Showing posts with label barack obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label barack obama. Show all posts

Wednesday, 30 January 2013

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.





Thursday, 11 October 2012

I See, Therefore I Vote.

 
(source: cbsnews.com)
 
 
Politicians are walking advertisements.  They sell "big ideas" and persuade people to vote, and they don't even have to sell ideas.  All they really have to sell are appearences and sounds.  Thus, politicans are really living, breathing brands who make their mark with voices and body language.
 
 
When everyone talked about Barack Obama's now infamous debate performance against Republican hopeful Mitt Romney, they commented on his body language.  In this CBS News clip, commentators discuss how body language makes a person look presidential.  The general consensus was that Obama did not look presidential.  He kept looking down at this podium instead of addressing Mitt Romney directly. 
 
 
Obama disappointed not only his small-l liberal supporters but also moderates and independents.  Obama wowed the latter two in the 2008 presidential election with his strong command of the spoken word.  In front of the world on that debate stage, Obama looked like a shell of his former self.  All it took was one debate to shift the momentum back into Romney's direction.
 
 
Obama probably would have walked away with minimal damage had the economic recovery been stronger.  But because the American economy was (and is) still in a pitiful state, Obama had to defend his record.  By giving a poor debate performance, he came across as a person who could not defend his record at all.
 
 
The greatest irony, though, is that in this consumer era, an incumbent politician does not need to defend his or her record as much as in the past.  All a politician needs to do is creative a narrative that people can run with.  The narrative does not even have to be strong, for if the opposing candidate is weak, the narrative can look strong by comparison. 
 
 
Some say that people today vote with their hearts, not their heads.  I disagree.  Rather, I think people vote with their eyes and ears.  The image of the politician is the message, and the message does not have to be true.  Instead, it just has to be appealing.
 
 
It has also been said that people want to vote for the candidate they would like to have a beer with.  But I also believe that voters want a candidate that represents their best qualities.  Richard Nixon appealed to blue-collar workers yet alienated many other voting blocs in the process.  His message of law and order resonated with many voters, but many could not accept the message of a man with a stern voice and drooping jowls.  No one wants to see their inner demon in the mirror, and to many, Nixon was their inner demon.
 
 
Many voters flocked to Barack Obama  because they saw their best qualities within him.  People like hope, and people like a candidate who propigates the message of hope.  Four years later, they see a man who is wrinklier, crankier, and vastly more arrogant at least on television.  Even if Barack Obama is not a failure, he looks like a failure on television.  Voters hate failure in government, and even if they have lost faith in their candidates, they still demand a message that resonates.  Barack Obama has a message that may resonate with economists and policy wonks, but he doesn't have a message that resonates with the ordinary voter.  Raw data is useless to the eyes in today's political era.  Voters want a good salesman, not just an economist.