To Live and Die in America: Class, Power, Health and Healthcare
248
To Live and Die in America: Class, Power, Health and Healthcare
248eBook
Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
Related collections and offers
Overview
Economists Robert Chernomas and Ian Hudson explain this contradictory phenomenon as the product of the unique brand of capitalism that has developed in the US. It is this particular form of capitalism that analogously created social and economic conditions that influence health, such as, highly industrialised labour that produced chronic disease amongst the labouring classes, alongside an inefficient, unpopular and inaccessible health care system that is incapable of dealing with those same patients. In order to improve health in America, the authors argue that a change is required in the conditions in the capitalist system in which people live and work, as well as a restructured health care system.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781849648431 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Pluto Press |
| Publication date: | 02/06/2013 |
| Series: | The Future of World Capitalism |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 248 |
| File size: | 1 MB |
About the Author
Robert Chernomas is Professor of Economics at the University of Manitoba, Canada. He is co-author (with Ian Hudson) of Economics in the Twenty-first Century: A Critical Perspective (University of Toronto Press, 2016) and To Live and Die in America: Class, Power Health and Health Care (Pluto Press, 2013).
Ian Hudson is Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Manitoba, Canada. He is the co-author (with Robert Chernomas) of Economics in the Twenty-first Century: A Critical Perspective (University of Toronto Press, 2016) and To Live and Die in America: Class, Class, Power Health and Health Care (Pluto Press, 2013).
Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER 1
CLASS, POWER, HEALTH, AND HEALTHCARE
INTRODUCTION
In a 1974 speech to the First Conservative Political Action Conference, then Governor (and President to be) Ronald Reagan told a predictably receptive crowd that the United States was the greatest nation in the world. "Pope Pius XII said, 'Into the hands of America God has placed the destinies of an afflicted mankind.' We are indeed, and we are today, the last best hope of man on earth" (Reagan, 1974). This is one of the stronger statements of what is often called US exceptionalism — the idea that the United States is a unique and superior country. Unfortunately, in terms of the health of its people, the United States may be unique, at least among wealthy nations, but it is decidedly not superior.
This book is about how class and power in the United States have determined its health outcomes and healthcare system. The core argument is that disease and death in all nations, including the United States, are predominately structured and influenced by social and economic imperatives, not by irresistible laws of nature that are independent of socially determined political and economic factors (Cairns, 1971; Cassel, 1976; Chernomas, 1999; Chernomas and Donner, 2004; Dubos, 1959; 1965; Galdston, 1954; Navarro et al., 2003; Poland et al., 1998; Wilkinson, 1996). The specific evolution of US capitalism has shaped these social conditions and the healthcare system that evolved to deal with them. If class and power are the two most important determinants of everyday life in the United States, it follows that improving health in the United States will require a change in the system of power, and in turn the conditions in which people live and work, as well as a restructured healthcare system.
The United States has by far the most expensive healthcare system in the world, the worst health among wealthy industrialized nations by almost all measures, and is the only industrialized nation without some form of universal healthcare. US life expectancy is 79.6 years. According to the 2010 United Nations Human Development Index this places it behind 28 other countries, following Greece and Lichtenstein and just above Costa Rica, Portugal and Cuba. In terms of mortality rates for children under five, it ranks a worrying 46th just behind the UAE and above Chile (United Nations, 2011).
These results are not because of underfunding of the US healthcare system. The United States spends more in absolute and relative terms than any other industrial economy. In 2008, the United States spent 16 percent of its GDP on healthcare. This is the highest of the 31 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) by a considerable margin. The second ranked country, France, spent 11 percent and the OECD average was a much more modest 9 percent. The combined level of public and private healthcare spending per person is also much higher in the United States than any other country. The United States spent $7,500 per person, while the second highest nation, Norway, spent only $5,000 (OECD, 2010). The disparity between healthcare spending and health outcomes suggests that the United States has a particularly inefficient healthcare system, but this divergence is also driven by social and economic conditions that create a less healthy US population.
In the context of these discouraging health indicators, the United States has recently been through a national debate on the future of its healthcare system. President Obama made universal access to healthcare an important plank in his 2008 election campaign. As we will show in Chapter 5, while Obama did manage to expand access, this was accomplished in a manner that maintained many of the features of the US system that contribute to its higher costs and poorer outcomes.
