Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont see how healthcare is a basic human right. Taking from one group of people and giving to another is socialism. The USA was built on capitalism not socialism.

[/ QUOTE ]
All due respect, this is a really dumb opinion. One might say that the USA was built on the backs of African slaves, stolen from Native Americans, and layered over the corpses of immigrant laborers. Using reductio ad absurdum on your argument would leave us with a government that doesn't tax anyone for anything and does nothing. Hey, wait a minute...

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this is not a dumb opinion... every person in the US has a right to purchase healthcare... the best they can afford. Just as rich people can afford better food, homes and clothes... (all considered basic human needs) they can also afford better healthcare.

The govt supplies the poor with help in food and shelter, as they do in healthcare... but you get the basics, not the best.

And just to reply to the slave/indian comments.... Who are better off now... the descendents of slaves living in America or the people born in Africa? Even welfare recips likely have more than the average Ethiopian, Tanzanian, congoian, whatever. Yes the ancestors suffered.... but the descendents have gained. That is why there was not a mass exodus back to the motherland post slavery era.

The indians were given reservations, along with other benefits.... I know it really sucked for them, but do you really hink no one would have come here if we didnt? Do you think Hitler would have had moral issues with exterminating them? How about Stalin? Japan has very little realestate.... the indian land would have been a prime target. Therefore, it could be argued that we saved the indian bloodlines from extintion, because if it wasnt us... it would have been someone else. Again, not trying to justify the events, merely point out the other ways it could have turned out. (none of them being good for the indian population)

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

Huh. In Nevada, if I went bare, I couldn't practice. No hospital would give me privliges.

I'm going to avoid the political angle, although I obviously have some strong feelings about the system.

The best explanation I have ever heard about why our healthcare system is so screwed up follows 0-

Medicine is like a three legged stool -
-- leg one --- cutting edge technology
-- leg two --- immediate care (on demand)
-- leg three -- for free, or pretty close for free.

The deal is, you can have any two of the three - but not all of them.

Immediate care for free - third world medicine - you may have someone shaking a chicken over your head to cure your brain tumor, but the price is right, and you can have it today.

Cutting edge care for free (or low cost) - to some degree, the socialized medicine countries do this. You may wait 8 mos to get your gallbladder out, or not be allowed dialysis if you're over a certain age. Does keep the costs down, at some social cost.

Cutting edge today - our current model, for the most part. INSANELY expensive, but pretty good care, when you need it.

BUT YOU CAN'T have all three. As a society, we have elected to ignore this.....which is why we're in the spot we're in.

MM MD

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

As soon as America's population stops eating fast food, starts exercising, and stops being hypochondriacs, then I might support a form of healthcare that is paid via my taxes.

Until such time, go [censored] yourselves, Americans. You have no sense of individual responsibility - the very value that built this country from scratch.

People need to be responsible for themselves first and not expect the government to bail them out if things go wrong. When things go wrong, you usually screwed up. I do not want to pay for healthcare for people who are idiots and eat a ton of Big Macs with no regard for their own safety and health. They do not deserve my pity, my money, or my attention.

How do you differentiate from the idiots and the truly unlucky? When you can answer this question (as well as the other concerns I have as outlined above), I will start to support a comprehensive healthcare plan.

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont see how healthcare is a basic human right. Taking from one group of people and giving to another is socialism. The USA was built on capitalism not socialism.

[/ QUOTE ]
All due respect, this is a really dumb opinion. One might say that the USA was built on the backs of African slaves, stolen from Native Americans, and layered over the corpses of immigrant laborers. Using reductio ad absurdum on your argument would leave us with a government that doesn't tax anyone for anything and does nothing. Hey, wait a minute...

[/ QUOTE ]

there was no socialised healthcare in this country for over 200 years. If more and more things start becoming human rights then people will pay 100% of their money to taxes and the goverment can give us each a stipend to live on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point.

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

On one hand, I agree with you. A lot of what I see in the ED is self inflicted - smoking and obesity being the two biggest issues.

OTOH, how are you going to design a system that sorts out the sheep from the goats? I see a fair number of "innocent" trauma patients - usually ones that are hit by drunk drivers. In our state, for any kind of real car accident that requires an ambulance run, you're looking at $10000 BEFORE I SEE YOU OR ORDER A TEST. If you're working at Wal-Mart as a single mother, you're screwed.

