Sicko Revisited
 

I just saw Sicko. And I just read about 1/2 of the 2+2 sicko thread. Oddly enough, other then the OP, no one talked about the film. It would appear that most of the people in the thread hadn't seen the film (which is somewhat expected.)

There was a flurry of the typical responses (it will cost too much, I don't want to pay for others, the doctors won't make any money, the quality will suck, It's Michael Moore so it must be a lie, The Govt. MUST ruin everything, etc.)

ALL of these are addressed in the film. (and the DVD extras even more.)

I'm just curious now that some time has passed (and its on DVD), have any of the people active in the previous thread now seen the movie and revised at all thoughts on Universal Healthcare?

I'm also curious to all the people against the concept; of the countries featured on the DVD (Canada, Cuba, France, Norway (#1 for Healthcare) and even many 3rd world countries)... many of these countries supply universal healthcare and there people have better health standards then the US. How do you explain this?

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

I found the movie flat out insulting to sit through. How can anyone take Moore seriously when he so obviously cherrypicks examples of failures in the US and then chooses to only focus on France's Magical Fairy Doctors who speed around door to door to help whoever needs it.

Any movie or argument that involves stuff like that is not something that has much value to me, by definition.

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

Yes, of course there should be universal health care in the US. The majority of citizens want it so if you have any regard for democracy thats good enough reason (google is your friend if you think my claim is false). HOWEVER, the Moore film is horrible and depremental to the desired result. Firstly, any English person watching it such as myself were LOL'ing at the stupidity of Moore using an overpaid GP as a a great example of why the UK health care is a prime example. Firstly, there was huge unrest amongst unpaid nurses getting [censored] over at the time and a huge reconsideration of GP wages going on which are seen as disproportionatly high.

On an emotional level and entertainment level its a good film. The 9/11 workers meeting the Cuban firefighters was a great scene. But on an intelligent level it has no regard for truth and is therefore not to be taken seriously despite its positive message.

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

Yes, a 1.5 hour propaganda film is going to change my understanding of society and economics so I will advocate socalism over laissez-faire capitalism. That's just how I roll.

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, a 1.5 hour propaganda film is going to change my understanding of society and economics so I will advocate socalism over laissez-faire capitalism. That's just how I roll.

[/ QUOTE ]

No that would be stupid.

You know what would change your mind? Do some research.
Your understanding of society and economics is wrong.

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

"You know what would change your mind? Do some research.
Your understanding of society and economics is wrong."

Ok, what should I research? The 2 years it takes someone in Kingston to get a hip replacement?

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

I'm one of the people who preemptively disagreed with the film. I still haven't seen it.

The arguments for universal health care have been debated so much, it doesn't really matter if you've seen the movie. We all know the arguments.

[ QUOTE ]
it will cost too much

[/ QUOTE ]

The US govt does not exactly have a good track record when it comes to efficient spending of tax dollars. Why will that suddenly change with money taken for the purpose of health care? Who holds them accountable? No one. Governments can waste all the money thery want and no one can stop them. No one can choose not to keep giving them money if they feel it's being wasted.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to pay for others

[/ QUOTE ]

That's NOT the argument. The argument is that I don't want the govt to force me at gunpoint to pay for others in whatever way they see fit. I want to be able to choose who I help and in what system of charity to do it in.

[ QUOTE ]
the doctors won't make any money

[/ QUOTE ]

The doctors will make less money. That's what happens with competition. The AMA has created a cartel for the specific purpose of artificially raising doctors' incomes through various means. Universal health care won't change this, in fact it will make it worse if anything.

[ QUOTE ]
the quality will suck

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny to hear liberals rail against large corporations for fear of monopolies, because they feel that monopolies are so bad for consumers. But when it comes to health care, a monopoly will magically be great for the consumer. The failings of the UK system are well documented.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm also curious to all the people against the concept; of the countries featured on the DVD (Canada, Cuba, France, Norway (#1 for Healthcare) and even many 3rd world countries)... many of these countries supply universal healthcare and there people have better health standards then the US. How do you explain this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the explanation: The statistics that Moore uses are from the WHO, which is a socialist organization that attempts to glorify countries with socialist health care systems. They use life expectancy and infant mortality rates to judge the health care systems. This is completely inaccurate because life span has much more to do with the homocide rate than anything. Infant mortality rate is an even less accurate stat because the definition of an infant mortality is different in every country.

