The Changes Introduced by the Labour Governments
Some of the changes that the labour government introduced between
1945-51 were very profound. For instance the changes that were made by
the government to tackle the five giant evils of society. The
Government wanted to tackle Squalor, want, illness, disease and
idleness. The introduction of the NHS was hugely profound. In 1945-6
Aneurin Bevan accepted the fundamental principle of a free and
universal medical service, directly financed by the state. This change
made by the labour government was revolutionary because it provided
medical help to all people that was not possible before. It enabled
the poor to be able to be treated for a disease that was not possible
before because they could not afford be privately treated.
There were other changes that the government had made that were seen
as very profound. After the war the British public had lost no fewer
then 700,000 homes and much of the existing stock was damaged as well.
In 1947 a higher standard of council houses had been provided for the
working class. Also a change made by labour was the introduction of
new towns in the countryside, such a Crawley and Basildon. With these
new towns created it relieved the pressure on great cities like
London. In total between 1945-51 labour built over one million new
houses, together with half a million temporary houses and as well as
this repairs on thousands of homes damaged in the war. These changes
made by labour on housing were reasonable but were not seen as hugely
profound.
Labour made less profound changes to education in Britain. Labour did
increase the budget for education considerably, and the school leaving
age was raised to 15. However no real debate on the aims and
organisation of education really took place. So the changes made in
education between 1945-51 suggest that the changes of the labour
government were not that profound.
However the national insurance act of 1946 was a hugely profound
change made by the labour government.
In recent times the in the UK we have seen the more frequent use of
Having been born and raised in a third world country, I can say with certainty that I have experienced the ravaging effect of poverty and lack of health care providers. I still
roots and is by no means as socialist as it was. But is it still
The Significance of Liberal Reforms between 1906-1910 After the Liberal government came into power due to a landslide victory. When they came to power the Liberals knew there was great need for reform. They knew this change was really required to help and improve Britain and as a whole, make it a better country. There were many parts of Britain that were in very poor condition (in poverty). To eliminate this factor that had plagued Britain the Liberals introduced many reforms between 1906-1910.
have health insurance and it is not the answer for alleviating the issue of poverty.
There are couple liberal reforms of 1960-1974 that succeeded and have endured to present day. There is the Medical Care Act of 1965 that provides Medicare and Medicaid, which we still have around today. The policies put into place by the Immigration and Nationality Act, with some modifications, are the same ones governing U.S. immigration in the early 21st century. There are a couple liberal reforms of 1960-1974 that failed to achieve their goals. Most of Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty programs failed to achieve their goals. There was not enough spending that lead to a claim of victory. The programs were not only inadequately funded but also hastily planned. They did not focus on reforms that would ensure adequately paying jobs for all.
The author also briefly demonstrates in Chapter 11 how healthcare programs fail the poor. She mentions the high medical costs of antirejection drugs and how Medicare refuses to cover costs after a year. This is not a main argument of the chapter but an important one. The goal of Chapters 10
Cities grew in the late 1800s and early 1900s. As specialized industries like steel and meat packing improved, jobs also increased in the cities. These factories work lured former farmers, immigrants, and American workers moved into the cities. These people lived in tenements and ghettos and were unable to earn an authentic living due to unreasonable wage cut. Progressivism is an umbrella label for a wide range of economic, political, social, and moral reforms. The early twentieth century acted as the Progressive Era, when Americans find solutions to resolve problems that were engendered by industrialization. Predicated on the documents, Progressive Era were effective because of child labor, working conditions, and women's suffrage.
Effectiveness of the Liberal Reforms Between 1900 and 1914 the British liberal government introduced the largest series of reforms ever completed by a government till that date. Prior to these reforms it was not considered the duty of the government to provide any form of relief for the poor and when the reforms were passed they were viewed as radical and amazing. Many conservatives considered them unenforceable and many radicals considered them far too small. Yet how effective were these reforms? Prior to the reforms the only relief for children was either from charities or the workhouse, and many liberals claimed that the workhouses were worse than the conditions that many children had previously lived in.
