Michael Moore and socialized medicine

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's pretty obvious that most on the anti-socialized health care side have zero interest in even examining the health care systems of any other countries, to see if they contain anything of merit that could be incorporated into the US system.

[/ QUOTE ]



I can say for myself that I have examined it and its a horrendous boondoggle in every case I know of. Feel free to prove me wrong, I'm open to ideas.

[ QUOTE ]
Right now, there are many other wealthy countries providing socialized health care. Many of them spend far less per capita than the US on healthcare, and the health of their citizens is better than the US by every statistical measure. All the nightmare scenarios mentioned that would cause the US system to collapse if socialized, have somehow managed to be overcome in these other countries.


[/ QUOTE ]

You must be looking at some other studies than I have seen. In addition to reading on the subject I have also been to many of these countries and somehow never run into these happy citizens quoted in the previous posts. Most of the people I have met or know from socialized countries absolutely hate the medical.

[ QUOTE ]
Americans do not like taking money they earn, and giving it to someone else unless they choose to do so. Period. It is simply not our way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah its funny how most people don't like muggers to much either.

[ QUOTE ]
Other countries see the taxation as a worthwhile cost if it provides everyone (including themselves, should they ever need it) a safety net and an equal level of health care.


[/ QUOTE ]

I will keep saying this till I'm blue in the face. Everyone has a right to equal opportunity. Any system should take this as its primary concern. Given a system where equal opportunity is the norm people who are truly incapable of helping themselves should be helped. These totally incapable people are extremely rare. As for those who are capable but just wont care for themselves well .... we are better off without them.

[ QUOTE ]
It also has to do with the culture of consumption and materialism in the US. In a country like Sweden even the richest citizens tend to live in relatively modest homes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I somewhat agree, but I'm not sure how you propose to change the culture of living beyond your means without some sort of massive redistribution / reeducation campaign. Also I feel that if that is how people choose to live they should be allowed to do so unless they are harming others.


[ QUOTE ]
"We have no working poor. There are no kids living in cars with no child care. We pay high taxes for it. But in the end, how much money do you need?"


[/ QUOTE ]

you are entitled to what you create and you are entitled to keep as much as you want without someone stealing your creations at the point of a gun. The idea of "working poor" is a freaking joke there are only "not working enough poor".

[ QUOTE ]
just obscures the real issue, which is that Americans prize self-reliance over collectivism and just DO NOT LIKE being taxed.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not all Americans only the smartest most reasonable ones.

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
First, is the average PhD biologist if equivalent intellectually abiltiy as the average medical doctor? I highly doubt they are. A PhD botanist equivalent to even a GP? A PhD human bioligist might be on the level of an MD but then he isnt making 1/3 of the average doctor

[/ QUOTE ]

Knowledge is not intelligence. Simply because someone spends more time memorizing facts and procedures does not mean that another person is less intelligent than them.

Some very intelligent scientists decide that the barriers to entry in medicine along with the time cost make it not worth it. It doesn't make them somehow less smart.

[karlwig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What statistical measures?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, the UN ranked US health care 37th overall. Link

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the link.

OMG, my socialist facist communist country is on 11th place. But that must be wrong, it can't be above the US. After all, we all know that socialised health care makes it ineffective and much worse compared to the free market which solves everything.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What statistical measures?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, the UN ranked US health care 37th overall. Link

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the link.

OMG, my socialist facist communist country is on 11th place. But that must be wrong, it can't be above the US. After all, we all know that socialised health care makes it ineffective and much worse compared to the free market which solves everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL you are calling the US a "free market" system for health care.

[NeBlis]

The US does not have free market health care by any stretch of the imagination.


EDIT: MY PONY TOO SLOW

[karlwig]

[ QUOTE ]
The US does not have free market health care by any stretch of the imagination.


[/ QUOTE ]

But you haven't got publicly funded health care either...?
Isn't health care in the US provided by paying insurance companies and having private hospitals, and therefore a for-profit competition business in a free market?

I may be owned on this one, seriously. But please explain as I'd love to know. I thought I knew how the system worked in the US, especially since we were debating socialism vs. capitalism, and the OP suggested a change TOWARDS a socialised service INSTEAD of a for-profit business.

And since I'm wrong, what term should be used to describe the US health care system?


Thanks [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
And since I'm wrong, what term should be used to describe the US health care system?


