The Health Care Supermarket

(source: kickstarter.com)

For a school assignment, I watched Peter Nicks's documentary The Waiting Room.  The film takes a look inside the life of Highland Hospital in Oakland, California.  Here, I will share my thoughts on the film and provide a comparison of the Canadian and American health care systems.

The Film
The Waiting Room effectively portrays the life of an urban hospital in the United States.  For the majority of the film, the only sounds we hear are background noises such as beeping monitors, random murmurs, and ringing phones.  The director avoids manipulating the audience by only using music during the opening title sequence, transition sequences, and the ending.

Most importantly, the director lets the subjects tell the stories, and they are compelling ones.  We see a man talking about an old gunshot wound while pointing to his chest, a carpenter talking about his fear of losing his job to a leg injury, and a father expressing concern about his daughter’s strep throat.  All of these subjects are shown in a natural setting, not a staged set, and it makes for effective storytelling. 

One of the most unforgettable moments occurs late in the film, as we see doctors and paramedics trying to revive a 15-year-old gunshot victim.  The absence of music makes it such a chilling scene, and then we watch the haunting shot of his covered body being wheeled into a morgue.

By keeping interviews to a minimum, the director gives us a view of the hospital that is largely uncompromised.  We mostly see doctors talking to patients, patients expressing discomfort or concern while sitting in the waiting room, and receptionists telling patients what they need to know.  When interviews are done, they are effectively presented as voiceovers while the scenes unfold.

As a documentary about the life of a hospital, The Waiting Room succeeds.  However, it lacks a clear, concise message.  There are references to medical insurance, but there are simply not enough scenes about that topic to create a message that is truly sustaining.  Some quick edits could have presented this message effectively, as I noticed that most of the scenes were rather drawn-out. At the same time, the director lets the audience draw their own conclusions, which makes up for the lack of message the film may have.

Health Care: Canada vs. the United States

 Heath insurance is a great concern for some of the subjects in the film.  A 20-something man, for example, is unable to get his testicular tumour surgically removed due to a lack of coverage.

The United States does in fact offer government-run health insurance, but only for a select number of people.  One program, Medicare, is only offered to American citizens age 65 and over and for people under 65 with certain disabilities, according to the United States Department of Health & Human Services.   Another, Medicaid, is offered to only low-income citizens.

Many Americans instead get private health insurance through their employer or somewhere else.  They have to pay premiums in exchange for the insurance.  According to the 2007 Kaiser/HRET Employer Health Benefits Survey, American workers paid an annual average of $3,281 to cover the cost of a family health insurance plan.  On average, workers in the United States paid 16 per cent of overall premiums for single coverage and 28 per cent for family coverage.

American workers have been facing rising premiums at the expense of their paychecks.  The 2007 survey revealed that 21 per cent of employers expected to raise workers’ premiums within the next year. 

Canadians, on the other hand, do not have to pay premiums for most of the health care they receive.   Each of the ten provinces and three territories offer their own public health insurance systems to cover medical costs incurred at private hospitals and doctor’s visits, according to Health Canada.  

Health Canada states that these provincial health care systems are part of a joint federal-provincial health care co-operative unofficially known as ‘Medicare’.  The federal government’s role is to set and maintain standards for each of the provincial health care systems.  Provinces must meet these standards to qualify for federal transfer payments specifically for health care.  This funding mechanism is called the Canada Health Act. 

According to the Canada Health Act, a province/territory must meet five criteria to receive federal health care payments: public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability, and accessibility. A provincial health insurance system must cover every insured person who lives in that province.  The Canada Health Act also restricts user fees (premiums for public health insurance) and additional billing.

Recently, health care in the United States has undergone some major reform.  In 2010, the United States Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  President Barack Obama later signed the bill into law.  One of the key components of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan. According to the United States Department of Health & Human Services, the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan gives health care coverage to uninsured citizens with pre-existing conditions.  It is offered in states that do not have a state-run program.  The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act also offers assistance to adults in their twenties who are struggling financially like the young man with the tumour.  People under the age of 26 are now allowed to stay on a family health insurance plan as per the requirements of the Act.