Do you honestly believe that you would recieve better treatment in a Cuban hospital than an American one?

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

[ QUOTE ]
"You know what would change your mind? Do some research.
Your understanding of society and economics is wrong."

Ok, what should I research? The 2 years it takes someone in Kingston to get a hip replacement?

[/ QUOTE ]

buuuuurrrrrnnnnnnneeeedddd

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

I saw the movie. Didnt change my views.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm also curious to all the people against the concept; of the countries featured on the DVD (Canada, Cuba, France, Norway (#1 for Healthcare) and even many 3rd world countries)... many of these countries supply universal healthcare and there people have better health standards then the US. How do you explain

[/ QUOTE ]

For starters the idea the America has a free market in health is the biggest mistake of the film.

For two you forget those countries free ride of American techonlogy, innovation and price systems.

For three, i dont know of any poor countries that provide a successful universal system and aren't going broke. This rich ones are sacrificing their growth and producitivity potential too.

For four, your idea that the stats look better for those countries ignores many hidden costs. Many people die due to lack of diagnosis or awaiting treatment in these countries. Everyone being covered tells you nothing about the oveall quality of care. There is many examples in this category as to how these stats appear to look good in some places but are very deceptive as to what's happening on the ground.

Another thing is these countries also suffer from brain drains. Many of the best and brightest get exported to countries that reward their work the best.

Lastly is the countries aren't offering universal health care. They only offer insurance to those in their nation. This causes them to tighten immigration standards and be restrictive to access to these types of benefits. If you were to ask why dont they supply health to the world, they would say they can't afford it. I dare you to look at America's wealth versus obligations and conlcude that they can afford to fully cover their nation's population.

much more to say. just a start

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm also curious to all the people against the concept; of the countries featured on the DVD (Canada, Cuba, France, Norway (#1 for Healthcare) and even many 3rd world countries)... many of these countries supply universal healthcare and there people have better health standards then the US. How do you explain this?

[/ QUOTE ]

One reason is that the rest of the world severely underinvests in healthcare research and just lets the US pay for it all. A huge chunk of the money that Americans spend on healthcare is invested in R&D, and a correspondingly huge percentage of healthcare innovations are made in the US.

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

I watched this video just this week and I was as disappointed as I thought I would be. No real statistical analysis of anything, just random interviews of people giving information that is not really relevant. I agree with the poster who laughed at his interview of the doctor. That whole point was beyond worthless. As usual chock full of half truths and mis-representations.

Oh yeah, when he had a segment of the movie about him giving money to the Anti-moore site was the most self serving things I have ever watched. Grade A tool.

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

[ QUOTE ]
I watched this video just this week and I was as disappointed as I thought I would be. No real statistical analysis of anything, just random interviews of people giving information that is not really relevant. I agree with the poster who laughed at his interview of the doctor. That whole point was beyond worthless. As usual chock full of half truths and mis-representations.


Oh yeah, when he had a segment of the movie about him giving money to the Anti-moore site was the most self serving things I have ever watched. Grade A tool.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a blog entry by the guy who Moore gave the money to. I really don't think more can go more than 2 minutes without blatantly making [censored] up or lying about something to serve himself. His "documentaries" are completely pathetic.

http://www.moorewatch.com/index.php/webl...moore_in_sicko/

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I watched this video just this week and I was as disappointed as I thought I would be. No real statistical analysis of anything, just random interviews of people giving information that is not really relevant. I agree with the poster who laughed at his interview of the doctor. That whole point was beyond worthless. As usual chock full of half truths and mis-representations.


Oh yeah, when he had a segment of the movie about him giving money to the Anti-moore site was the most self serving things I have ever watched. Grade A tool.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a blog entry by the guy who Moore gave the money to. I really don't think more can go more than 2 minutes without blatantly making [censored] up or lying about something to serve himself. His "documentaries" are completely pathetic.

http://www.moorewatch.com/index.php/webl...moore_in_sicko/

[/ QUOTE ]
Yuck.

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, a 1.5 hour propaganda film is going to change my understanding of society and economics so I will advocate socalism over laissez-faire capitalism. That's just how I roll.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are my favorite responses. They completely ignore the realities of different health care models and pretend that capitalism is the end all be all regardless of reality.

