In Control of our Health? (SOC 490)

     For the past few classes, we have been discussing whether or not our health is something we have control over. There are many different types of health: physical, mental, social and others. While one may not be able to control aspects of their health such as hereditary illnesses and accidents, we do control how we treat our bodies, whether positively or negatively. We are only given one body, and if we treat it well, by exercising, eating healthy and getting enough rest for example, then we are on the right track for a healthy lifestyle. In my opinion, if you treat your body right, in all aspects of health, then the rest is not in your hands, but the hands of fate, destiny, God, or whatever you may believe in. Everything happens for a reason, and you may make mistakes, but in the end, you are not in control of some things that may happen to you, like accidents, diseases or dying.

     Another topic that has come up in class regards American health care compared with other countries such as Canada and Italy. These countries both have universal health care which make it easier to compare between the United States and Italy, for example, because there are many differences. While health care in the United States is said to be better in different ways, there are statistics which may prove this theory otherwise and raise questions as to which type of health care may be more efficient. For example, the life expectancy at birth for people of the United States in 2007, was 77.8, while in Canada, the life expectancy was 80.4. Infant mortality death per 1,000 births is also higher in the U.S. than in Canada. On the other hand, in Italy, the infant mortality rate is 3, while in America it is 7. The life expectancy is also higher in Italy (81), while in the U.S. it is 78. While statistics may not always be a great example of the health of an entire nation, they provide a perspective which helps focus on the bigger picture.
     One viewpoint about a universal health care plan suggests that having universal health care, or an open-ended insurance program, would encourage abuse of the health care system. Malcolm Gladwell, alternatively states in Universal Health Care: Opposing Viewpoints that "Open-Ended Insurance Payments Do Not Lead to Abuse of the Health Care System." Gladwell thinks that just because we would have universal health insurance, that doesn't mean people would abuse it, rather it would decrease costs in certain aspects. He states that "when it comes to health care, many of the things we do only because we have insurance...are anything but wasteful and inefficient...they are behaviors that could end up saving the health-care system a good deal of money."
     Chris Farrell says that "Universal coverage would stimulate the economy, it would boost the financial security of ordinary Americans, and it would break the health-care reform log-jam." He thinks that implementing universal health care would be good for the U.S. economy and that it should be implemented rapidly. The negative aspect of Farrell's viewpoint, is that he uses words such as "hopefully" and states "once the economy recovers, Washington can debate how to create a more cost-effective and cost-efficient health-care system." This viewpoint seems to be not thought out well, and gives off the vibe that we can "figure the rest out later," which would not be good for the economy. Henry J. Aaron, on the other hand, says that the United States should move forward cautiously to implement health care.