A Poem About a Sony Television Set (Now a Weekly Series)

Once, people said that television would take the role of the parent.  They were right. Here is my second weekly installment of brand anthropomorphism.  Enjoy:

My Daddy's Name is Sony

Daddy sits in one place

and beams his lights at me

as I lie on my side

to watch his stories

and hear his movies

Daddy's name is Sony,

a man of glass and plastic

He listens to his family

laughing at his wit

or something kind of sick

Daddy can go louder

when you press the button

controlling his functions

directing me to friends

holding their figurines

"Time for a commercial!"

proclaims the saintly Daddy

becoming not so saintly

annoying all the family

with his toys and food

From hair to feet,

we are Daddy's stories

waiting to be seen

at Super Bowl halftime,

millions in view

My never-ending Daddy

glowing from a perch

and always changing

his collars and jewels

for a new bottle of wine

Daddy burns mercury

into my bedtime yawn

and summons me to

rest my lids to wake

up to brand new glows

And Daddy will be replaced

at the calling of the year

with a Daddy taller and flatter,

a universe in his head

to make the trains run

(source: buffalo-newyork.olx.com)

Expecting A Reaction

I had to post this thought because I think it's an important one.

Every Tweet, every Facebook post, and every blog post, at least my inexperience, is crucial.  They're crucial to me because I post with an audience in mind.  I'm thinking of the reactions to this post at this very moment.

Has this become the norm in the modern age of narcissism?

It's not just what I post online either.  It's what I say in real life.  In all conversations, I attempt to reference something that consumerism impacts.  The only exceptions are crime and the weather.  When I am talking about a Adobe InDesign projects, I am taking about a brand that my peers can relate to.  When I am quoting a movie, I am quoting it because I expect that the listener has already seen it.

If there was no culture based on consumption, what would there be to talk about?

Well, some would say religion.  But religion is a form of consumption.  It can very well be argued that religious sects are brands.  The ethos of Buddhism is to reject possessions, but if a text is what you adhere to, you are thus adhering to a possession.

Sure, some will talk about taboo things like sex and bodily functions.  But those conversational subjects do not weld society together even if certain taboos are not so in some nations.  Those subjects are mere exceptions to the rule, and they are rarely brought up.  Unless, of course, they become packaged as things to consume (Fifty Shades of Grey is a good example of this).

I say because I expect a reaction.  That's how powerful the supermarket is.  It ties us together.  There's no point in talking to walls or furniture.  They do not give us a reason to speak.

A person can cry in pain.  But such an act is only an instinctual reaction.  Conversation requires initiation, and in order to initiate, one has to understand what is conversational.

A Poem About a Genie Vacuum Cleaner

I always felt like writing a poem as a blog entry.  Strange idea, yes, but it's something I just wanted to do this time around.

In the future, will human beings have legitimate, intimate relationships with household appliances?  Sure, it sounds like an absurd idea, but in this consumer age, there's a lot of absurd stuff going on.  We could be heading down that road  Anyway, here's my poem.  The idea is pretty clear: a man professing his love to his Genie vacuum cleaner.  Enjoy:

My girl's in the locked trunk

sleeping on the cardboard

and snug in her plastic gown,

polished and factory checked

on her way to home

The girl named Genie

is the girl who truly knows me

There is no perfect girl

made outside the skin

Perfection is born in the factory

Genie's all receptive

plugged into the socket

She's humming to the floor

a drone I've known for years

Rambling on and on goes Genie

Genie is my interpreter

of muscling thoughts and vibes

surging through my openings

and living in the cleaning

of fibers in a day repeated twice

Genie cannot make a baby,

but who needs the family

when all you've got is Genie?

Worth more than baby boys and girls

is Genie at $80.55

I will dread the day

when Genie catches fire

to the halting of her motor

and the fade out of her drones,

the dimming of her lights

Hello, my Genie

Farewell, Genie, my love

(source: icollector.com)

What TASSIMO Taught Me

The big gift I got for Christmas was a TASSIMO.  For those who are unfamiliar, TASSIMO is an automatic coffee brewer built for the 21st century.  All you have to do is fill it with water, place the mug underneath the spout, and unlatch the lid to put in a T-Disc, which contains the actual coffee.  Set the lid down, press the button, and presto, you've got your morning Joe.  No need for filters, kettles, and grounds.

