The Political Economy of Medical Care

1975 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vicente Navarro

This presentation provides an alternative explanation of the present composition, nature, and functions of the health sector in the United States to those frequently given in sociological, economic, and medical care literature. These explanations usually maintain that the American health sector is a result of the value system of the assumedly middle class American society. In this presentation it is postulated that the present economic structure of the United States determines and maintains a social class structure, both outside and within the health sector, and that the different degrees of ownership, control, and influence that these classes have on the means of production, reproduction, and legitimization in the United States explain the composition, nature, and functions of the health sector. It is further postulated that the value system is not the cause, but a symptom, of these class controls and influences. The paper is divided into three sections. The first part provides a description of the class structure, which includes the corporate class, upper middle class, lower middle class, and working class, and it describes the mechanisms whereby this structure is maintained and replicated, both outside and within the health sector. The second section analyzes: (1) the production characteristics and social make-up of the three main sectors of the U. S. economy-the monopolistic, state, and competitive sectors-and it focuses especially on the monopolistic sector, which is assumed to be the dominant sector in the U. S. economy, with its needs determining to a large degree the functions of the social sectors, including those of the health sector; (2) the increasing dominance of the monopolistic sector in the health sector, by means of the financial institutions, which conflicts primarily with the providers' relative control of the financing of health services; and (3) the main conflict in the control of the reproductive (academic) and distributive (delivery) institutions which, it is postulated, is not, as is generally believed, between the providers and the so-called consumers, but rather between the corporate and upper middle classes (including the providers), who control those institutions, and the majority of the U.S. population, the lower middle and working classes, who do not control them. The third section analyzes the increasing importance of state intervention in determining the nature and outcome of the conflicts analyzed in the previous section. It is postulated in this section that, to understand both the nature and effects of state intervention, it is necessary to analyze the different degrees of control and/or influence that the social groups and classes defined in the first section have on the organs of the state, and primarily on the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. These different degrees of control and influence determine the main functions of state intervention, both outside and within the health sector, and these are postulated to be (1) the legitimization of the political system, and (2) the strengthening of mainly the system of private enterprise, in which the monopolistic sector is dominant.

2011 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 659-662 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Waddell

Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson's Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class is both a work of political science and a contribution to broad public discussion of distributive politics. Its topic could not be more relevant to a US polity wracked by bitter partisan disagreements about taxes, social spending, financial regulation, social insecurity, and inequality. The political power of “the rich” is a theme of widespread public attention. The headline on the cover of the January–February 2011 issue of The American Interest—“Inequality and Democracy: Are Plutocrats Drowning Our Republic?”—is indicative. Francis Fukuyama's lead essay, entitled “Left Out,” clarifies that by “plutocracy,” the journal means “not just rule by the rich, but rule by and for the rich. We mean, in other words, a state of affairs in which the rich influence government in such a way as to protect and expand their own wealth and influence, often at the expense of others.” Fukuyama makes clear that he believes that this state of affairs obtains in the United States today.Readers of Perspectives on Politics will know that the topic has garnered increasing attention from political scientists in general and in our journal in particular. In March 2009, we featured a symposium on Larry Bartels's Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. And in December 2009, our lead article, by Jeffrey A. Winters and Benjamin I. Page, starkly posed the question “Oligarchy in the United States?” and answered it with an equally stark “yes.” Winner-Take-All Politics thus engages a broader scholarly discussion within US political science, at the same time that it both draws upon and echoes many “classic themes” of US political science from the work of Charles Beard and E. E. Schattschneider to Ted Lowi and Charles Lindblom.In this symposium, we have brought together a group of important scholars and commentators who offer a range of perspectives on the book and on the broader themes it engages. While most of our discussants are specialists on “American politics,” we have also sought out scholars beyond this subfield. Our charge to the discussants is to evaluate the book's central claims and evidence, with a focus on three related questions: 1) How compelling is its analysis of the “how” and “why” of recent US public policy and its “turn” in favor of “the rich” and against “the middle class”? 2) How compelling is its critique of the subfield of “American politics” for its focus on the voter–politician linkage and on “politics as spectacle” at the expense of an analysis of “politics as organized combat”? 3) And do you agree with its argument that recent changes in US politics necessitate a different, more comparative, and more political economy–centered approach to the study of US politics?—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor


1991 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 441
Author(s):  
Vincente Navarro ◽  
J. Rogers Hollingsworth ◽  
Jerald Hage ◽  
Robert A. Hanneman

2011 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 654-658 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonas Pontusson

Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson'sWinner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—And Turned Its Back on the Middle Classis both a work of political science and a contribution to broad public discussion of distributive politics. Its topic could not be more relevant to a US polity wracked by bitter partisan disagreements about taxes, social spending, financial regulation, social insecurity, and inequality. The political power of “the rich” is a theme of widespread public attention. The headline on the cover of the January–February 2011 issue ofThe American Interest—“Inequality and Democracy: Are Plutocrats Drowning Our Republic?”—is indicative. Francis Fukuyama's lead essay, entitled “Left Out,” clarifies that by “plutocracy,” the journal means “not just rule by the rich, but rule by and for the rich. We mean, in other words, a state of affairs in which the rich influence government in such a way as to protect and expand their own wealth and influence, often at the expense of others.” Fukuyama makes clear that he believes that this state of affairs obtains in the United States today.Readers ofPerspectives on Politicswill know that the topic has garnered increasing attention from political scientists in general and in our journal in particular. In March 2009, we featured a symposium on Larry Bartels'sUnequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. And in December 2009, our lead article, by Jeffrey A. Winters and Benjamin I. Page, starkly posed the question “Oligarchy in the United States?” and answered it with an equally stark “yes.”Winner-Take-All Politicsthus engages a broader scholarly discussion within US political science, at the same time that it both draws upon and echoes many “classic themes” of US political science from the work of Charles Beard and E. E. Schattschneider to Ted Lowi and Charles Lindblom.In this symposium, we have brought together a group of important scholars and commentators who offer a range of perspectives on the book and on the broader themes it engages. While most of our discussants are specialists on “American politics,” we have also sought out scholars beyond this subfield. Our charge to the discussants is to evaluate the book's central claims and evidence, with a focus on three related questions: 1) How compelling is its analysis of the “how” and “why” of recent US public policy and its “turn” in favor of “the rich” and against “the middle class”? 2) How compelling is its critique of the subfield of “American politics” for its focus on the voter–politician linkage and on “politics as spectacle” at the expense of an analysis of “politics as organized combat”? 3) And do you agree with its argument that recent changes in US politics necessitate a different, more comparative, and more political economy–centered approach to the study of US politics?—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor


2011 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 648-651
Author(s):  
Jodi Dean

Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson's Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class is both a work of political science and a contribution to broad public discussion of distributive politics. Its topic could not be more relevant to a US polity wracked by bitter partisan disagreements about taxes, social spending, financial regulation, social insecurity, and inequality. The political power of “the rich” is a theme of widespread public attention. The headline on the cover of the January–February 2011 issue of The American Interest—“Inequality and Democracy: Are Plutocrats Drowning Our Republic?”—is indicative. Francis Fukuyama's lead essay, entitled “Left Out,” clarifies that by “plutocracy,” the journal means “not just rule by the rich, but rule by and for the rich. We mean, in other words, a state of affairs in which the rich influence government in such a way as to protect and expand their own wealth and influence, often at the expense of others.” Fukuyama makes clear that he believes that this state of affairs obtains in the United States today.Readers of Perspectives on Politics will know that the topic has garnered increasing attention from political scientists in general and in our journal in particular. In March 2009, we featured a symposium on Larry Bartels's Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. And in December 2009, our lead article, by Jeffrey A. Winters and Benjamin I. Page, starkly posed the question “Oligarchy in the United States?” and answered it with an equally stark “yes.” Winner-Take-All Politics thus engages a broader scholarly discussion within US political science, at the same time that it both draws upon and echoes many “classic themes” of US political science from the work of Charles Beard and E. E. Schattschneider to Ted Lowi and Charles Lindblom.In this symposium, we have brought together a group of important scholars and commentators who offer a range of perspectives on the book and on the broader themes it engages. While most of our discussants are specialists on “American politics,” we have also sought out scholars beyond this subfield. Our charge to the discussants is to evaluate the book's central claims and evidence, with a focus on three related questions: 1) How compelling is its analysis of the “how” and “why” of recent US public policy and its “turn” in favor of “the rich” and against “the middle class”? 2) How compelling is its critique of the subfield of “American politics” for its focus on the voter–politician linkage and on “politics as spectacle” at the expense of an analysis of “politics as organized combat”? 3) And do you agree with its argument that recent changes in US politics necessitate a different, more comparative, and more political economy–centered approach to the study of US politics?—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor


Author(s):  
Suci Ramadhan

<p class="abstrak">The United States Constitution affirms that religious freedom is a fundamental human right regardless of religion. It is upheld by every citizen and the country. However, the political policies in a particular country are often considered to paralyze fundamental rights in religion, causing various problems in Muslim life at the social and political levels. This research aims to analyze the intersectional dynamic of religion, constitution, and Muslim human rights towards life and religious freedom in the United States. This qualitative research uses the lens of political approach. Primary data are taken from the United States Constitution and policies, and supported by secondary data from various books, scientific articles, and news. The results suggest that religious sentiment (Islam) is found in the political policies of the United States. Currently, unconstitutional and discriminative policies are gradually removed because it triggers the social and political chaos. The United States constitution strives towards a pluralist and multi-religious country rebuilding that is safe and peaceful for religion as guaranteed by the constitution. In fact, the public and political spaces have been occupied by many Muslims in an effort to resolve the problems of state and human rights, including the religious sentiment issues.</p>


1992 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 390
Author(s):  
James E. Rohrer ◽  
J. Rogers Hollingsworth ◽  
Jerald Hage ◽  
Robert A. Hanneman

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document