There are many forms or types of rank- social (gender, race, education, professional, health, age, religion), psychological and spiritual rank. Social rank, in particular, is bestowed unequally by the society and culture we live in, being derived from mainstream biases and prejudices. Some rank is earned (personal development, education, expertise) and some not(racial, gender, height, certain health characteristics).
The more rank one has, the less one is aware to its effects on others. Those with lower rank are attuned to its sting and humiliation. Each of us can have high rank in one or more types, and less rank in others. High social rank individuals can be undermined by their low psychological rank. The sum of our privileges is a measure
…show more content…
Who resists the call for change? Who defends the status quo? Doctors are among the most highly paid professionals in our society. The current system benefits them by limiting the education and licensing of doctors, thus creating low supply in the face of increasingly high demand. Insurance companies, with the input of physicians, determine the rate of reimbursement for physician services. Health care corporations continue to be good investments, despite the recession. The pejorative term “socialized medicine”, first coined by a “free market” focus group opposing President Truman’s attempt to create a government sponsored health care system in the 1940’s, has successfully forestalled change by frightening the public with images of inept and oppressive governmental interference in health care. The current system, unjust, inadequate and expensive, continues to profit the few ( doctors, pharmaceutical corporations, hospital corporations, HMO’s politicians) to the detriment of all. This is a rank issue. Who profits the most resists change the most, and uses rank to influence and obstruct. The medical-industrial-congressional complex, which comprises-----of our gross domestic product, overtly and covertly, opposes change which threatens their interests (“profits”) opposes health care reform and justice. They have the money, the access to influence at the highest levels of government, and they have used a profit seeking media effectively to influence citizens to preserve the status
In the United States, healthcare has been one of the most controversial issue. Everyone needs to see a doctor when they don’t feel well or for routine check-ups. However, the reality is that not everyone could afford to see a doctor regularly to prevent serious illness. As a result, many people have died due to finding out their illness a bit too late because they have waited until the last minute to see a doctor and it was too late for the doctor to do anything about it. The situation could have been different if they were not lacking healthcare coverage. The government has stepped in to fix the issue but the problem persists due to the complexity of the healthcare system and its involvement with the political system. The Democratic and Republican
The concept of providing basic healthcare services to individuals in need has undergone an agonizing transition, from a luxury once only afforded by the affluent to a basic human right granted to citizens of every economic station, and the recently enacted Affordable Care Act (ACA) was designed to finalize this ethical evolution. Reflecting perhaps the bitter political enmity currently consuming the nation's once cherished democratic process, Republican legislatures in states throughout the union have bristled at the ACA's primary provisions, threatening all manner of procedural protestation as they attempt to delay and derail the bill's eventual implementation. One of the most intriguing aspects of the sprawling, thousand page law, however, has been the stipulation that individual states will be given a choice to either accept federal funding to expand their statewide Medicaid roster, or to forfeit all federal funding for that program in perpetuity. The role of government in monitoring and regulating the healthcare industry has been long debated, and the bitterly contested passage of President Obama's ACA, a law aimed at revising the country's health insurance system through the creating of a federal health insurance exchange to facilitate increased competition among insurers, has rekindled the debate over who holds the ultimate responsibility for regulating the care provided by hospitals, community clinics, and private practices.
A national health care system in the United States has been a contentious topic of debate for over a century. Social reformists have been fighting for universal health care for all Americans, while the opposition claims that a “social” heath care system has no place in the ‘Land of the Free’.
After years of schooling and hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, doctors aren’t even able to work on their own terms. “Consumers allegedly have a “right” to what health care providers provide, a “right” to say what will be provided, when, and at what price” (Salsman 2012). Consumers shouldn’t have a “right” to what is provided to them or how much it costs. The government controls pricing and controls who can receive care and what kind. It’s not right that those who are actually working in the medical profession that they have lost control of their businesses.
Health care spending in the United States of America as a percentage of the economy has reached astonishing heights, equating to 17.7 percent. This number is shocking when compared to other counties; in Australia health care is 8.9 percent, in United Kingdom 9.4 percent, in Canada 11.2 percent. If the American health care system were to hypothetically become its own economy, it would be the fifth-largest in the world. While these statistics sound troubling, they lead us to look for answers about the problems surrounding our system. The first health insurance company was created in the 1930s to give all American families an equal opportunity for hospital care and eventually led to a nationwide economic and social controversy that erupted in the 1990s and continued to be shaped by the government, insurance companies, doctors, and American citizens. In this paper, I will go in to detail about the various opinions regarding the controversy, the history behind health insurance companies, and the main dilemmas brought out by the health care crisis. Greedy insurance companies combined with high costs of doctor visits and pharmaceutical drugs or the inefficient hospitals all over America can only describe the beginning to this in depth crisis. Recently, the United States health care industry has become know for the outrageous costs of insurance models, developments of various social and health services programs, and the frequent changes in medicinal technology.
