How to explain the differences across North America and Western Europe regarding the policies of health coverage (mandatory in one hand, private initiative in the other hand)? The response has to be searched in the past history on both side of the Atlantic Ocean. Feudalism in Europe made government to be considered by people as a good thing which liberated them from oppression of the King and feudal lords while in North America, Government rules are associated in people’s mind with the oppression of the English government which imposed taxes before the independence. At least it is the theory exposed by Henry J. Kaiser Jr. Professor of Health and Research Policy Emeritus at Stanford.
At the second global symposium on health systems research in october 31th of 2012 some dreamers recently gathered in Beijing to promote a World Wide Universal Health Coverage.
But dreamers have always been the ones who changed the world!
Here is the report in Adam Wagstaff’s blog:
And videos of the congress can be accessed here:
My cousin Tho gave a talk in Berlin about the GNH paradigm: what it is, but also what it is not (eg an Happy Hippy Land). The key, take home message is: to overcome the suffering, to adopt a non dual attitude and to engage in a systematic approach in economics taking into account not only the individual but also his environment and the other living beings. Tho intervenes just after Julia Kim, the representative of UNICEF.
PGF2012: Gross National Happiness (GNH) from Presencing Institute on Vimeo.
Here below is a link toward a blogger who listed 21 arguments attempting demonstrate why and how people could afford themselves to avoid to subscribe to a mandatory health care insurance.
In my point of view, this kind of discourse do not consider two corner stones of the issue of health care insurance: solidarity (or in other word compassion toward our less wealthy fellow citizens) and the disproportional cost of the modern cares compared with the financing capacity of a single person.
Nonetheless the blogger’s propositions related to the chronic diseases prevention should be implemented. But the are not sufficient in case of an accidental damage.
Here below is a link toward an interesting talk which occurred at the 20th Cochrane Coloquium in New Zealand between September 30th and October 3rd of 2012.
It’s about connections
More videos of the conference are available here
Cochrane reviews constitute a precious mean of disseminating the findings of the research in medicine. They pave the way for more evidence-based medicine in the practice of care.
“And in a sense, it is rational, given the dearth of alternatives. If nobody wants you at the party, why should you stay? Advocates of Death With Dignity laws who say that patients themselves should decide whether to live or die are fantasizing. Who chooses suicide in a vacuum? We are inexorably affected by our immediate environment. The deck is stacked.”
Excerpt from an article I just read in the Herald Tribune and that pulled tears from my eyes. An ethical topic fundamental for each human being , not only for health practitioners. As the spouse of the disabled author asks in the reanimation room, we should always proceed “full code” in order to save a human being.
This article by Ben Mattlin is worth to be read.
Recently I found a definition of the field I am interested in: ie the health services research. Wikipedia defines it as ” to examine how people get access to health care practitioners and health care services, how much care costs, and what happens to patients as a result of this care.” quoting Academyhealth in the references.
Putted more simply, and according to Academyhealth, HSR tries to give responses to 4 questions in the field of health care in a community:
At what cost?
Under what circumstances?
Read more here
The footprint of America is strong worldwide; be it during wartime or peacetime. And childs are among the most impressionable receptors.
Photo credit (in that order)