Brasfield 6-10

I think that one of the more interesting aspects of proposed healthcare plans is the individual mandate portion. Brasfield is absolutely correct when he refers to a necessary tax-break or subsidy for low income consumers. The individual mandates are one of the more controversial topics when a universal/government funded healthcare is proposed. Individual mandates are thought to infringe on individual freedom. Brasfield also brings up an interesting point when he discusses a required penalty for those that do not purchase mandated insurance policies. In my opinion, if the government is going to require people to buy insurance, they should at least allow them to pick which policy they want. I would like to know how hefty of a penalty Brasfield thinks is necessary to discourage disobedience of the government. I think that when we step back to look at this situation from afar, it seems absolutely bizarre to penalize people financially for not buying something that the government wants them to buy.

Brasfield 3-5

Medicare is one of the most talked about programs when it comes to any type of healthcare system. We have also discussed Medicare to great lengths during our class discussions. Brasfield brings up a great point; the volume of Medicare eligible is about to double in the near future. The funds for Medicare are already limited, leading to the main point. Where is the government going to increase its funding for Medicare? It seems to be a consensus that current employees need to pay in a little bit more because eventually they are going to be receiving Medicare benefits. I think that this is the only realistic option to increase tax revenue for Medicare. People will be skeptical about it because it seems to be a very similar revenue situation as the social security program, which people are also very skeptical about.

Brasfield

While reading the first few pages, I drew some concern over the data that shows how healthcare spending has increased mightily over time. It made me wonder if the ACA has accounted for increasing healthcare costs in the long run. If so, I wonder how the determined how much healthcare spending would increase. I was personally surprised to read about how much the government already pays for healthcare. I had no idea that government was already paying for half of hospitals and nursing homes. I liked how Brasfield put it when he wrote that "when public spending for healthcare passes 50%, it will be an occasion for joy or alarm" (5). He shares that some people will label this as socialism when the percentage gets to be above 50%. I think that people have every right to fear that percentage and how much it increases. Since the government plays as a middle man for taxpayers that will be receiving this healthcare, the taxpayers themselves lose control over their own lives. We all know that Americans thrive off of control. I think that Americans are not wrong to feel this way, the basis of this nation revolves around individual freedoms and those that were taken from them hundreds of years ago.

Abortion is one of the most polarizing topics when it comes to government funded healthcare. One of the generalizations is that all Catholics are against abortion; I always knew that Nancy Pelosi was pro-choice, but it is news to me that she claims to be Catholic. Later on in the section, Altman discusses how Obama and the Democrats wanted to avoid getting involved with abortion because he knew that it is a polarizing issue that has nothing to do with which party one is affiliated with. Altman refers to the fact that there were about 40 democrats that would turn down the bill if there was not more compromise on the abortion section of the bill. I thought it was interesting that Altman brings up how congress essentially used smoke and mirrors to try and convince the Catholics and other pro-life organizations that they would not be paying for other people to have abortions. The abortion topic comes down to whether or not it is a right to have a child aborted. Some say that abortion decreases crime rate and helps the economy and others project its lack of morality. I think that abortions are a case by case scenario because their are so many different situations that we could never imagine of. Altman discusses how many folks do not support government funded abortions because they would be paying into a system that they do not foresee themselves ever taking advantage of.

Altman Part 3

One of the recurring topics in class when discussing the cost of a universal healthcare is how expensive certain treatments are. Altman discusses how the Reagan administration dealt with these patients with extraordinary costs (outliers). Since one of the bigger concerns of the Reagan administration was "to reduce the budget deficit- or at least be budget neutral" (Altman 220). They decided to fund a portion of these costs, but not all of them. I think that this is fair because it would be extremely costly for the taxpayers to fund all of these expensive healthcare options. Of course, the hardest part of this option would be determining  how much the government should help out with. I wish that Altman had covered how they went about making this decision and all of the opinions that were brought to the table.

     While reading the first chapter of this book, it is evident that politics are directly intertwined into the discussion of a universal healthcare. This first part of the book provided information about the first healthcare proposal and other interesting details; however, more than anything, it made me realize that it will be impossible to discuss this topic without speaking of politics. I noticed that in the class discussion last week, it was encouraged to take politics out of the discussion. That is just simply impossible. For us to have a realistic discussion about healthcare alternatives, we have to be able to talk about the politics and economic factors behind all of it. I found this to be evident when he discusses how Ted Kennedy wanted to change the healthcare bill because he did not want republicans to get credit if the plan had success. This is the biggest bit of information because it shows how political this topic has always been and how political this topic always will be.