And don't believe that having insurance means you're covered. God help you if you're stuck with B--- Cr--- or
B--- Sh----, at least in my state. My group ended up suing the [censored] just to get coverage that we had paid for. Most people don't have the ability (meaning $$) to go after them - we actually lost money on the legal expenses, but we were so pissed off, we thought it was worth it.

I don't have a solution. But the boat is sinking. The water's at our knees, and no one is even looking for a pump.

MM MD

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont see how healthcare is a basic human right. Taking from one group of people and giving to another is socialism. The USA was built on capitalism not socialism.

[/ QUOTE ]
All due respect, this is a really dumb opinion. One might say that the USA was built on the backs of African slaves, stolen from Native Americans, and layered over the corpses of immigrant laborers. Using reductio ad absurdum on your argument would leave us with a government that doesn't tax anyone for anything and does nothing. Hey, wait a minute...

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this is not a dumb opinion... every person in the US has a right to purchase healthcare... the best they can afford. Just as rich people can afford better food, homes and clothes... (all considered basic human needs) they can also afford better healthcare.

The govt supplies the poor with help in food and shelter, as they do in healthcare... but you get the basics, not the best.

And just to reply to the slave/indian comments.... Who are better off now... the descendents of slaves living in America or the people born in Africa? Even welfare recips likely have more than the average Ethiopian, Tanzanian, congoian, whatever. Yes the ancestors suffered.... but the descendents have gained. That is why there was not a mass exodus back to the motherland post slavery era.

The indians were given reservations, along with other benefits.... I know it really sucked for them, but do you really hink no one would have come here if we didnt? Do you think Hitler would have had moral issues with exterminating them? How about Stalin? Japan has very little realestate.... the indian land would have been a prime target. Therefore, it could be argued that we saved the indian bloodlines from extintion, because if it wasnt us... it would have been someone else. Again, not trying to justify the events, merely point out the other ways it could have turned out. (none of them being good for the indian population)

[/ QUOTE ]
I would just like to point out that I have pointed out 3 times already that I was kidding in this post and people keep responding to it seriously.

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
OTOH, how are you going to design a system that sorts out the sheep from the goats?

[/ QUOTE ]

Short answer: You can't, therefore developing a full public system for it is a waste of taxpayers' money as many will commit fraud. If you don't mind people defrauding you, I guess that's fine. I do.

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

Understood. But then for the "sheep" - tough luck?

Should being unlucky mean you lose everything you've worked for? I dunno.....

no good answer, I guess.....

MM MD

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

It's worth bearing in mind hat the US government spends more on healthcare per capita than any other nation on the planet.

Also, the 'inefficient', socialised systems in the rest of the developed world are in fact rather more efficient than he private sytem in the US. Canada, for example, spends around $300 per person per year on administration. In the US the figure is around three times that.

There's a good book called The Undercover Economist, which explains why the inherent inequality of information between the insurer and the insured leads to market failure and poor efficiency.

In practice universal health care would mean that the vast majority of people would pay much less for healthcare and have much greater securiy, peace of mind and job flexibility. The main role of government is to intervene in cases of market failure like this. I can't see why you would not want to do it.

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's worth bearing in mind hat the US government spends more on healthcare per capita than any other nation on the planet.

[/ QUOTE ]

The U.S. also has socialized medicine. Your point?

[ QUOTE ]
The main role of government is to intervene in cases of market failure like this. I can't see why you would not want to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to do it because I reject your premise that you base that accusation on. The main role of government is to protect the citizens from fraud and coercion, not "intervene in cases of market failure."

Also, please define "market failure."

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Understood. But then for the "sheep" - tough luck?

[/ QUOTE ]

If people want to provide healthcare for the poor and uninsured, then let them do so privately. If liberal-minded people complain that the poor need our help, then they should volunteer and donate to charities that help these people. (It's worth noting that I do these things. I'm not heartless, I just think government is both inefficient and corrupt.)

What we're talking about when we address public healthcare, public welfare, public insurance, or public programs in general, is the refusal of the individual citizen to step up and provide these services on their own, demanding instead that some faceless entity (in this case, the state) seize the money and resources necessary to provide it.

What happened to individual responsibility and charity?

You want middle class people to have healthcare. Great. Do it on your own - don't force me to provide to them.

