NHS v. ACA. A comparative analysis of each programme
I plan to assess, in an unbiased manner, the healthcare systems of the United States and England. The United Kingdom itself does not have an extensive health plan, but individual countries such as England and Scotland have their own respective organizations. The English healthcare system is the National Health Service (NHS). I would like to compare and contrast NHS with the Affordable Care Act health coverage plan recently set in the United States. In the process, I hope to focus in on the positives of both plans and perhaps hybridize them into another plan that may in fact be better than the present plans in place.
Pro’s of the National Health Service: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-health
Con’s of the National Health Service: http://article.wn.com/view/2014/04/27/Hospitals_in_England_failing_to_provide_safe_care_have_tripl_p/
Pro’s of the Affordable Care Act: http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/feature-story/top-10-reasons-why-the-affordable-care-act-is-good.html
Con’s of the Affordable Care Act: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-john-jackson/why-the-affordable-care-a_b_4082251.html
More specifically I would like to understand what sort of political maneuvers were employed to pass these plans and to what degree medical science was considered during the respective parliamentary processes. Thereby, I will analyze the conjunction between two fields: politics and medicine. Some of the questions I will consider include: “How were practicing physicians and hospital administrators involved in the legislative process? What medical papers were quoted or cited in the debates leading up to the votes on these measures? How were the small hospital/clinic staff’s voices heard?” Using these questions, I would like to draw on the interplay between the humanities and sciences and understand how the two work hand in hand as well as repel each other. Although this single conjunction may not answer the age old debate between the humanities and sciences, it creates a path for further exploration into the debate.