Michael Moore and socialized medicine

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, the situation is even worse than that. If health care is socialized, what we'll never see are the possibly revolutionary, life-saving new medicines and procedures which would have been invented, but never come to be. The loss here is similar to the "broken window" fallacy demonstrated in Henry Hazlitt's lesson, but on a life or death scale.

Socializing health care will not only make it less available and of lower quality, in the longer-term it will destroy life-saving innovation. It is the dumbest idea ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

So wrong. Look north to Canada. They are developing many life saving intiatives. Some of the top cancer iniatives are coming out of facilities here. Also many research and private entities are working on cures as there is a profit to be had if you discover the cure. Our socialized health care system is not the best but it is so much better than the US's.

I did see that Moore interview he also used the example of the education system and police services. He also mentioned that you have to regulate the Drug Companies also. Good luck on that they have bought both the Republicans and Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you referencing here, because of the top 50 pharm companies world wide (both profit and R&D) the US has 20 companies. Canada doesn't have any. Are you referencing small companies owned by the larger ones or what?

Cody

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]

Socialized health care would only benefit those who don't have any health care today (the poor). Everyone else (the majority) will see substantial decreases in quality and availability of their care once their employers stop buying coverage, which they would under a socialized system. Wages would not likely rise much in this scenario, but taxes most definitely will. So everyone who has a real job today will get less pay and worse health care.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement implies that US citizens are presumably receiving much better quality health care than people in any of the socialized systems used in other countries like Canada, Sweden, and just about every other western country. I don't think that's true. That's not to say the socialized systems don't have their own problems, but they're not exactly trainwrecks compared to the US system either. In many ways they're better. Saying they're not is arrogant and shortsighted, in that we're refusing to think the US, with our perfect system, could possibly learn anything from how it's done elswehere.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Look back in your life and identify where you've found yourself in the longest lines for service. You might be tempted to suggest getting tickets for some one shot event but the single provider nature of such an event is almost the same as a single (government) provider of driver's licenses or building permits or health care.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I wait in line longer on a busy evening at Wal-Mart than I ever have at the DMV. Maybe I'm just lucky. Or maybe Wal-Mart emulates a "single provider" on the Tulalip reservation. *shrug* But isn't Wal-Mart one of your corporate heroes or something?

[/ QUOTE ]

WA has privatized the motor vehicle registration business and it's quite slick because of it. Tulalip and Muckleshoot casinos both have monopolistic set-ups and many tribal member employees that are 'juiced in' for life. That makes for the poor service I remember. I never went to the Wal*Mart there but Auburn's was decent and Renton was OK.

I'm a regular at many Wal*Marts and the wait is modest or none. You are unlucky.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Saw an interview with Michael Moore, and he was talking about the knee-jerk negative reaction many people have to the term "socialized medicine". His argument was that health care should not be a for-profit business. Insurance companies are beholden to their shareholders to maximize their profit. This creates a natural conflict between what's good for the shareholders, and what might be best for the patient (as in, expensive treatments).

He then mentioned that we already have some socialized services in the USA, which people have no problem with. He used the example of fire departments, which provide service to everyone and are not expected to turn a profit. He argued that if fire departments were forced to maximize revenues for shareholders, it would be a terrible idea that might compromise safety in life-or-death situations. Since healthcare is also often a life-or death issue, a socialized approach, where profit concerns are removed from the equation, is the best answer.

This seemed like a reasonable argument to me. Am I wrong for thinking this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I think so. Having the government in control of who gets what health care is scary to me. Don't see how this compares to a city fire department. Wonder what Mr. Moore thinks of Health Savings Accounts?