The hierarchical ranking of people who have different access to valued resources is referred to as
The lucrative healthcare companies in America have created an immeasurable gap between good healthcare only being for the privileged upper class Americans which has left a horrible effect on the middle and lower class Americans. As modern medicine achieves new heights, the prices of healthcare seem to tread right behind maintaining an unbroken pattern that American classes have grown accustomed to over the past few decades of paying more for less. Leaving many Americans uninsured, underinsured, or even in debt. In a speech Bernie Sanders a U.S. Senator from Vermont spoke at a presidential campaign October of 2015 which he discussed the unruly problematic healthcare trend of price gouging, that is the medical industry getting the most it can from American citizens. In a blog Bernie Sanders states that “46 million Americans today have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments” (Sanders). 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses because they cannot cover the cost and don’t go to the doctor when they should. Sanders summed this situation up with this “Health Care is a Right, Not a Privilege” (Sanders). After researching the issue of healthcare, I have come to the conclusion that the American healthcare system is disintegrating due to the ravenousness of modern medical industries, first I will discuss a few reasons to why the healthcare system is failing the modern American
The American Health Care system needs to be constantly improved to keep up with the demands of America’s health care system. In order for the American Health Care system to improve policies must be constantly reviewed. Congress still plays a powerful role in public policy making (Morone, Litman, & Robins, 2008). A health care policy is put in place to reach a desired health outcome, which may have a meaningful effect on people. People in position of authority advocates for a new policy for the group they have special interest in helping. The Health care system is formed by the health care policy making process (Abood, 2007). There are public, institutional, and business policies related to health care developed by hospitals, accrediting organizations, or managed care organizations (Abood, 2007). A policy is implemented to improve the health among people in the United States. Some policies
This diagnoses of the flaws in our health care system must start with identifying and redefining the social constructs of America. In most other civilized nations, it is generally accepted that it is in the best interest of the public that every individual be
Long before the 1990s when Ms. Clinton fought for a Universal Healthcare system in America, the issue of America’s healthcare had been a political quandary. The enactment of the Republican administration’s Health Management Organization Act of 1973 was a weapon meant to address that crisis, yet, it did little to fix the problem. While the liberal Democrats are fighting for Universal Healthcare coverage for all Americans, the conservative Republicans are fighting to maintain the current private health insurance, however, with some revamping of the system, which preserves the capitalistic element of the status quo. The reason for the two opposing views stems from their differences in political ideologies, which theoretically is like pitting socialism against capitalism. While the liberal Democrats’ endorsement of Universal Healthcare system is socialistic in practice, the conservative Republicans’ fight to retain the private or market based plan is unarguably in support of their pro-capitalism stance. The truth, however, is that, though almost every American believes in capitalism, yet, almost none would vote to disband the Medicare and the Medicaid programs, both of which are socialistic. In that light, the argument of a pro-capitalist nation is negated, as we do already have a socialized healthcare program for the seniors and the poor. Extending that concept to include
Our healthcare system needs major restructuring. Major improvements needs to begin with "all health care organizations, professional groups, and private and public purchasers should adopt as their explicit purpose to continually reduce the burden of illness, injury, and disability, and to improve the health and functioning of the people of the United States", (Crossing the ……, 2001).
The health care system in the United States is one of the greatest concerns facing Americans today and is an issue both moral and economic in nature. Some think the system should stay, for all intents and purposes, the same. They believe that the right to healthcare is a stepping stone toward socialism, and that it is the responsibility of the individual to obtain health care. These are usually the more ideologically conservative citizens and politicians who believe that medicine should remain a free enterprise, not to be constrained by government interference. Then there are those who believe that healthcare is a right, and the federal government has a responsibility to make sure it is available to all citizens, not just those who can afford
Less than a hundred years ago, in the late 1920’s and 30’s, almost 90% of Americans did not have health insurance (Fall of HMO’s 4). They used a variety of home remedies and when medical assistance was truly needed, they paid for it out of pocket, even incurring vast amounts of debt. This had been the case throughout history, and it changed due to an important factor, medical equipment. The industrial revolution finally caught up with the medical industry and the country saw a vast change in the scientific instruments used by physicians. These instruments required a lot of money to make and care for which caused prices to rise. Due to this massive problem, a committee was formed of health care professionals and after a 5 year study, the Committee on the Cost of Medical Care suggested that health insurance co-operatives start. These corporate medical practices became known as Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO’s) and preferred provider organizations (PPO’s), and up until the 1970’s, were an experiment to regions across the U.S. Factors that hindered health care included bullying of “money politics” from both sides of the isle as well as Presidential views and tactics as well. President Nixon first
Public Services Rank Structure Fire Service Like all disciplined uniformed public services, the Fire Service uses a rank structure to represent the pecking order of its operational management. Their ranks are shown on their protective helmets and on the collars of their firefighting jackets. Their rank structure is; Firefighter They are responsible for helping to protect the public in emergency situations. They respond to fires, car crashes, flooding, chemical spills and other widespread rescues. As first responders, they are able to give first aid.
Your sense of power and privilege changes according to the context and interaction in your life situations. For example, an executive in an organization may be the leader and have a lot of power at work. When he returns home, his wife has more power to make decisions in the house and is the leader of the family. Or, a woman, who is successful at work and is accepted professionally, may feel insecure about the way she looks, hopeless about her love life or very critical about herself all the time that she is not good enough. Or, a person in his or her native country knows how to speak the language and understand the nonverbal signals, h/ she has a sense of well being, at ease in communicating and participating in discussions.