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

^not true, the response indicates a film by Michael Moore does not accurately present "the realities of different health care models."

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

[ QUOTE ]
The US govt does not exactly have a good track record when it comes to efficient spending of tax dollars. Why will that suddenly change with money taken for the purpose of health care? Who holds them accountable? No one. Governments can waste all the money thery want and no one can stop them. No one can choose not to keep giving them money if they feel it's being wasted.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this,... that is the US abyssmal govt record in efficiency. That being said, to me it is not a reason to think Universal healthcare is undoable. Its a reason for people to fix their govt.

I thought one of the more interesting quotes in the movie was an interview with someone in France. The gist of it was that the govt. was afraid of the people. People regularly challenged their govt and protested when they disagreed. Where I think the US population, for the most part, is very apathetic. Since no one holds our govt accountable, they quite often perform poorly.

[ QUOTE ]
It's funny to hear liberals rail against large corporations for fear of monopolies, because they feel that monopolies are so bad for consumers. But when it comes to health care, a monopoly will magically be great for the consumer. The failings of the UK system are well documented.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yet according to the US report quoted in the doc, the people of UK get better health care then Americans. Also, the US was, if I remember correctly, ranked 66th for healthcare.

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the explanation: The statistics that Moore uses are from the WHO, which is a socialist organization that attempts to glorify countries with socialist health care systems. They use life expectancy and infant mortality rates to judge the health care systems. This is completely inaccurate because life span has much more to do with the homocide rate than anything. Infant mortality rate is an even less accurate stat because the definition of an infant mortality is different in every country.

Do you honestly believe that you would recieve better treatment in a Cuban hospital than an American one? [/quote
Do you have studies which you think places the average American in better light?

Also - it is conceiveable that Cuba could deliver better healthcare to the avg. american... depending on their income.

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

I don't like Michael Moore, and I also hear good things about the american model. In my country I don't think I have ever met anyone even remotely for a non-universal health care model, and I can easily flow with that. It is FAR from trouble free even though we are amongst the best in the world at it, but then again...when you leave the political ideology speeches behind stuff nothing is trouble free.

Stating that all the other countries are just piggybacking the US on medicinal research is also far too simplified. It is true the US is a world leader on medicinal research and there are many reasons for this. Size&prosperity in relation to a relatively uniform academic culture (since it is one nation) makes the US a natural world leader in many academic disciplines, this often makes US research groups a natural focal point for international cooperation.

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to pay for others

[/ QUOTE ]

That's NOT the argument. The argument is that I don't want the govt to force me at gunpoint to pay for others in whatever way they see fit. I want to be able to choose who I help and in what system of charity to do it in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would even say that that's not the argument and the real argument is that I don't want to be part of forcing other people to pay for something they may or may not want whether I want it or not.

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

I don't want to get into AC, so I'm just not going to adress it. I think the issue is complex enough without that, and I wish I knew more about it. There are certainly a few things I see that are problematic:

1. Medical school costs, # of doctors, doctor pay... it seems to me that if you switch to universal health care, you'll be needing to worry a lot about how doctors are going to pay off med school. I'm not sure how 'efficient' the medical school market is at the moment.

2. What we pay for. This is the major issue, obviously we need to draw the line somewhere. I don't want to be paying for cosmetic surgery obviously. It becomes a tricky issue when talking about elective surgery done for health reason (say a gastric bypass or lypo), as well as extremely necessary but very expensive procedures (which at some point, we just don't have the resources to pay for).

3. What to do with insurance companies. If we wanted universal health care, it seems that just forcing people to go to various insurance companies has to be the worst way to go about it. There is so much beauracratic red tape at the moment that I'm not sure what would be the ideal solution. Clearly you need to have some way to ensure that people go to legitimate doctors, but if you have universal health care it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to force people to go to one place or another for insurance reasons.

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

[ QUOTE ]
1. Medical school costs, # of doctors, doctor pay... it seems to me that if you switch to universal health care, you'll be needing to worry a lot about how doctors are going to pay off med school. I'm not sure how 'efficient' the medical school market is at the moment.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is absolutely no effieciency in this market. The AMA controls how many doctors get licenses, and how many med schools exist. They do this to artificially increase doctors' income and eliminate competition.