Read an interesting article the other day how medicare/medicaid actually set's prices for health care and thus leads to ineffecient pricing of health care procedures and medicines. If I find it I'll dig post a link to it.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Socialized health care would only benefit those who don't have any health care today (the poor). Everyone else (the majority) will see substantial decreases in quality and availability of their care once their employers stop buying coverage, which they would under a socialized system. Wages would not likely rise much in this scenario, but taxes most definitely will. So everyone who has a real job today will get less pay and worse health care.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement implies that US citizens are presumably receiving much better quality health care than people in any of the socialized systems used in other countries like Canada, Sweden, and just about every other western country. I don't think that's true. That's not to say the socialized systems don't have their own problems, but they're not exactly trainwrecks compared to the US system either. In many ways they're better. Saying they're not is arrogant and shortsighted, in that we're refusing to think the US, with our perfect system, could possibly learn anything from how it's done elswehere.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US government spends more per capita on social service programs than Canada does. heres a post i made not long ago on the raw numbers. Fact is that the US does have plenty of things wrong with its health care system, but they can all be traced back to the governments interference, not to free market options.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, the situation is even worse than that. If health care is socialized, what we'll never see are the possibly revolutionary, life-saving new medicines and procedures which would have been invented, but never come to be. The loss here is similar to the "broken window" fallacy demonstrated in Henry Hazlitt's lesson, but on a life or death scale.

Socializing health care will not only make it less available and of lower quality, in the longer-term it will destroy life-saving innovation. It is the dumbest idea ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

So wrong. Look north to Canada. They are developing many life saving intiatives. Some of the top cancer iniatives are coming out of facilities here. Also many research and private entities are working on cures as there is a profit to be had if you discover the cure. Our socialized health care system is not the best but it is so much better than the US's.

[/ QUOTE ]
You must have missed the entire point of the lesson mentioned in the post you replied to. Maybe Canada is developing some life-saving drugs. That's what is seen. What is unseen is how many life-saving drugs would be developed if not for the socialized aspect of your healthcare industry. Try reading Hazlitt's lesson again or Bastiat if you want it straight from the source.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
One of the biggest problems with socialized ___________ is the difficulty (impossibility) or performing economic calculations well. Think about how complex medicine is. How long should doctors be in school/residency? How much training do nurses need? How many ways should each specialize? How many of each are needed? How much do we pay them to get the number and quality that we need? How do you decide between doctors who specialize in organ transplants, and foot surgeons? There are millions of questions to answer when discussing how to go about figuring out quality and quantity needs. Profits and losses are used as a way to figure out if you are providing enough of service X or to much of product Y.


[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of those questions could be answered by epidemiologists. Disease doesn't follow the same market trends, as fashion or breakfast cereal y'know.

[IsaacW]

[ QUOTE ]
As for the insurance issue... many people get their health insurance through their jobs, so their choices are limited to whatever their employer has.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is primarily due to wage caps instituted during World War II, which forced employers to compete by offering perks like health insurance. If the government hadn't meddled with the market during the war, then most people would still be purchasing their insurance directly.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the for-profit nature of insurance leads to 150-page coverage documents written in jargon and legalese, which most people don't understand (and don't even read) until they are denied coverage for something they assumed would be covered.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is not the insurance companies' fault that people commit to contracts that they have neither read nor understand. Such people get what they deserve (crushing debt, complications due to lack of care, etc.).

[maxtower]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Socialized health care would only benefit those who don't have any health care today (the poor). Everyone else (the majority) will see substantial decreases in quality and availability of their care once their employers stop buying coverage, which they would under a socialized system. Wages would not likely rise much in this scenario, but taxes most definitely will. So everyone who has a real job today will get less pay and worse health care.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement implies that US citizens are presumably receiving much better quality health care than people in any of the socialized systems used in other countries like Canada, Sweden, and just about every other western country. I don't think that's true. That's not to say the socialized systems don't have their own problems, but they're not exactly trainwrecks compared to the US system either. In many ways they're better. Saying they're not is arrogant and shortsighted, in that we're refusing to think the US, with our perfect system, could possibly learn anything from how it's done elswehere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our system certainly isn't perfect, but what I see as a difference between our system and theirs is about 10% in taxes required to pay for health care. How are they going to sustain that model when their aging non-productive retiree population gets older and more expensive to support while the working class continues to shrink?

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
Explain how for-profit fire departments would be half-assed and compromise safety. Won't they want to do the job well so that they get good "business"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know why I have to explain it, Moore was the one who made the statement and I completely disagree with him.