This policy supports lower class people, the disabled, and elderly populations as well as the rest of the public in that lifesaving procedures must be provided despite the patients ability to pay.
Emergency response is not specifically addressed in this article but access to health care is, which is just as important. Limiting the access to healthcare because of socioeconomic conditions contributes to the spread of diseases.
The film did not really argue anything but did provide insigt as to how overworked public emergency rooms can get and provided insight into some of the issues patients face financially when deciding to go to the emergency room.
This organizations claims not to get involved in the political/ institutions of a country, but to provide medical care and relief to patients impartially. Their approach is to simply provide people with the care they need.
This article has been primarily referenced or discussed in other papers that discuss historical disasters.
The article's bibliography contains a variety of scholarly articles built from those doing research in the field. The article is well developed and well supported.
The primary view point of the film was from those directly affected by cancer from the polluted water or family members of those affected.
The system was built to serve the general public. This system was not only set up for the public use though, it is also used and produced by researchers. The researchers track the long term health effects 9/11 has had on those exposed.
The book from which this article was pulled has been referenced in multiple books and papers in regards to immigration policy.
The main argument of this article is that there needs to be more of a focus on emergency response to nuclear disasters and less directed toward nuclear safety and that safety/emergency response should take a higher priority than company trademarks. She claims that nuclear emergency response should be more of an international response and less of a single nation response.