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's worth bearing in mind hat the US government spends more on healthcare per capita than any other nation on the planet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait so according to you since you didn't cite a source, our government spends more than any other country on healthcare yet we have 40M uninsured? and the solution is to spend MORE? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

(This is just wrong, American's spend more money PRIVATELY, but not publicly)

[ QUOTE ]

Also, the 'inefficient', socialised systems in the rest of the developed world are in fact rather more efficient than he private sytem in the US. Canada, for example, spends around $300 per person per year on administration. In the US the figure is around three times that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again another completely false statement, check the rest of the thread for actual citations.

[ QUOTE ]
There's a good book called The Undercover Economist, which explains why the inherent inequality of information between the insurer and the insured leads to market failure and poor efficiency.

[/ QUOTE ]

While this may have been true 30 years ago, it isn't true anymore. This is the information age, and medical records are passed around like candy. Also, many small companies can choose doctors and specific ailments to be covered to reduce costs.

[ QUOTE ]
In practice universal health care would mean that the vast majority of people would pay much less for healthcare and have much greater securiy, peace of mind and job flexibility. The main role of government is to intervene in cases of market failure like this. I can't see why you would not want to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because like all other regulated industries it would cost 3x as much. (check CATO for citation) and the service would be 10x worse.

Also, how are socialized systems handling malpractice? Does the government payout tens of millions in damages to a patient who had the wrong kidney taken out?

Here is a wiki comparing the two.

US vs Canada Healthcare

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

[ QUOTE ]


Wait so according to you since you didn't cite a source, our government spends more than any other country on healthcare yet we have 40M uninsured? and the solution is to spend MORE?

(This is just wrong, American's spend more money PRIVATELY, but not publicly)

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but I'm right. For example, from the very page you link to;

"Health care is one of the most expensive items of both nations’ budgets. The U.S. government spends more per capita on health care than the government does in Canada. In 2004, the government of Canada spent $2,120 (in US dollars) per person on health care, while the United States government spent $2,724.[5]

However, U.S. government spending covers less than half of all health care costs. Private spending for health care is also far greater in the U.S. than in Canada. In Canada, an average of $917 was spent annually by individuals or private insurance companies for health care, including dental, eye care, and drugs. In the U.S., this number is $3,372.[5] In 2004, health care consumed 15.4% of U.S. annual GDP. In Canada, only 9.8% of GDP was spent on health care.[5]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadia...stems_compared

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Also, the 'inefficient', socialised systems in the rest of the developed world are in fact rather more efficient than he private sytem in the US. Canada, for example, spends around $300 per person per year on administration. In the US the figure is around three times that.


[/ QUOTE ]
Again another completely false statement, check the rest of the thread for actual citations.

[/ QUOTE ]

" In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States, or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada. After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada."

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/349/8/768

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's a good book called The Undercover Economist, which explains why the inherent inequality of information between the insurer and the insured leads to market failure and poor efficiency.

[/ QUOTE ]
While this may have been true 30 years ago, it isn't true anymore. This is the information age, and medical records are passed around like candy. Also, many small companies can choose doctors and specific ailments to be covered to reduce costs.


[/ QUOTE ]

I inherently have a much better idea of my own state of health and lifestyle than the insurer does, regardless of medical records.

[ QUOTE ]

Because like all other regulated industries it would cost 3x as much. (check CATO for citation) and the service would be 10x worse.


[/ QUOTE ]

As i've shown this is incorrect.

[ QUOTE ]

Also, how are socialized systems handling malpractice? Does the government payout tens of millions in damages to a patient who had the wrong kidney taken out?

[/ QUOTE ]

Doctors or hospitals take out malpractice insurance. Why should it work out any differently?

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's worth bearing in mind hat the US government spends more on healthcare per capita than any other nation on the planet.

[/ QUOTE ]

The U.S. also has socialized medicine. Your point?

[/ QUOTE ]

That the US also spends as much again on private insurance and there are still many millions without any cover.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The main role of government is to intervene in cases of market failure like this. I can't see why you would not want to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to do it because I reject your premise that you base that accusation on. The main role of government is to protect the citizens from fraud and coercion, not "intervene in cases of market failure."

Also, please define "market failure."

[/ QUOTE ]

Market failure occurs where the workings of the marketplace stray far enough from the economic concept of 'perfect competition' that gross inefficiency is assured. This may occur because one side has much less information than another, or in a variety of other situations.

You may not agree that governments should intervene in conditions of market failure. However I would encourage you to investigate economics before making that decision. In cases of market failure government intervention may make everyone better off.

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

Health Care articles at CATO

Enjoy!

