Search

The argument is made and sustained by filming various types of patients in the hospital: a diabetic women who was given a sandwich after waiting for hours, a man who did not want to recieve dialysis because of the ordeal of waiting he had to endure each time he was at the hospital, a boy who got shot and died inside the trauma room, a man who had bone spurs on his spine, to name a few. The narrative is also sustained through the view of the patients, the doctors, the nurses and the financial staff all views of the healthcare system are shown and maintained. The film does have emotional appeal because it follows patients from when they first enter the ER to when they leave: for example a little girl who had a severe case of strep throat and could not talk, to her getting treatment, a doctor's appointment and then being discharged. The film portrays each patient in a way that allows the viewer to want to see more of their story.

This film best addresses audiences who do not understand the healthcare crisis in the US. It provides a first hand view on the crisis and exemplifies how it needs to be fixed.

The narrative of the film is describing how disorganized the system of healthcare is. The film gives a one on one view of how people without insurance are left to wait for hours upon end to recieve care, then have no way to pay after they recieve treatment. The film provides a in person account of what people have to deal with, only public hospitals take patients who do not have insurance and treatment time is months in advance. The healthcare system is overflowing and the amount of resources to treat people with special circumstances are significantly less than the number of patients that need to be treated.

I was not convinced by some of the doctor's attitudes towards the patients. I understood that such a busy ER could be hetic, but it is their responsibility to help those in need. I felt that not finding a way to help the man who was on dialysis to stop bouncing back and forth was not fair. I thought there was a way it could have been remediated better than how the doctor decided to fix the task.

Three points I followed up to learn more was:

healthcare currently in the united states, for example obama care and how it helps people without insurance. I learned that through this system it was easier and more efficient for some people to get care and insurance even if they had prior health conditions. However I also learned it is not a perfect solution.

https://www.healthcare.gov/

I looked up the percentages of americans who do not have health insurance. From researching this I learned that the number was a lot higher than I had expected and I questioned why the number was not lower due to obama care.

http://kff.org/uninsured/fact-sheet/key-facts-about-the-uninsured-popul…

The last point I looked up was national admission rates to ERs. I was curious on the national average about how many people seek help. I wondered how many people do not seek help becasue they do not have insurance. I also became curious about how many of these people came to get treatement and were denied.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/emergency-department.htm

I found hearing the patients' stories and the doctor's effort to help others even though there was no resources to be most persuasive and compelling because despite the fact that both patient and doctor knew that long term care was slim they both tried to have hope in treatment, the patient's prayed for recovery, while the doctors pulled strings to get patients who really needed the care or the shelter to be a priority. I found it inspiring that even in a messed up system both parties tried to make the best of the situation.

The film suggests to change the healthcare system in America. Perhaps by providing universal healthcare to those who are in need, or allowing public hospitals to provide patients without insurance some form of care. Everyone has the right to be seen and treated.

Emergency responders are portrayed in the film through bringing patients to the ER. These patients were deemed as more critical and got care before those who walked into the ER. Emergency responders are shown as another leg of the healthcare system.

Following up with patients months or weeks later would enhance its educational value by reaffirming that the process will happen over and over again ( of waiting to get into the ER only to be told it would take months for treatment).

The stakeholders of the film are wanting to be treated, but having to wait hours to be seen and maybe months afterwards for an appointment, even if their conditions are life threatening. Patients who are in severe pain may not have the option of surgury because they do not have a way to pay for it, or they cannot afford the medications for example. Each patient potrayed in the film did not have a job or had a job, but they could barely afford housing, let alone insurance. The patients needed to make decisions on whether they could deal with things on their own (like the man on dialysis who stated he would rather die then experience the wait again), or the man in his 20s who had the tumor on his testicle, who said he would find the money because he needed the treatment.