Snowpiercer, the Hunger games, and global health (SPOILERS)

POTENTIAL SPOILERS FOR SNOWPIERCER. Also, the views talked about here do not necessarily reflect my feelings on the matter. Just food for thought and something to discuss. I consider myself pretty liberal:

All right, I figured I'd try something a little more fun for this blog post. I recently watched the 2014 movie Snowpiercer. Amazing movie, one of the best reviewed films of 2014, and immensely enjoyable. My favorite movie of the year (I am way behind on this years films).

The basis premise is that humanity froze the Earth when their attempt to reverse global warming backfired. The remnants of humanity survive on a perpetual motion train that travels the globe. Right away, you see that humanity is decided into a North-South dynamic-- the back of the train live in dire circumstances, filthy and malnourished. The front of the train is where the well off dwell. Without ruining the film, which is a truly creative and original, it is enough to say that if you have seen or read the Hunger Games you will be familiar with the films premise-- in order to for humanity or society to function, there must be those that toil for less and with less in order for the rest of us to enjoy some semblance of comfort. Basically, the class system is in place in order to have a functioning society. Somebody has to clean toilets or prepare food or work with their hands. Just not us or our children! (HEAVY SARCASM THERE).

As very little under the sun is new, there is plenty of class politics and modes of production and means of production and the idea of sacrifice to keep humanity moving or humming. I guess I found it interesting for global health because we talk about health for all. If we subscribe to what they discuss in these movies, then health for all is really a way to keep workers healthy and producing. Again, not a very novel argument. But the argument is really that not all lives are equal or deserve access to the same things. I imagine many of us would hold a similar attitude to a degree-- working any job should only give you access to the most basic things. The more "difficult" the task or responsibility you hold, the more you should be compensated. In fact, we had a mini version of this discussion in class when talking about miners being paid marginally more because their work is more risky and the possibility for serious harm is higher.

Health for all appears to mean that we should sever the tie between income and health. The poorest should not suffer from treatable disease. The healthcare system should not be dependent on the ability to afford or access needed services. This really undercuts a lot of what we have discussed this semester from pharmaceuticals to treatable disease. How can we put the combined contribution of society toward those that would benefit-- advances in healthcare deserve to be enjoyed by all. If the argument is that this takes care of those doing work, is that such a bad argument to make?