Also Links to CANADIAN waiting lists, some people are waiting over a year to get treatment..

Canadian Wait Times for Healthcare.

Quality of care in the United States is years if not decades above these other countries.

"The United States had the highest breast cancer survival rate, the highest cervical cancer screening rate and the lowest smoking rate. For breast cancer survival rates, the United States at 86 percent was 11 percentage points better than the worst country, which was the United Kingdom. For cervical cancer screening, the United States at 93 percent was 26 percentage points better than the United Kingdom, the worst country. The United States tied with Canada for having the lowest smoking rate" - Johns Hopkins University
Gazette

My favorite Economist Walter Williams, loves to educate socialists on HealthCare

Walter Willams discusses HealthCare

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

Emperor,

fwiw nothing here actually now relates directly to he points I was making, and I hate dealing with a rolling series of points with no real core argument to be decided. But since you're making it so easy...

[ QUOTE ]

Also Links to CANADIAN waiting lists, some people are waiting over a year to get treatment..


[/ QUOTE ]

In the US some people are dying without ever getting close to being treated appropriately.

[ QUOTE ]

Quality of care in the United States is years if not decades above these other countries.


[/ QUOTE ]

As your quote shows, cancer treatment in the US is exceptionally good; that shouldn't be taken as a reflection of the overall quality of healthcare of course.

WHO rated the world's healthcare systems in 2000. Results and some analysis here; http://unitas.wordpress.com/2007/06/...-world-health/ It might take some searching to find the USA as it's down a number 37.

For comparison, Singapore is 6th. They have a 'light touch' system that could actually reduce the involvement of the government in health while providing pretty reasonable universal care. And, as i think I've shown, for less money. Does this start to appeal to you yet?

[ QUOTE ]

My favorite Economist Walter Williams, loves to educate socialists on HealthCare

Walter Willams discusses HealthCare

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm lol, the first link I opened was in 'Capitalism Magazine' and he quotes a report by the FFI as evidence. Ideologues are not actually convincing to people who are not already convinced.

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

The big problem with a nationalized healthcare system is that in-shape and healthy people would be subsidizing the worthless obese unhealthy idiots. I completely agree with providing care to those who can't afford it and have some major medical problem, but I do not feel that we should have to all ship in to pay for the morbidly obese person who can't work as a result and needs huge amounts of healthcare paid for.

We have the best medical care in the world, and yes some people still don't get fair treatment. There is no perfect system and I would rather have the personal responsibility to stay in shape and keep relatively healthy.

Edit: I am friends with a girl who is going to have a Kidney transplant in the UK. She said it is nice because expensive treatment is paid for, but she is from an aristocratic family and is getting treated at the best hospital in London and still has trouble getting things scheduled. She needs the transplant ASAP (and has her uncle lined up to be a donor) but has been trying for more than two months to get the actual surgery scheduled. She may have to go on dialysis in the meantime where anyone in the US with her fiscal situation could schedule the surgery almost immediately. I don't want to be forced to wait for a treatment in a nationalized system I would have the ability to afford (or have private insurance for) in ours.

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

[ QUOTE ]

Medicine is like a three legged stool -
-- leg one --- cutting edge technology
-- leg two --- immediate care (on demand)
-- leg three -- for free, or pretty close for free.

The deal is, you can have any two of the three - but not all of them.

Immediate care for free - third world medicine - you may have someone shaking a chicken over your head to cure your brain tumor, but the price is right, and you can have it today.

Cutting edge care for free (or low cost) - to some degree, the socialized medicine countries do this. You may wait 8 mos to get your gallbladder out, or not be allowed dialysis if you're over a certain age. Does keep the costs down, at some social cost.

Cutting edge today - our current model, for the most part. INSANELY expensive, but pretty good care, when you need it.

BUT YOU CAN'T have all three. As a society, we have elected to ignore this.....which is why we're in the spot we're in.

[/ QUOTE ]

My impression is that most state-funded health care systems in the world have both "immediate care for free" and "cutting edge care for free", they just don't have "immediate cutting edge care".

You can get rare and expensive procedures, but you have to wait, as you point out. But you can also get any procedure that can be done in a an emergency room or a general practioner's office much faster than you can in the US. And this isn't third-world medicine....it is totally effective at solving probably 98% of people's medical problems.

As for the US, I don't know if people would describe waiting five hours in an emergency room, or a month for a check-up with their family doctor as "immediate care".