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The US govt does not exactly have a good track record when it comes to efficient spending of tax dollars. Why will that suddenly change with money taken for the purpose of health care? Who holds them accountable? No one. Governments can waste all the money thery want and no one can stop them. No one can choose not to keep giving them money if they feel it's being wasted.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this,... that is the US abyssmal govt record in efficiency. That being said, to me it is not a reason to think Universal healthcare is undoable. Its a reason for people to fix their govt.

I thought one of the more interesting quotes in the movie was an interview with someone in France. The gist of it was that the govt. was afraid of the people. People regularly challenged their govt and protested when they disagreed. Where I think the US population, for the most part, is very apathetic. Since no one holds our govt accountable, they quite often perform poorly.

[ QUOTE ]
It's funny to hear liberals rail against large corporations for fear of monopolies, because they feel that monopolies are so bad for consumers. But when it comes to health care, a monopoly will magically be great for the consumer. The failings of the UK system are well documented.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yet according to the US report quoted in the doc, the people of UK get better health care then Americans. Also, the US was, if I remember correctly, ranked 66th for healthcare.

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the explanation: The statistics that Moore uses are from the WHO, which is a socialist organization that attempts to glorify countries with socialist health care systems. They use life expectancy and infant mortality rates to judge the health care systems. This is completely inaccurate because life span has much more to do with the homocide rate than anything. Infant mortality rate is an even less accurate stat because the definition of an infant mortality is different in every country.

Do you honestly believe that you would recieve better treatment in a Cuban hospital than an American one? [/quote
Do you have studies which you think places the average American in better light?

Also - it is conceiveable that Cuba could deliver better healthcare to the avg. american... depending on their income.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, so until the government is fixed, this will be a catastrophic failure. So, fix the government, get back to me.

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Medical school costs, # of doctors, doctor pay... it seems to me that if you switch to universal health care, you'll be needing to worry a lot about how doctors are going to pay off med school. I'm not sure how 'efficient' the medical school market is at the moment.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is absolutely no effieciency in this market. The AMA controls how many doctors get licenses, and how many med schools exist. They do this to artificially increase doctors' income and eliminate competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

fail

costs of training med school student > tuition

therefore

not a lot of med schools.

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

[ QUOTE ]
The majority of citizens want it so if you have any regard for democracy thats good enough reason

[/ QUOTE ]

There are so many problems with this statement that all of your opinions on public policy are null and void as far as I'm concerned.

natedogg

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Medical school costs, # of doctors, doctor pay... it seems to me that if you switch to universal health care, you'll be needing to worry a lot about how doctors are going to pay off med school. I'm not sure how 'efficient' the medical school market is at the moment.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is absolutely no effieciency in this market. The AMA controls how many doctors get licenses, and how many med schools exist. They do this to artificially increase doctors' income and eliminate competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

fail

costs of training med school student > tuition

therefore

not a lot of med schools.

[/ QUOTE ]

fail

[ QUOTE ]
We have to go very far back to the first meeting of what would become the American Medical Association. This meeting was held in New York City in 1846. Twenty-nine allopathic doctors (MDs) attended the meeting. They wanted to establish a monopoly over health care in the United States for those doctors that practiced higher quality medicine, such as themselves. They felt there were too many different kinds of doctors practicing too many questionable forms of medicine. They wanted only doctors that conformed to their brand of medicine to be allowed to practice. They wished to set up their association as a medical elite and obtain a government-enforced monopoly over health care in the United States.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Soon after the medical monopoly was formed it began to push its agenda of destroying all competition. A well organized and funded nationwide purge of all non-MDs was undertaken. Over the course of the first half of the twentieth century this medical monopoly managed to shut down over forty medical schools. Their idea was to keep the number of doctors low in order to keep fees up. After WW II the medical monopoly started rigidly controlling how many of each medical specialty it would allow to be trained. So ophthalmologists, orthopedists, dermatologists, obstetricians, and others began to be in short supply. And of course when supplies are low, fees are high. The medical monopoly also managed to outlaw or marginalize over seventy healthcare professions. Protection of the healthcare consumer was, as always, the rationale for this power grab.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

Ron,

What you quoted doesn't necessarily imply that what you are arguing against is wrong. That's what I'm talking about. I don't know enough about what the actual costs (non-labor, I don't care if med school profs make less money) of training a doctor. Machinery, corpses to practice on, etc.

