Examples Of Marxism In Health And Social Care

Marxist theory believes that there is a relationship between health and illness and capitalist social organisation. The main focus is on how the definition and treatment of health and illness are influenced by the nature of economic activity in a capitalist society. Marxist believe that the health service exists for two reasons, they believe it has a genuine role in that it persuades a large number of the population that capitalism ‘cares’ for them (Moore, 2008 p.263).

Marxism is the movement founded by Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Frederick Engels (1820 - 1895) and is the political economy view, in which it argues the same as the functionalists on the concept of social control, but with the important difference that medicine operates for the controlling groups within our society - Capitalists. Marxist beliefs are that the capitalist society profit is more important than the people and the health care they received. The aim of medicine is just to keep people fit enough to continue working for capitalists. Navarro (1976) suggests that pharmaceutical companies (who make billions) do not really want to find cures, as this would result in cuts in their profits. A recent newspaper article was written about this and

Throughout John Knowles’ A Separate Peace, Gene’s internal struggle is reflected in the war taking place. In the beginning of the story, Finny tells Gene that he was reading the paper and saw that “[the United States] bombed Central Europe...”(25). At this point in the story, it is 1942, which is the midst of World War II. This reflects Gene’s attitude toward Finny. As the war starts to escalate and the United States enters, Gene starts to loathe Finny for reasons that are entirely from Gene’s head. When Finny returns to Devon for the winter session, he has convinced himself, and soon convinces Gene, that “there isn’t any war”(115). Around this time, Gene pushes away his hateful thoughts towards Finny and convinces himself that Finny and him

The greatest factor within health care between social and racial divides is that of a socioeconomic status. The rich are given more opportunities and advantages than the poor, a common history that is also found between white and minorities. Minorities make up a majority of the lower-class society due to oppression and lack of opportunities that can be used to gain upward social mobility. The elite and upper-class are more readily available to gain intellect about current medical trials that show advancement in health issues. The elite are educated and they have financial strengths that allow them advantages that the lower-class lack. While there are other integrated factors, such as, underlying health issues and racial disparities the main issue is socioeconomic status. In Marxism theory this would be comparable in that the bourgeoisie are exploiting the proletarians by not providing adequate healthcare opportunities. Additionally, W.E.B. DuBois would use the color line theory, by showing that there is a pure divide between races. The lower-social class is mostly those of racial and ethnic backgrounds and therefore this divide in social class is also a racial class

Government advantages within the medical markets are; intervention increasing public health entities, subsidies, tax incentives, equality in income and wealth, increase competition, access to care and regulations.

The argument can certainly be made that if a person is cured of a communicable disease the rest of society benefits because it lessens the chance of the disease being passed on. One of the defining points of a public good is whether it is nonrivalrous and thus health care is not solely a private good since it is nonrivalrous (Weimer, 2017, p. 74). Markets work well for goods and services that can be easily packaged and sold, which is not the case for health care. Even under competitive conditions, markets may fail to produce socially optimal quantities of a commodity or service. Hence, in the face of these realities it is more appropriate to view health care differently than a typical consumer product (Karsten, 1995, p. 136).

Several factors influence the expenditure of healthcare services provided by private healthcare. Some of them are age, race, ethnicity and whether the illness is a chronic disease or not. It has been revealed that even if the individuals aged 55 years and above are just 25 percent of the American population, they account for more that 50 percent of the total expenditure in the united

The critique of medicalisation first arose from the Marxist perspective. Which is characterised by its criticism of social structures and the social role of powerful, upper-class occupational groups, such as medical professionals. Advocates of this view, argue that medicine has begun to take on the role of social regulation as more aspects of life are becoming ‘medicalised’ (Lupton, 1997). Marxists suggests that medicalisation undermines people’s health and autonomy, by enabling an authoritative group, that is the medical profession, to dictate how they should act (Illich, 1997). Marxist generally take a negative view of physicians, seeing them as attempting to enhance their own position. A vociferous critique of medicalisation, Evan Willis, perceived the dominance of doctors at three levels. Firstly, physician’s exercise autonomy over their work, rarely subject to