One of the biggest problems with the free-market structure of the US system is that it encourages doctors to go into specialties where there is a lot of money, but not necessarily a lot of patients. As a result, there are an overabundance of doctors willing to do rare and expensive procedures (and an overabundance of companies creating equipment for rare and expensive procedures), but not enough doctors to do the routine stuff, because it is much more of a pain getting paid for the routine.

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

[ QUOTE ]


You can get rare and expensive procedures, but you have to wait, as you point out. But you can also get any procedure that can be done in a an emergency room or a general practioner's office much faster than you can in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I'd like to see proof of this, particularly for people with private insurance. (Not trying to be snarky or insulting here, I would be genuinely interested. I just have my doubts.)

[ QUOTE ]

As for the US, I don't know if people would describe waiting five hours in an emergency room, or a month for a check-up with their family doctor as "immediate care".


[/ QUOTE ]

You think this is bad now? Do you think that utilization of these services will go down after health-care costs are subsidized? People on public aid are often the worst in terms of abusing the system at the moment, since they don't have to care how much their care costs. Emergency room and appointment waits are standard these days. Very few people are dying because they wait too long (and the ones that do are highly publicized) so I don't see the problem. Clearly it would be better if people didn't have to wait but just because it's inconvenient doesn't mean it's terrible.

[ QUOTE ]

One of the biggest problems with the free-market structure of the US system is that it encourages doctors to go into specialties where there is a lot of money, but not necessarily a lot of patients.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is the socialized aspect of medicine that has caused this problem. Insurance companies take a lot of cues from Medicare - Medicare is what decides reimbursements, and curerently primary care is devalued compared to specialty care. The government not really knowing what they are doing has been the problem, and I don't see that getting magically better if a universal health care system is put in place.

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

You mean BlueCrap/BlueShit ?

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
IE in Sweden someone making about $80k/yr is taxed 45%, max tax is 50%. Here it's 38%/38% at that level. Not *that* gigantic of a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's 28% at 80k. the max tax bracket in US is 35%. also I don't know how sweden taxes capital gains, if it's like ordinary income it's an unfair comparison.

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

Shouldnt another basic human right be the right to feel secure in ones belongings? AKA feel protected from theivery.

If this is a human right how can anyone justify violating one human right (the right to be secure in ones belongings) to fund another human right (health care?)

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All due respect, this is a really dumb opinion. One might say that the USA was built on the backs of African slaves, stolen from Native Americans, and layered over the corpses of immigrant laborers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here we go again. The hate America crowd comes forward. Every country has taken over land, and fought for land, so get over it. Oh, and those, "corpses of immigrant laborers" CAME HERE VOLUNTARILY. Try picking up a history book.

[/ QUOTE ]
I never said that this was my opinion. I said that it was something that someone might say. I personally grind peasants underneath my boot heel just for the added dietary fiber.

Hint: Never take me too seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry for the harsh words Amplify. You struck a nerve.

Moving on, Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee had an interesting arguement about "Sicko." The Governor had recently lost over 100 pounds, and mentioned how he is much healthier now, he visits the doctor less often, etc. He went on to say that part of the high cost of health care in this country is due to overweight people like Michael Moore taxing the system.

When you think about it, he does have a point. Perhaps instead of just criticizing eveything, perhaps one of the best things Michael Moore could do to help out USA health care would be to lose some weight?

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
As for me, I'm not rich, but I wouldnt want every bit of my money to go to medical care. My policy caps out for payments at a million. So basically, any serious illness could eat that up quick; then I go broke. So I'm looking for alternatives that preferably wouldnt involve suicide.
By the way, how much do policies with no caps cost?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not an expert here, but $1 million still goes pretty far. Getting beyond $1 m is mostly going to be cases where treatment is experimental or condition is chronic.

But there are 2 sides to insurance -- beside the cap, there is the deductible. If you are young and healthy you can go for a high deductible plan. I've seen some for around $100 a month, but not sure of the exact caps.

Note that high deductible basically means you pay for you own healthcare and thus your insurance is literally insurance -- for serious and unexpected events.

For folks who are sick and jobless or changing jobs, you need to look for places that will offer insurance to those with pre-existing conditions. That would be the Federal Gov't for one, not sure beyond that. The ability of health insurers to avoid insuring sick people is basically the root problem that the US is not really dealing with at all currently.