It is critical to point out, however, that not all capitalist nations have the same class and power relations, and therefore we should expect them to have different health outcomes and qualitatively different healthcare systems. One famous typology of capitalist nations groups countries into four categories (extended from Esping-Anderson's (1990) original three groups). Social democratic welfare states (like Sweden), are egalitarian (including more equal access to healthcare), and have strong protective regulations like environmental laws. In these nations, historically strong labor movements and other civil actors have been able to challenge the power of business and successfully develop a broad network of policies that alleviate, to a certain extent, many of the conditions that give rise to poor health outcomes in modern capitalism (Olsen, 2011: 4–6). The second group of nations is conservative-corporatist welfare states, which tend to provide relatively generous health and social services based on union membership or religious affiliation (like Italy). The third category — wage earner welfare states — provide limited benefits based on employment rather than being universal (like Australia). Finally, liberal welfare states contain a minimum safety net, offering basic social and health services to the poorest and elderly (like the United States). These countries have a history of relatively weak labor organizations and other social movements relative to the power wielded by the business community. This has resulted in a political and economic system with greater inequality and less regulatory intervention (Olsen, 2011: 4–6).
In an international health context, the liberal welfare state embraced by the United States should be viewed as a cautionary tale. As a result of the ability of social democratic countries to win redistributive policies, including an egalitarian healthcare system, and regulatory checks on business activities, people in these countries have superior health results (like lower infant mortality) than other nations (Navarro et al., 2003; Raphael and Bryant, 2004; Birn, Pillay, and Holtz, 2009). The wide variation of political and economic structures that exist between the social democratic and liberal nations suggests that, while the capitalist system does have inherent trends, there is still considerable scope for class politics — the conflict and collaboration of classes and groups — in each country to alter the conditions that create health problems, the health systems that deal with them and their outcomes.
COMPETING THEORIES OF HEALTH OUTCOMES
The emphasis in the preceding section on economic and social factors might come as something of a surprise to readers. Probably the dominant approach to understanding illness is the biomedical approach, in which the causes of disease stem from germs and genes. These illnesses are governed by natural and medical "laws." The treatment strategy that follows from this theory of disease is preoccupied with the search for bad genes, viruses, and bacteria. Treatments are focused on restructuring the biology of the individual through surgery, genetic intervention, or pharmaceuticals. To use an analogy, the biomedical approach views human health in much the same way that a mechanic would view a car. Individual components that are not working correctly need to be repaired or replaced. The biomedical approach can certainly boast an impressive list of scientific innovations that cure a very wide swath of illnesses. Medical innovations have also resulted in preventive measures like vaccinations. Yet, as we shall explain in Chapter 2, the biomedical approach cannot claim the credit for diagnosing the principal causes of, or providing the solution for, the major diseases of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
A second popular model explains health outcomes through individual lifestyle choices. According to the behavioral approach, the solution is to eliminate these self-destructive preferences. There is an important element of truth in this claim. If people don't smoke, there is less chance that they will get lung cancer. If people eat their vegetables and exercise regularly, they have less chance of heart disease. As we will show later in the chapter, however, there are several important shortcomings with this emphasis on the individual. The first is that people in different social situations but with identical lifestyle choices have different health results. The second is that it fails to explain why individuals make these choices. This is especially important since many supposedly individual choices appear to be heavily influenced by social position. If choices are genuinely individual, they should be evenly distributed across different groups in society, but they are not. People from lower socio-economic status have less nutritious diets, smoke more, and exercise less than do those from higher up the social ladder (Lantz et al., 1998; Nettle, 2010). In fact, many health problems are less a result of individual choice than they are a product of social circumstance rooted in the class-based circumstances and opportunities described throughout this book.
In stressing the importance of the political and economic environment in determining human health, we are advocating a political economy approach. According to this view, the way in which the economy operates, an individual's place in it, and in the social and political systems that go with it, have a strong influence on health outcomes. Of particular importance, in this view, are the power relationships that exist in a society. In our society power is largely conferred through ownership (especially, as Karl Marx famously noted, of the productive capacity). So the people who own firms have more power than their employees. Economic, political and social systems play an important role in determining both the environment in which people live and their ability to access the resources (things like food, shelter and medical care) necessary to enjoy a healthy life. In the words of a leading textbook on international health, "a political economy of health approach uncovers how personal, household, social, political, and economic conditions interrelate at various levels to produce particular health circumstances and outcomes" (Birn et al., 2009: 140). This is not to suggest that the biomedical and behavioral approaches are entirely incorrect. Rather, by placing biomedical and behavioral factors in their larger context, the political economy approach allows for a more complete explanation of human health.
An example might help illustrate the difference between the three approaches. When Andrea Martin was 42 years old she was diagnosed with an advanced case of breast cancer. After aggressive treatment, cancer was found in her other breast, and later still, she was found to have a large malignant brain tumor from which she died. Martin was also one of the volunteer subjects in a study that measured the "body burden" of chemicals in people. Biomonitoring by the Center for Disease Control (CDC), led by researchers from Mt. Sinai School of Medicine in 2003, revealed that Martin had at least 95 toxic chemicals in her system, 59 of which were cancer causing. Martin said at the time, "I was shocked at the breadth and variety of the number of chemicals. I was outraged to find out that without my permission, without my knowledge, my body was accumulating this toxic mixture" (Malkan, 2003). It is not as though Martin had a lifestyle that would make her more likely to come into contact with more chemicals than the average person. She did not work in a lab or at a nuclear reactor. The chemicals in her body were accumulated in the common acts of consuming everyday products and living a very average life in California. That an average life involves absorbing a large number of dangerous chemicals should perhaps not come as a complete surprise. The Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) program of the European Union estimates that over the last 50 years over 75,000 new chemicals have been released into the environment.
