After discussing specific examples of countries that either implemented to rejected austerity principles in Parts I and II of The Body Economic, the authors explore specific social programs that affect health in certain countries. The more austerity measures a country uses, the more they will cut funding to those programs, and this directly affects the health of people in that country.
Most obviously, national healthcare is one program that affects the health of the people. The story of Diane illustrates what is wrong with the healthcare in the US today, and the authors seem to think the same could happen in the UK, with the NHS moving towards a more market-based system. This leaves me to wonder: surely policy-makers in the US realize the countries with national healthcare are the healthiest? I cannot accept that it is simple economics that keeps the US from going the way of Europe. Even “Obamacare,” isn’t exactly the same universal healthcare we keeping hearing people praise in countries like Denmark and Sweden. The US rejects anything like that, and I wonder why, since those countries are generally extremely healthy and (not to be punny) wealthy as well. Is it possible that such a universal system would not work on a country the size of the US? I cannot think of another country with the population of America that maintains a good economy and has a universal healthcare system. I know this isn’t the only piece in this puzzle, but it may play a role.
I also found it incredibly interesting that the foreclosure crisis in the US led to an outbreak of West Nile Virus. I feel like this is something that could have been easily overlooked, as it is not a direct result of forecloses, the way that homelessness and health problems associated with that are. I like the way the authors point out these connections and show us that the ramifications of changes in the economy can be far-reaching and unexpected.