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for me, I'm not rich, but I wouldnt want every bit of my money to go to medical care. My policy caps out for payments at a million. So basically, any serious illness could eat that up quick; then I go broke. So I'm looking for alternatives that preferably wouldnt involve suicide.
By the way, how much do policies with no caps cost?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not an expert here, but $1 million still goes pretty far. Getting beyond $1 m is mostly going to be cases where treatment is experimental or condition is chronic.

But there are 2 sides to insurance -- beside the cap, there is the deductible. If you are young and healthy you can go for a high deductible plan. I've seen some for around $100 a month, but not sure of the exact caps.

Note that high deductible basically means you pay for you own care and insurance is basically "insurance" -- for serious and unexpected events.

For folks who are sick and jobless or changing jobs, you need to look for places that will offer insurance to those with pre-existing conditions. That would be the Federal Gov't for one, not sure beyond that.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is a good point, and where I say priorities should come into play. I just turned 25, Im extremely healthy, I dont go to teh doctor ever, hell, Ive never even had a cavity. I pay 163 dollars every 3 months, for 1k deductible (up to 1 milion in coverage). I pay 10% co-pay for generics, and 25$ every office visit. This, to me is a really really good deal, and I realize this, so rather than eat out every night of the week, or whatever, I have a savings ING account specifically setup for later on when my healthcare is more expensive (I probably will never have a job where healthcare is provided). Most of my [censored] friends dont even HAVE health ins let alone plan for teh future. And when teh time comes, because I have planned for it, I want to be able to get the best healthcare possible (which I wont be able to on a socialized healthcare system), and I dont want some douchebag bureaucrats taxing me to pay for dumb people's mistakes.

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
perhaps one of the best things Michael Moore could do to help out USA health care would be to lose some weight, bathe and shave?

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
perhaps one of the best things Michael Moore could do to help out USA health care would be to lose some weight, bathe and shave?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

nah, then the water gets super polluted.

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

As this thread is veering into a "discussion" of health care policy, here are a few threads from the Politics forum that might be enlightening to anyone interested.

Questions for Social Health Care Advocates

Obama's calling for Universal Health Coverage - First Term

In this thread, I wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
You're confusing government controlled/"socialized" health coverage with universal health coverage. All Obama "announced" what that people who don't have health care coverage now will/should have it in 6 years, not that people who currently have health care coverage should be subject to some different system. There's no reason for you to think that the government will be telling you can't see your doctor because you have to see who they choose, or that you'd face longer waits for procedures.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Revenue and funding issues aside, universal health care coverage in the United States would most likely just mean government-subsidized insurance for those unable to afford it on their own. If someone doesn't want private insurance they'd be under no obligation to purchase it under Obama's proposed system, nor is it likely they'd be forced to participate in a government-subsidized insurance program. It would probably look like an expanded version of the Medicare/Medicaid model, not the VA model.

[/ QUOTE ]

Universal Healthcare

The market for health care

Public health model vs. Private health model

Public Health Care - Why not at state level first?

Can someone explain the health care 'crisis' to me?

How do you solve the Health Care problem in the U.S.?

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

Atul Gawande on Sicko

Gawande is a very measured, intelligent writer (also a doctor) and makes some interesting points about Sicko, how it might be important, and universal healthcare in general.

I haven't seen Sicko yet (wasn't going to, can't stand Moore, but maybe now I will) but thought you guys might want to check this piece out.

-Al

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

Be realisitic - a five hour wait occurs for urgencies, not emergencies. If for no other reason than med mal, we want you back NOW if you're seriously ill. (Actually, we want you back because we want to help and take care of sick people - but I don't want to go all liberal/humanitarian on you)
Your point about long waits for general care is valid - my specialty is becoming the default general care provider for a big portion of the population.
Where you should be concerned is that in some parts of the country, mine included, you can't get emergency care for deadly serious illness no matter what your insurance status is. In the last year, my group has transferred out two vascular disasters, and sent a complex hand injury home to Texas from Nevada because we had no vascular or plastic coverage in our city. One of the vascular cases died en route. All three were insured - so that wasn't the issue. This scares the crap out of me.....

MM MD

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
However I would encourage you to investigate economics before making that decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol @ investigate economics.

<--- Econ/GT graduate.