Healthcare in the United States is rooted in the private sector. The private sector directly funds 56% of the expenditures through private health insurance, household expenditures and copays, and other private expenditures. (CMS, 2014) The US healthcare system can thank the private sector for providing much strength such as new diagnostic technologies, innovative treatments and procedures, and dynamism. American hospitals and physicians are regarded internationally as being of high quality. Americans can also be proud that the physician- patient relationship is among the most trusted and valued relationships in the country. By allowing the private sector to take a lead role in the healthcare system, the United States values

Marxism states how capitalism makes people ill and doctors are the agents social control. It believes that this capitalism systems needs skilled, educated and healthy workforces where it is therefore the task of the doctors to serve this otherwise there would be no one to do any work of labour intensive jobs. 

The situation of this approach as applied within medical sociology is towards the social origins of disease. Health outcomes for the population are seen as being influenced by the operation of the capitalist economic system which is seen at two different levels. First, health is affected either directly in terms of industrial diseases and injuries, stress-related ill health, or indirectly through the wider effects of the process of primary production within modern societies.

I. Review Questions – Public Interest vs. Special Interest Theory of Government Policy in Health Care 1. Contrast the predictions of the public- interest and economic theories of government with regard to redistributive policies. There are two general economic models that describe why the government intervenes in market-based health care, known as public interest theory and special interest group theory. Public interest theory allows the government to promote the general interest of society as a whole and chose policies that enhance both efficiency and equity (Santerre & Neun, 2013). The theory predicts that the public interest is best severed when the government determines market failure and corrects instances in the market when resources

The marxist perspective sees health as a form of social control based around capitalism. A defined split in society between the working and upper classes. Health, in this instance, managed by the bourgeois to ensure their workforce can continue to attend work. Production and delivery of profits can be maintained through having a fit and healthy workforce (Goodman, 2013). Doctors, as the first contact point for the sick, indirectly identified as agents of this social control. Their treatment of an individual is conducted in an effort to return them to health as quickly as possible. Returning individuals back health, in turn then to work, avoids costly delays for the bourgeois managers and owners. A fit and healthy workforce, is a profitable

In the documentary, an issue that I found to be presented in a factual light concerned the assertion made that our medical system is a disease care system whereby it really does not want you to get better (Escape Fire, 2012). I believe this to be factually correct, but downplayed to some extent within the system. I think the majority of physicians have the best outcome of the patient at the core of their interest; however, there is a profitable motivation that comes into play as well. A medical practice or hospital must make money to continue running, and patient flow is the means to that end. It has been found, that owing to a twofold function as a doctor and business partner, physicians face a conflict of interest (Lo & Field, 2009). This

Bonn University, he expressed his concern about young Marx health: ‘…do not forget that in this miserable world it is always accompanied by the body, which determines the well-being of the whole machine. A sickly scholar is the most unfortunate being on earth. Therefore, do not study more than your health can bear’. Karl, however, did not follow his father’s advice regarding his health. But his father would later help him avoid the draft. After his 18th birthday, Karl was excused from the military service after his father suggested that if he was able to obtain certificates from well-known physicians he would be able to dodge the draft. Furthermore, Heinrich would continue to be a balancing influence in Karl’s life and would help him escape a criminal charge when he was in possession of a weapon. Karl’s early years was filled with enjoyments of alcohol use and a duel that left him with a small wound above his left eye. A year later, after Karl’s disobedient and chaotic behavior, he was ready to start a new chapter of life; he moved to Berlin in where began attending the University of Berlin.

Private health care without waiting time is an option for the patients in the public health queue. although patients with low waiting costs will choose public treatment, they may be better off with waiting time than without. The reason is that waiting time induces patients with high waiting costs to choose private treatment, thus reducing the cost of public health care that everyone pays for. Even if higher quality with zero waiting time can be achieved at no cost, the self-selection induced redistribution may imply that it is socially optimal to provide health care publicly and at an inferior quality level. it is optimal to have waiting time for public health treatment.(Hoel, M., & Sæther, E. M. (2003). Public health care with waiting time: The role of supplementary private health care. Journal of Health