Discussing Beth Berila’s Toxic Bodies article today made me think about the problems with healthcare in the United States that we were discussing in class on Friday. In a nation where so many people enjoy a high standard of living, so many others cannot receive proper medical attention and treatment. Berila’s article discusses the stigma attached to AIDS, which is an issue into itself, but she also touches on the stigmatized groups that may have AIDS, such as the poor, and their inability to receive proper treatment. I recently watched a video in my PE 101 class called “Road to Hope” about a tour of HIV-positive young people who traveled around the country raising awareness about the lack of proper treatment for people with AIDS and AIDS prevention. One particular individual who spoke on the documentary, an activist who did not have AIDS, brought some disturbing fights to light during her speech concerning AIDS in the United States and throughout the world.
Healy Thompson, an advocate with the Student Global AIDS Campaign, stated that that only one million out of the forty million people infected with AIDS in the world were able to have treatment for the disease. In the United States, over 1.2 million people are currently living with AIDS, meaning that if all of the one million who receive treatment lived in the United States (and many do not) then approximately 200,000 people living in the United States would be living with AIDS without treatment.
After wondering why the poor in Kentucky (and throughout the United States) and hundreds of thousands of AIDS-infected individuals in the United States cannot receive proper treatment, I understand that we need a solution to our healthcare crisis. Ms. Bailey prompted us to propose a solution in our blog posts this week, and after some research, I think that nearly any comprehensive public or privatized healthcare plan would be beneficial. I do know one thing...something needs to be done!
3 comments:
In an immunology class that I’m taking, we just covered some material about AIDS that I thought might be interesting to share, as they relate to links between poverty and the spread of AIDS:
• In the mid-1990s (about 1993-95), AIDS was the leading cause of death in the United States among 25-44 year olds, higher than the rates from cancer, heart disease, accidents, etc. The deaths from AIDS dropped down pretty rapidly after that period, probably due to the combination of awareness and the development of and ready access to anti-AIDS drugs—if that hadn’t happened, today AIDS might have been as widespread here as it is in Africa.
• Recent research from the CDC suggests that the high levels of infection with endemic parasites in many areas of sub-Saharan Africa may also promote the spread of HIV. Studies from primate models and on blood from HIV +/- and parasite +/- show that those infected with one parasite (the schistosome) are more likely to contract HIV upon exposure. HIV also replicates more quickly once inside the body due to changes in the immune response caused by the parasite infection; more virus means that AIDS develops much faster.
The second factor doesn’t even have to do with access to AIDS medicines or awareness; it’s a matter of public health, as the parasite tested in this study is spread through water. The conditions of such areas not only make it hard to receive treatment for HIV, but may also be a contributing factor in the rapid spread of HIV and the development of AIDS.
Regarding a public health care plan, we are the only industrialized nation without universal health care. The United States consistently ranks lowest in health care coverage of all of the industrialized nations.
Every national health care system must compromise between cost, access, and quality. While most industrialized nations choose to put a greater emphasis on cost and access, the United States tends to put a greater emphasis on access and quality. Elective procedures (such as cataract surgery or hip replacements) have a much shorter wait time in the United States than they do in Canada. However, the cost can only be afforded by those with health insurance in the United States while th procedures can be afforded by all in Canada (as they pay for their health care through taxes). The main reason the United States puts much less emphasis on cost over the other two factors is because our nation follows a capitalist business model. The first step to determining whether or not a change will occur in the United States is coming to a consensus about the nature of health care. Is health care a product, just like any other item in a capitalist society, or is it a right? If it's a right, is our capitalist system somehow flawed in other ways?
The struggle between science and politics when it come to medical care in the US is a difficult one. Pertaining to HIV/AIDS, I found this plan online at www.avert.org. It said that:
“In 2001, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) set a goal to halve the number of people infected with HIV each year in America, from 40,000 to 20,000. The CDC originally aimed to achieve this target by the end of 2005, but by 2003 it was already clear they would not be successful. The number of new infections showed no sign of declining and there were even reasons to suspect a slight increase.
In light of this setback, in April 2003 the CDC announced a major change in its approach to HIV prevention. The new initiative would be called Advancing HIV Prevention: New Strategies for a Changing Epidemic – or AHP for short.1
AHP consists of four strategies recommended by the CDC to state and local health departments, individual clinics, and community-based organisations that receive federal support. A substantial amount of funding is available only for programmes that prioritse these strategies, and the initiative is increasingly influencing approaches to HIV prevention nationwide.
But some experts have voiced concerns about AHP, including a suspicion that it is motivated more by politics than science. And many question whether the initiative will really be as successful as the CDC hopes. At stake are the futures of tens of thousands of Americans, and also many billions of dollars that could be saved if the HIV infection rate finally were reduced.”
I think it is important to note here, that whatever the struggle between capitalism, politics and healthcare, it is people’s lives that are really at stake and should be taken into account in every plan for the future.
Post a Comment