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also, does anyone have any info on the quality of healthcare compared to other industrialized countries? And dont use Cuba as a response, that is a joke, Im talking Canada etc. Ive heard nothing but horror stories about long waits etc, and would like to know if it is true.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm from Toronto Canada. Horror stories of long waits are NOT TRUE or at the least exaggerated. Also if differs from province to province. Generally I think our health care is great. Heres the low down ( these are all based on true stories that happened to me or people close to me):

Go to the emergency room for a bad hemmeroid ( my ex ). We waited about an hour maybe an hour and a half. Of course this wasn't very critical. Doctor cut it open told her to keep soaking it /keep it clean. No cost.

2. My friend dislocates his shoulder. He first went to emergency to get it relocated , got some painkillers , and was scheduled for MRI's/scans. Cost was about $20 for the pain killers. There was about a 12 month period where he was in betweeen scans. After 12 months of diagnosis he waited about 3-4 months for surgery. He could and did hold a bartending job during the time. He just couldn't really pick up heavy things and could not play sports during this time. After his surgery, of course that was free , he was fine. He did complain about how long it took but I think he missed some appointments and it really wasn't that bad an injury..ie he could still work /party/ function. Since his parents had a med plan with work ( most people with a 9-5 job do) he paid 20% of the drugs - and you dont have to pay 100% and get back 80% later. You just pay the 20% when you pick up the drugs.

Friend of my father is suffering from chest pains. Goes to emergency - they wait about 5 min. Chest pains gets bumped up on the list and I would not think anyone in Toronto would wait more than 30 min to see a doctor in a similar condition.

Friends mother has terminal cancer - she was given the choice for chemotherapy. She has a hospitable bed for as long as she needs/wants. She opts for no chemo ( an extra 6 months of life spent vomitting) . My friend makes it point to tell me how great the doctors and nurses were at the hospital - one of the biggest in ontario.

Drunken friend gets runover by another drunken friend while in a parking lot. He suffers some pretty serious leg damage. He waits in emerg for about 5 min and is given pain killers. This was 3 years ago and hes had about 3-4 opertations and countless physiotherapy treatments. He has no plan so he is burdened by having to cover the cost of his painkillers. He pays about 100 a month for all that he needs. If he was living in America its my understanding that he would be screwed.

We pay about 39-45% income tax.

Although Moore can make me cringe from his bias' I think its clear that Americas health care system needs some retuning.
Bottom line for me is that a country has a duty to take care of its people. It appears unjust if a working class family could be bankrupt by an illess. Im a fierce supporter of Capitlism but as Moore points out in Sicko, health care should be seen as a public service like the police. Its not free , you pay in taxes. I have no problem shelling out thousands of dollars a year to the health care pool.
On a separate note - Insurance companies are pure, pure evil. After 9-11 and Katrina - they are pulling record profits. Thats the funny thing - I think america as a whole pays enough in taxes and insurance to have a universal heath care plan. Its the way your people just take it up the ass and do nothing to stop them. If someone in Canadian politics mentions anything about revamping the heath care system they are crucified. In america its the opposite ..if you mention a universal heath care system you are crucified. At least in canada when we say "we don't want to end up having an american type health system" its for good reason. If American politicians are saying that we don't want to end up like canada in terms of health care ..you can know tell them with confidence that they have been mislead.

CLIFF NOTES = In Ontario if your really sick you don't wait ; if your condition is not that serious you may have to wait a few months for MRI's and surgery. You may have to pay for your drugs. It could be better ..but its still great.

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also, does anyone have any info on the quality of healthcare compared to other industrialized countries? And dont use Cuba as a response, that is a joke, Im talking Canada etc. Ive heard nothing but horror stories about long waits etc, and would like to know if it is true.

[/ QUOTE ]
As to the "long waits etc" part, an article in the lefty rag BusinessWeek states:

[ QUOTE ]
One of the most repeated truisms about the U.S. health-care system is that, for all its other problems, American patients at least don't have to endure the long waits for medical care that are considered endemic under single-payer systems such as those in Canada and Britain. But as several surveys and numerous anecdotes show, waiting times in the U.S. are often as bad or worse as those in other industrialized nations—despite the fact that the U.S. spends considerably more per capita on health care than any other country.

[/ QUOTE ]
As to Emperor's statement:

[ QUOTE ]
This is a good point, EVERYONE wants to complain about how expensive health insurance is to purchase, but hardly anyone complains about how expensive malpractice insurance is.

