept of adequate health care in LDS teaching on welfare principles provides a basis for constructing an LDS argument for universal access to basic health care. This epilogue draws on the examples of Church advocacy of health care reform in Utah—and Church priorities in international humanitarian assistance programs—to construct a framework of ethical principles to assess proposals and criteria for a social commitment to provide adequate health care to all citizens.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document