European and American countries are both welfare countries. Why is the medical system of the United States and Britain and France so different? Why is it that when the American people are sad because they cannot afford to see a doctor, their compatriots in Britain and France are enjoying a "worry-free life" under a perfect medical system. ". The reason for this is that they have different attitudes towards the inequality of wealth and different perceptions of the value of the rich and the poor. In continental countries, social welfare accounts for 45% of GDP, while in the United States it is only 30%. Many Europeans believe that poverty is forced by circumstances, while most Americans believe that poverty is caused by personal laziness. And this is the fundamental reason why the medical system in the United States and Britain and France are different.
In fact, the French medical system is not as perfect as in the film. Many people will start a long wait because of a minor illness, and many people miss the best time for treatment because of the long waiting time. In addition, such a medical system also imposes a great burden on the national finances. The government has carried out a variety of reforms in order to reduce the deficit, and its measures are mainly to increase insurance premiums for policyholders and reduce compensation rates. As the real income of investors fell, the insurance purchase rate also fell. In the case of economic stagnation and the increase of the unemployed, social insurance has become one of the reasons for the vicious circle of the sluggish insurance industry by increasing insurance rates. And if this situation goes on like this in the long run, it is very likely that it will cause "national bankruptcy" like Greece. Maybe you will say that this is unfounded, how can old capitalist countries like Britain and the United States be as "vulnerable" as Greece. But in fact, the Greek problem is only the tip of the iceberg of the disease of the welfare state in Europe and the United States. Although Greece is "ahead of the times" on the debt issue, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and even the United Kingdom and the United States are not far behind. Statistics show that the debt to GDP ratio of developed countries is close to 100%, and the aging of the population and the generalization of welfare may further aggravate this debt. The national response is to reform, and health care reform must be among them. If the reformed medical plan requires citizens to pay more for their own medical expenses, will those "happy people" in Britain and France become disoriented and take to the streets to demonstrate?
Let's look at the United States again. There are three types of medical insurance systems in the United States: private, social and social welfare insurance systems, and private insurance accounts for one-third of the entire insurance industry. In addition, the government has special medical insurance support for the elderly, children, veterans and low-income families. But because of the high commercialization of the medical insurance industry, medical insurance, a service commodity that can be sold and purchased, has become more and more expensive. Private medical insurance is purchased by employers for employees, which has also led to the inability of employees in some companies with poor efficiency or small scale to purchase appropriate medical insurance, and the number of such people has reached 40 million. 40 million Americans do not have health insurance, meaning a single illness could cost them money.
On the other hand, because of such a medical insurance system, the medical service market in the United States lacks regulation, while doctors and insurance companies have more decision-making power. As a result, there is a phenomenon of "checking a lot of minor illnesses, or no treatment for serious illnesses", and improving the current medical conditions is also the main reason for Obama's medical reform. Obama's health care reform plan plans to make nearly all Americans have health insurance by 2014. The government will also provide Medicare subsidies for individuals earning less than $43,320 a year and families of three earning less than $73,240. The bill also stipulates that the government can urge companies to provide health insurance to employees through a series of incentives and penalties, and prohibit insurance companies from denying insurance requirements or raising premiums because of their own health problems. However, such regulations are precisely shaking the profit sources of drug dealers and insurance giants. Although the medical reform plan is difficult to pass, it is unknown whether the lobbying group of the wealthy businessmen will pull the members of the Senate into their own camp to prevent the medical reform from being carried out. And this is out of our control, but the American people can have choices because they have the right to vote. As mentioned at the beginning of the article, Americans who advocate freedom believe that poverty is caused by their own laziness. And their rich and poor values are also reflected in their votes for political parties. When you think about which party to vote for, your moral judgments about rich and poor come to the fore. Which party's economic policy is more concerned with the interests of the poor, and which party is defending the immediate interests of the rich? When you cast that vote, your inclination is already determined. A large part of the failure of the Democratic midterm elections represented by Obama is that he lost the support of the broad middle class because of his health care reform plan. And this also shows the attitude of many Americans towards health care reform, which is their judgment on the moral standards of the rich and the poor. You can't judge their right and wrong because you can't assure them that life will be better after health reform.
In the election two years later, I don’t know whether Obama can continue his American dream, and whether the American people will allow the Obama who gave them hope four years ago to lead them to realize their dreams again, and I don’t know what happened at that time. How far will healthcare reform go? However, no matter who leads the medical reform, the most important thing is how to change it. If I were a member of the United States of America, I would rather not have the medical system turned into a French medical system. Even though I may go bankrupt because of illness under the current system, if it is changed to the French model, then this "dream country" may die because of the illness of its citizens. You can call me extreme and pessimistic, but no one Can assure me it won't happen. And I can only look forward to the smooth progress of the medical reform, and also look forward to the part of the drug bill that 'I' can pay within my capacity.
View more about Sicko reviews