[/ QUOTE ]
The similarly liberally-biased Congressional Budget Office reports:

[ QUOTE ]
Evidence from the states indicates that premiums for malpractice insurance are lower when tort liability is restricted than they would be otherwise. But even large savings in premiums can have only a small direct impact on health care spending--private or governmental--because malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of that spending.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

As an American living in Canada I can tell you that the stories about wait times are hugely exaggerated. They are usually made by people defending the US system's many problems or by domestic right wing think tanks.

Jamougha has made the most intelligent comments in this thread, also the most accurate.

To a certain extent the challenges in Canadian health care vary from province to province, there are indeed waits for non-critical procedures but they certainly aren't as bad as most suggest. Indeed, most provincial governments now have programs in place to reduce their five biggest wait time challenges(joint replacement etc..it varies. Overall, things are improving nicely.

Bottom line is that I would choose the Canadian system over the US system. So would all the Americans in my family, mother, brother, aunts and uncles(who still live in the US, one is a doctor and tried to come here to practice, had immigration issues.)

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However I would encourage you to investigate economics before making that decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol @ investigate economics.

<--- Econ/GT graduate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, but then lol @ asking me to define market failure?

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However I would encourage you to investigate economics before making that decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol @ investigate economics.

<--- Econ/GT graduate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, but then lol @ asking me to define market failure?

[/ QUOTE ]
Socratic method.

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Be realisitic - a five hour wait occurs for urgencies, not emergencies. If for no other reason than med mal, we want you back NOW if you're seriously ill. (Actually, we want you back because we want to help and take care of sick people - but I don't want to go all liberal/humanitarian on you)
Your point about long waits for general care is valid - my specialty is becoming the default general care provider for a big portion of the population.
Where you should be concerned is that in some parts of the country, mine included, you can't get emergency care for deadly serious illness no matter what your insurance status is. In the last year, my group has transferred out two vascular disasters, and sent a complex hand injury home to Texas from Nevada because we had no vascular or plastic coverage in our city. One of the vascular cases died en route. All three were insured - so that wasn't the issue. This scares the crap out of me.....

MM MD

[/ QUOTE ]

dang Hobbes, why can't your hospital just hire some more vascular guys? what if they just offered some of the other guys in town some money to take cases from the ER? novel idea, huh?

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
If more and more things start becoming human rights then people will pay 100% of their money to taxes and the goverment can give us each a stipend to live on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, because that totally happened in countries like the Netherlands and Sweden with generous social support systems. People pay 100% of their income to the government and receive a stipend. Give me a break. Your slippery slope argument is not valid. Even the most socialist democratic countries(Netherlands, Sweden, France, etc) still leave plenty of economic freedom for the individual.

And for people who said that the US only rations health care based on means, that is not true. We have waiting lists here too. It took me 3 months to get in to see a urologist, and 5 months to get in to see a dermatologist. I can usually get in to see my primary care doc within a day or so, but so can people in Canada.

Bottom line, even if private health insurance companies are not banned in the US, they need to be heavily regulated at least. A lot of private insurance companies will routinely deny valid claims just to make a few extra bucks on the bottom line. These companies need to be investigated and heavily fined. We need more proactive federal and state justice systems.

And I am by no means a huge liberal. I am a registered Republican who sees the value of a single payer system. I do not believe that everything is a right, for example, I don't believe that education is a human right. But health care certainly is because it is the central to the right to life.

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

I live in a city just north of toronto called Barrie. pop about 150k ... wait times are very exaggerated and i have never waited more too long at the emergency room to see a doctor.

the point isn't hey why should i have to help some poor sap. But the point is when the nation is better off , everyone is better off. Overall productivity rates increase, people feel better about themselves and your not widening that gap which leads to serious social problems. MM just uses these kinda exaggerated samples to prove that a bit of a social safety net is good for not just the ones using it but for everyone in general. Seems like the most basic of any capitalistic ideas , increased efficiency ... eh ?

Re: Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's worth bearing in mind hat the US government spends more on healthcare per capita than any other nation on the planet.

[/ QUOTE ]

The U.S. also has socialized medicine. Your point?

[ QUOTE ]
The main role of government is to intervene in cases of market failure like this. I can't see why you would not want to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to do it because I reject your premise that you base that accusation on. The main role of government is to protect the citizens from fraud and coercion, not "intervene in cases of market failure."

Also, please define "market failure."

[/ QUOTE ]

Medicare has much lower administrative costs when compared to any private health insurance company like BCBS or Cigna. And doctors almost always get paid on time with Medicare, whereas with the other companies, they will often try to screw the doctor to save a buck