Rights and Rationing

I think the fundamental argument when it comes to right to healthcare is whether or not the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness includes that of healthcare. At the beginning of chapter six, the quote from senator Clinton P. Anderson indicates that healthcare and shelter should be included. I think that it is interesting to see that people want the poor to have these rights but when it actually comes time to take the tax dollars of the citizens and redistribute the money, people are hesitant to support these rights. I feel as if the right to be treated in the emergency room is very reasonable. Anything beyond that creates massive inefficiency and resentment to the poor.

Howell shows how the healthcare industry was changed by technology when discussing pneumonia in the late 1800's. It wasn't their technology in the sense that they had new machines that could tell them if a patient had a disease or not; it was their systematic way of keeping records. They made diagnosing pneumonia a science by finding out common factors (white blood cells, leucocytes, etc.). Howell writes about how they did not actually count the patients white blood cells, but there were other common factors to determine this vital information for diagnosis. I find cases like this amusing because they are taking medicine and healthcare from a case by case basis and turning it into a methodical science. It went from a to-do list based on symptoms to a system in which the scientific method could actually be applied.

Howell Part #1

     The subject of technology in regards to hospitals and healthcare has progressed rapidly over the last century and a half. Howell begins by summarizing some specific cases in which technology has improved healthcare in the hospital. Howell describes how "Urine analyses, blood tests, even the ordinary x-ray, are no longer identified by most people and in most accounts as being remarkable medical technologies; they are simply part of routine medical care" (Howell 5). It is interesting that society calls these things "standard" because years ago they were unthinkable. I think that the improvement of the education system over the past century has a direct correlation to the improvement in technology. I can expect that the rest of this book will comeback to that quote in one way or another because in order to realize how special the current technology is, one has to be able to look back at what hospitals had access to before this great technology.

Marrow of Tragedy Part 3

     Smallpox, being an extremely powerful disease that was common in the 19th Century, one would expect there to be some concern among the officers of the Army. The fact that these men turned soldiers would be in close quarters with one another would raise enough concern to take some sort of action to ensure that smallpox could not contaminate the troops. According to Humphrey's, "The Union Army required that men be vaccinated on admission, or show a vaccination scar or evidence of previous smallpox" (282); Even with these precautions, "Smallpox spread through the Union troops and from there into the Confederate Army" (282). Humphrey's explains that "this rule was rarely observed, at least in the enthusiastic opening days of the war" (282). I find it very interesting that the Union Army was willing to let troops with this disease fight for them, when one soldier carrying the disease could potentially do more harm than the Confederate Army could. I believe that the decision to overlook the potential soldiers carrying the disease was influenced by the war strategy of this era. The probability of an enlisted solider to die was much higher than it is today. The most senior military officers probably figured that a bullet would kill a solider before a disease would.

Marrow of Tragedy Part 2

     At this point in the book it is not surprising to read about how soldiers got infections and what not during the war. Humphrey's explains how the troops were "urged...to act like civilized gentleman" (127). The soldiers were forced to wash themselves and their feet, air out their tents, etc. All of these actions now seem like daily tasks that we just preform without second guessing. The USSC actually appointed physicians to inspect the Union camps to ensure that the wounded soldiers were in conditions that would help them heal faster. They ran into trouble with the senior officers of the Army. The officers just wanted their men to help fight. It baffles me to think that they would rather have a regiment full of troops that are in no condition to fight than put forth some effort and cooperation to help get their troops back to full fighting force. The average officer's education, or lack thereof about healthcare and medicine is mind boggling. It was interesting to read that they started teaching some basic medicine at USMA at West Point because of these reasons.

Marrow of Tragedy Part 1

     In the first part of the reading, one of the most intriguing parts was the emphasis on the way that hospitals and women were viewed/used before the war. Humphrey's states that "the principal occupants of public hospitals were the poor" (53). Most people that faced some type of illness felt as if they would be better off in the comforts of their own home. The fact that doctors did not know that much more about healthcare than normal (educated) people made them much less valuable than they are today. Women were a big reason for this desire to stay in the home when feeling ill. Women were experienced in cleanliness, preparing meals and taking care of children. These tasks seem simple, but in this historical era they were not as easy to accomplish as they seem today. In the video interview with Humphrey's, the most interesting part was when she discussed how it never really occurred to men that the wounded men entering the hospital need to put on clean pajamas. She emphasizes that some of these details that seem so minor today were actually big deals in the 19th century.

History of Healthcare

     Healthcare has been improving remarkably very recently. To look back at some of the practices of medicine in the 1800's, it is shocking to think that their methods were actually used on people. It seems as if their methods of healthcare and medicine are just ridiculous, and maybe even cruel. Due to the advances in healthcare, people are receiving treatment for their illnesses and diseases that no one could have lived through two hundred years ago. Technology has been extremely beneficial in the improvement of healthcare in the sense that doctors can now see things in intimate detail that they would have never dreamed of seeing two hundred years ago.