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm also curious to all the people against the concept; of the countries featured on the DVD (Canada, Cuba, France, Norway (#1 for Healthcare) and even many 3rd world countries)... many of these countries supply universal healthcare and there people have better health standards then the US. How do you explain this?

[/ QUOTE ]

One reason is that the rest of the world severely underinvests in healthcare research and just lets the US pay for it all. A huge chunk of the money that Americans spend on healthcare is invested in R&D, and a correspondingly huge percentage of healthcare innovations are made in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

This rebuttal falls flat considering much (certainly not all) of the medical R&D in America is funded by the federal government and performed by state universities. Kind of silly to use the success of some government spending as an argument against government spending.

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm also curious to all the people against the concept; of the countries featured on the DVD (Canada, Cuba, France, Norway (#1 for Healthcare) and even many 3rd world countries)... many of these countries supply universal healthcare and there people have better health standards then the US. How do you explain this?

[/ QUOTE ]

One reason is that the rest of the world severely underinvests in healthcare research and just lets the US pay for it all. A huge chunk of the money that Americans spend on healthcare is invested in R&D, and a correspondingly huge percentage of healthcare innovations are made in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

This rebuttal falls flat considering much (certainly not all) of the medical R&D in America is funded by the federal government and performed by state universities. Kind of silly to use the success of some government spending as an argument against government spending.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not an argument against government spending, it's an argument against replacing the American system with the National Health Service. Or not even that, it's an explanation of how some countries can provide the results they do without ruinous expense.

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm also curious to all the people against the concept; of the countries featured on the DVD (Canada, Cuba, France, Norway (#1 for Healthcare) and even many 3rd world countries)... many of these countries supply universal healthcare and there people have better health standards then the US. How do you explain this?

[/ QUOTE ]

One reason is that the rest of the world severely underinvests in healthcare research and just lets the US pay for it all. A huge chunk of the money that Americans spend on healthcare is invested in R&D, and a correspondingly huge percentage of healthcare innovations are made in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

This rebuttal falls flat considering much (certainly not all) of the medical R&D in America is funded by the federal government and performed by state universities. Kind of silly to use the success of some government spending as an argument against government spending.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not an argument against government spending, it's an argument against replacing the American system with the National Health Service. Or not even that, it's an explanation of how some countries can provide the results they do without ruinous expense.

[/ QUOTE ]

But there's no point to follow if the govt here is already funding much of the research. All you are saying is "America is rich" and leads the world in research. Fine. It would still be doing so with or without universal health care in America. And it already is doing so through massive government involvement anyway. If you could point out a country that leads the world's research through merely private means, you may have a point to make. But here you don't have that.

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

I am generally in favor of universal health care but there is one point my doctor raised.

I recently had back surgery and my doctor was a Canadian who had moved to the United States to practice. I asked him what his view of it was and he said he was against it because the Canadian government required him to purchase specific instruments for surgery and not the ones he preferred. He felt that he was needlessly putting patients at minor risk by not being able to used tools that he had been trained on.

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, a 1.5 hour propaganda film is going to change my understanding of society and economics so I will advocate socalism over laissez-faire capitalism. That's just how I roll.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are my favorite responses. They completely ignore the realities of different health care models and pretend that capitalism is the end all be all regardless of reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Capitalism is the end all and be all, at least as far as economics is concerned. You want me to believe your socialist fantasies? Explain to me how, in the absence of a price structure, economic calculation can be possible.

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

[ QUOTE ]
I just saw Sicko. And I just read about 1/2 of the 2+2 sicko thread. Oddly enough, other then the OP, no one talked about the film. It would appear that most of the people in the thread hadn't seen the film (which is somewhat expected.)

There was a flurry of the typical responses (it will cost too much, I don't want to pay for others, the doctors won't make any money, the quality will suck, It's Michael Moore so it must be a lie, The Govt. MUST ruin everything, etc.)

ALL of these are addressed in the film. (and the DVD extras even more.)

I'm just curious now that some time has passed (and its on DVD), have any of the people active in the previous thread now seen the movie and revised at all thoughts on Universal Healthcare?