The biomedical approach would have searched for Andrea Martin's genetic propensity for cancer, the results of her breast cancer screening, and then extolled the benefits of the chemotherapeutic and surgical treatment options available to treat her disease. The behavioral approach would have encouraged Martin to avoid food, air, and water contaminated with carcinogens. The political economy approach would suggest that she had limited control over, and little information about, the conditions under which she made her choices, which are driven by broader political and economic forces. Obviously, these different approaches are not completely exclusive. Genetics, behaviors, and political economic conditions most certainly all play a role in health outcomes. Yet the argument in this book is that they are not all equally important. In the battle for resources, where tradeoffs exist in how we choose to tackle health issues, the biomedical and behavioral approaches currently receive far too much prominence at the expense of the more effective political economy approach.
While this book is certainly within the political economy tradition, it attempts to delve deeper: just what is it that creates the social and economic conditions that, according to the political economy perspective, influence health outcomes so profoundly? So, while the political economy approach examines how inequality or environmental factors influence health, we will put forward a theory about what creates these problems. In its very condensed form, the argument is that political and economic results like pollution, working conditions and inequality are determined in large part by the twin dynamics of the capitalist economy — competition between firms and class conflict. Businesses in a capitalist economy must continuously strive to maximize profits in order to compete successfully with their rivals. However, the conditions under which firms maximize profits, from the wages they offer to the pollution that they emit, are the result of an ongoing social and political conflict over the rules of the capitalist game among business, on the one hand, and the "working class," which is so often harmed by these actions, on the other. (The question of just what constitutes the working class has been the subject of much debate, but we will associate workers with Lester Thurow's nonsupervisory workers, "those who don't boss anyone else — a vast majority of the workforce" (Thurow, 1996: 2), which according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics made up 82.5 percent of all employees in the United States in December of 2011 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012: 8).) The dual dynamics of profitability and conflict can explain both the political economic results in specific capitalist countries that influence health and why the United States has such a unique healthcare system.
THE REST OF THE BOOK
This book examines how economic developments and class forces in the United States have contributed to the conditions that impact human health and to the evolution of the healthcare system that attempts to deal with its effects.
Chapter 2 challenges the conventional biomedical view of what is called the "epidemiological transition." Whereas the population generally died of infectious disease in the nineteenth century, the twentieth century was dominated by chronic disease. The popular understanding of this transition is that the germs that caused infectious disease mortality were defeated by the "magic bullets" of mainstream medicine, permitting the population to grow old enough to get heart disease and cancer. This is unambiguously false. The biomedical approach did not provide the solution for infectious disease, and neither biomedical nor behavioral approaches have been successful in explaining the rise in chronic disease or very effective at curing it.
Chapter 3 examines the US experience with respect to the infectious disease stage of capitalist development, to provide an alternative explanation of the epidemiological transition. We argue that early capitalism resulted in workers and their families being underfed and overworked, inhibiting their inborn and acquired immune system from working effectively, creating an "epidemic constitution" for infectious disease. The chapter focuses on the working and living conditions in the United States that created the infectious disease epidemic constitution, and the struggle for higher wages, occupational safety, child labor laws, the eight-hour day and public health measures that proved to be the solution. It will establish that class struggle was the key determinant of health in the epidemiological transition in the United States.
In Chapter 4, health in the more recent, affluent stage in the United States is examined. When workers successfully managed to improve their living standards, capitalists had to respond by moving to techniques that increased productivity so that rising wage costs and taxes could be accommodated without long-term threats to profits. The resulting mechanization and chemicalization of production created an epidemic constitution for chronic disease. This chapter will focus on the qualitative changes to the goods we consume, the environment that we live in, the conditions in which we work, and degree of equality, to explain the major killers of the population. Without dramatic social and economic changes, health results in the United States will continue to lag behind those in the rest of the world.
(Continues…)
Excerpted from "To Live and Die in America"
by .
Copyright © 2013 Robert Chernomas and Ian Hudson.
Excerpted by permission of Pluto Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
1. Class, Power, Health and Healthcare2. The Medical Miracle?
3. To Live and Die in 19th Century America: A Class Based Explanation of the Rise and Fall of Infectious Disease
4. Death in Our Times: The Exceptional Class Context for Chronic Disease in America
5. The Political Economy of US Healthcare: The Medical Industrial Complex
6. Three Easy Lessons
Notes
Index