“The only real nation is humanity” (Farmer 123). This quote represents a huge message that is received in, Tracy Kidder’s, Mountains Beyond Mountains. This book argues that universal healthcare is a right and not a privilege. Kidder’s book also shows the audience that every individual, no matter what the circumstances, is entitled to receive quality health care. In the book Kidder represents, Paul Farmer, a man who spends his entire life determined to improve the health care of impoverished areas around the world, namely Haiti, one of the poorest nations in the world. By doing this the audience learns of the horrible circumstances, and the lack of quality health care that nations like Haiti live with everyday, why every person has the right to healthcare no matter what, and how cost effectiveness should not determine whether or not these people get to live or die. Two texts that also argue this idea are Monte Leach’s “Ensuring Health Care as a Global Human Right,” and Darshak Sanghavi’s “Is it Cost Effective to Treat the World’s Poor.” Leach’s article is an interview with Benjamin Crème that illustrates why food, shelter, education, and healthcare are human rights that have to be available to everyone. He shares many of the same views on health care as Farmer, and the two also share similar solutions to this ongoing problem. Leach also talks about the rapidly growing aids epidemic, and how it must be stopped. Like farmer, he also argues that it is easier to prevent these diseases then to cure them. Furthermore, Sanghavi’s article represents many of the questions that people would ask about cost effectiveness. Yet similar to Farmer’s views, Sanghavi argues that letting the poor d...
It is the profits rather than the need of the world that drives the market, as Cahill points out. She laments that while in the 1960-1970 's theologic bioethicists influenced the field of bioethics, nowadays the ethical discourse involving Christian narrative gets" thinner and thinner," shifting away toward more secular and liberal views. As theologians are welcomed to partake in the ethical debates, their voices and opinions are rarely considered in policy making. Such situation causes the current trend amongst health care institutions,medical-surgical companies, and research labs, to focus on financial gain rather than ways to deliver health care to those who needed it the most. It is the consumers with the most "buying power" that have at their disposal the latest medical treatment, equipment, technologies, and medications while millions around the world lack the most basics of needs, such as clean water, food, shelter, education as well as the basic health care. Cahill fears that medical companies seeking profits will neglect or stop altogether to produce medications that are bringing low profits. Medications that are necessary to treat prevalent in the third- world countries or if you prefer the developing countries diseases, such as Dysentery, Cholera, Malaria, Rabies, Typhoid Fever, Yellow Fever, even warms, to name a
It is hard to imagine life without health insurance. If you have any type of medical problem that requires attention, and you have appropriate health care insurance, you can be cared for in the finest of private hospitals. You can get great treatment and your ailments, depending on the severity, can be treated as soon as possible. Doctors, physicians and surgeons are willing to put out a big effort if they know that they are dealing with patients who are insured and have the money to go under extensive medical treatment. But imagine life without such luxuries. For example, what happens if a relative requires much needed surgery, but does not have health insurance to cover the procedure? What happens if a lack of medical insurance prevents you or your family from seeing a doctor, which could result in health problems that had not been identified but could have been treated before they became life threatening? These scenarios may seem far-fetched, but these types of situations happen to people who lack health coverage everyday. There is a true story about a patient who was insured and diagnosed with treatable cervical cancer. Unfortunately, she lost her job and with it her insurance. She was then unable to see her private doctor, and was turned away from other hospitals because ?cancer treatment is not considered an emergency in a patient who can?t pay? (?Help for D.C.?s Uninsured?). The woman later died at her home without ever being treated. This example raises the question, since when are people with less money less deserving of health care or appropriate treatment?
One of the most prevalent and pervasive social issues in the United States today is the provision of equal access to health care for the impoverished. Far too many people live in conditions of poverty and struggle to find the means by which to meet their basic needs. For those without insurance, access to medical care is often preempted by other necessities. An unexpected medical expense can push this group further into poverty. Those who do have insurance may find themselves underinsured in the event of an emergency and unable to make the necessary co-payments. Alternatively, the insured’s provider may refuse to cover certain conditions. Besides the cost of adequate insurance and the booming cost of medical care, there are other factors that affect equal access to medical care for the impoverished. Among these are race, age, and geographic location. Poverty and the resulting inadequate medical care is a ubiquitous social problem that merits further discussion of the issue’s causes and implications.
As we have clearly seen, medicine for profit is not solving the problems of the healthcare system and many people are going bankrupt, dying, and choosing suicide over costly bills. Maybe we should learn from all of these situations and numbers and see that, like the UK did, we should be looking at ways to expand our basic human rights to include healthcare. The question at hand was is healthcare a right or a privilege, reviewing all facts, and data given you will see that Health Care in the United States is a privilege. It seems very vile to have resources, and services to deny a person who has a curable illness or disease, because they don’t have proper health care. However, this is the society we live in where liberty and justice for all comes before healthcare for all.
These are also problems that many people in many other countries also face. If we work together, we may be able to help each other and make this world better. In my opinion, there are several solutions that poor countries and wealthy countries working together could implement that would benefit both. Preventing diseases is every country’s responsibility, whether they are poor or rich. Poor countries lack the knowledge and the money to gain, and expand, medical resources.