I'm also curious to all the people against the concept; of the countries featured on the DVD (Canada, Cuba, France, Norway (#1 for Healthcare) and even many 3rd world countries)... many of these countries supply universal healthcare and there people have better health standards then the US. How do you explain this?

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF does better health standards mean?

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The majority of citizens want it so if you have any regard for democracy thats good enough reason

[/ QUOTE ]

There are so many problems with this statement that all of your opinions on public policy are null and void as far as I'm concerned.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

I was ready to single out the exact same statement if someone else hadn't.

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just saw Sicko. And I just read about 1/2 of the 2+2 sicko thread. Oddly enough, other then the OP, no one talked about the film. It would appear that most of the people in the thread hadn't seen the film (which is somewhat expected.)

There was a flurry of the typical responses (it will cost too much, I don't want to pay for others, the doctors won't make any money, the quality will suck, It's Michael Moore so it must be a lie, The Govt. MUST ruin everything, etc.)

ALL of these are addressed in the film. (and the DVD extras even more.)

I'm just curious now that some time has passed (and its on DVD), have any of the people active in the previous thread now seen the movie and revised at all thoughts on Universal Healthcare?

I'm also curious to all the people against the concept; of the countries featured on the DVD (Canada, Cuba, France, Norway (#1 for Healthcare) and even many 3rd world countries)... many of these countries supply universal healthcare and there people have better health standards then the US. How do you explain this?

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF does better health standards mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe the World Health Organization's Rankings

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

Is anyone really supposed to believe that San Marino, Andorra, Malta, Singapore, and Oman comprise half of the world's top ten healthcare systems? I am not a medical expert by any means but that list is obviously bulllshit.

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is anyone really supposed to believe that San Marino, Andorra, Malta, Singapore, and Oman comprise half of the world's top ten healthcare systems? I am not a medical expert by any means but that list is obviously bulllshit.

[/ QUOTE ]It's not bulllshit. Try and see beyond the smaller countries, which can perhaps afford to be more efficient, on account of their smaller, more manageable size.

See how the rest of the western, democratic, industrialzed nations are faring:


1 France
2 Italy
7 Spain
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
14 Greece
15 Iceland
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
23 Sweden
25 Germany
28 Israel
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
34 Denmark

37 United States of America

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

BTW, here are the 8 criteria for the World Health Organization rankings :

- Disability-adjusted life expectency (DALE) level
- DALE distribution among the population
- Level of system's responsiveness
- Distribution of same
- Fairness in financial contribution
- Health expenditure per capita in international dollars
- Performance on level of health
- Overall health system performance

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is anyone really supposed to believe that San Marino, Andorra, Malta, Singapore, and Oman comprise half of the world's top ten healthcare systems? I am not a medical expert by any means but that list is obviously bulllshit.

[/ QUOTE ]It's not bulllshit. Try and see beyond the smaller countries, which can perhaps afford to be more efficient, on account of their smaller, more manageable size.

See how the rest of the western, democratic, industrialzed nations are faring:


1 France
2 Italy
7 Spain
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
14 Greece
15 Iceland
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
23 Sweden
25 Germany
28 Israel
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
34 Denmark

37 United States of America

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh. I don't get to be smug. I thought Canada was >>>>>>>>>> than USA, but it turns out that Canada is only > that USA.

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, here are the 8 criteria for the World Health Organization rankings :

- Disability-adjusted life expectency (DALE) level
- DALE distribution among the population
- Level of system's responsiveness
- Distribution of same
- Fairness in financial contribution
- Health expenditure per capita in international dollars
- Performance on level of health
- Overall health system performance

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I'm convinced. No room for subjectivity here.

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

[ QUOTE ]

Well I'm convinced. No room for subjectivity here.

[/ QUOTE ]

It must be convenient to set impossible standards and disregard anything that doesn't meet them...

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well I'm convinced. No room for subjectivity here.

[/ QUOTE ]

It must be convenient to set impossible standards and disregard anything that doesn't meet them...

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if you can prove logically that state healthcare inevitable is worse than non state healthcare and the only "evidence" against this comes from subjective nonsense lists I don't see where the problem is. Why is it bad to have objective proof as a standard? We're talking about Hundreds of billions of dollars of stolen money here why can't we be certain before we advocate such widescale theft?