TASSIMO is a telling sign of where we are headed this century.  Because of machines like TASSIMO, we have fewer excuses for our arms.  The machine does it all for us.

Our long-passed ancestors would be amazed.  In a time where electric grinders were absent, they had to grind coffee beans into grounds by hand.  In the 1890s, it probably took around half an hour to make a proper cup of coffee.  

It's not just TASSIMO that is doing the work for our arms.  Touchscreen technology is rendering the keyboard irrelevant.  Fingers, too, do not have to move up and down as fast.

I always wonder if all these technological advances will lead to technological downfall.  I say this because all mechanized products are really just extensions of retired technologies.  The automobile is an extension of the wagon, and Wi-Fi is an extension of the ham radio.  If we're doing fewer things with our arms, fingers, and feet, how claim safety in our adherence to all machinery? After all, machines have their limitations.  They can misinterpret what we say (just ask Siri).  Their perfections are awesome, but their dangers are egregious.  If the Internet were to crash, much of society would collapse, and it would be far harder to pick up the pieces.  

It really is just common sense.  If your computer overheats, it will catch fire and suddenly become a danger to your life.  The old-fashioned typewriter could not do that.  And if you can compare the number of chuckwagon accidents to the number of car accidents, it would be like comparing a flea to an ostrich.  The lesser technology ultimately wins out even if it less convenient.  The only exception to this rule I can think of is the candle.

The things that advance our lives have ironically made us more vulnerable.  It really makes you think of  bigger concepts.  An example is life expectancy.  Our life expectancy is increasing, but there is more toxicity to the air.  More nitrogens and carcinogens.  As humans, we are probably the most vulnerable species because we rely so much on technology, and without it, we'd be dead in days.  We cannot simply grow fur and hibernate.  Evolution is also our devolution.  To survive is to acknowledge that very contradiction.

It's amazing what you can think of when you look at a TASSIMO.

Magazines: Mirror Images or Fantasies?

            

(sources: huffingtonpost.com, woosterandprince.com)

I am learning a lot about the business of magazines in this semester's Creative Communications program.  The most successful magazines are geared towards specific target audiences.  These magazines appeal to target audiences through story content and visual devices.

Depending on the target market you're in, there will be a certain magazine that is your ideal world.  You will have your own definition of what is cool.  If you're reading Wired, you will want to consume all that is technologically superior.  If you're reading GQ, you will want to dress to impress.  If you're a high-schooler who reads Sports Illustrated, you will want to emulate all that is mighty about your most admired athletes.

This brings me to my main question: do people read magazines because they see mirror images of what they are? Or do they read them because they see a life they wish to live or an icon they wish to be?

GQ wouldn't be around today if it didn't identify what its target audiences wore.  But there is another reason why it succeeds.  It shows images of the ideal and the new.  To me, it's plausible to say that people read magazines for both affirmation and discovery -- affirmation of the lifestyles they already live, discovery of the lives they wish to live.  You buy the magazine because either the celebrity is wearing what you are wearing or you want to wear what the celebrity is wearing or eat what the celebrity is cooking.

Culture does not really change on its own terms; the media bears major influence.  If there is a major cultural shift, it's because we don't look what we see in the mirror anymore.  We grow tired of ourselves and want to don new identities.  Thus, the magazine has a message: you can embrace your identity or destroy it.

The magazine also lets you know when to don a new identity.  When everyone emulates the new and unforeseen  the allure is gone, and the sense of individuality is lost.  The same institutions (magazines) that push these images of the 'new' and the 'cool' will then reject them and start from anew.

Some eventually realize all of this and wonder what is cool.  If the cat's out of the bag, out pops the age-old question of whether or not the facade of cool will endear.  And if you try to define things like 'hip and 'cool' down to the level of atoms, you will go bezerk at trying to find the answer because a culture in flux always redefines what is cool.