[/ QUOTE ]

semi-socialist or quasi-free market maybe?

Every aspect of the US healtcare system is controled in some way by government regulations or direct oversite. Our insurance industry is completly beholden to the government. Socializing medicine in the US would not be placing it under government control it would be altering the nature of that control.

The US does not have free market medicine.

[karlwig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And since I'm wrong, what term should be used to describe the US health care system?


[/ QUOTE ]

semi-socialist or quasi-free market maybe?

Every aspect of the US healtcare system is controled in some way by government regulations or direct oversite. Our insurance industry is completly beholden to the government. Socializing medicine in the US would not be placing it under government control it would be altering the nature of that control.

The US does not have free market medicine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for explaining, and sorry for using the wrong term. Still though, it's an industry that includes for-profit privat companies, so while "free market" is wrong, there definately is a "market" there, though it's to some degree being influenced by the goverment. Am I right here? Anyway, thanks for pointing it out.

BTW: I think my point in that post still holds up though, since people are arguing that a free market solves everything, and the us health care system, while not a completely "free market" as you pointed out, definately is more free than the Norwegian (which is completely socialised through tax).

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What statistical measures?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, the UN ranked US health care 37th overall. Link

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the link.

OMG, my socialist facist communist country is on 11th place. But that must be wrong, it can't be above the US. After all, we all know that socialised health care makes it ineffective and much worse compared to the free market which solves everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
prop·a·gan·da (prŏp'ə-gān'd&#601 Pronunciation Key
n.

1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you read the summary linked you would (should) be struck by several things.


1. Fairness of financial contribution.
2. Distribution of health in the populations.

Neither of these things measures health care quality, they measure the size of redistribution schemes essentially. They simply give free points to more socialized systems when compared to less socialized systems. This is what is called call bias.

On the fairness of financial contribution section the number 1 ranking goes to Columbia. Why?

[ QUOTE ]
Colombia achieved top rank because someone with a low income might pay the equivalent of one dollar per year for health care, while a high- income individual pays 7.6 dollars.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a mention of quality or availability.

From the distribution of health in populations


[ QUOTE ]
It is not sufficient to protect or improve the average health of the population, if - at the same time - inequality worsens or remains high because the gain accrues disproportionately to those already enjoying better health.

[/ QUOTE ]

So for example- in country A life expectancy of the upper class increase by 5% over X years and life expectancy of the lower class increased by 3% over that same period.
In country B life expectancy of the upper class increased by 2% and life expectancy of the lower class increased by 2% this report would rate country 2 higher in this section. Who the [censored] would choose to live in country B?



Overall level of health

This is a SECONDARY characteristic. Different countries have different food, drug, exercise and genetic backgrounds. These things contribute to how much health care a country will consume and will skew final results when trying to compare those systems.

Responsiveness

This is the closest thing to a quality of health care measurement. Its still an indirect measurement since access to a guy with leaches and prayer in one day would rate higher than access to a guy with a sterilized hospital room, 8 years of medical school and residency, a couple of nurses and the latest technology in a week.

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
After reading all these responses I think it's pretty obvious that most on the anti-socialized health care side have zero interest in even examining the health care systems of any other countries, to see if they contain anything of merit that could be incorporated into the US system. Everyone is so in love with their personal ideology of free markets ftw that there is a refusal to admit another approach could possibly have any merit. I might add that this is typical of the American approach to debate. Our way is the only way.

Right now, there are many other wealthy countries providing socialized health care. Many of them spend far less per capita than the US on healthcare, and the health of their citizens is better than the US by every statistical measure. All the nightmare scenarios mentioned that would cause the US system to collapse if socialized, have somehow managed to be overcome in these other countries.

But I think it comes down to philosophy, not the actual health care citizens are receiving. Americans do not like taking money they earn, and giving it to someone else unless they choose to do so. Period. It is simply not our way. Other countries see the taxation as a worthwhile cost if it provides everyone (including themselves, should they ever need it) a safety net and an equal level of health care.

It also has to do with the culture of consumption and materialism in the US. In a country like Sweden even the richest citizens tend to live in relatively modest homes. Flaunting one's personal wealth is considered rude. Sharing your income with your fellow citizens is accepted, because accumulating as much money as possible is not the goal.

A while back I posted this quote from a Danish citizen:

"The big difference between the United States and Denmark is you put an emphasis on individualism vs. the collective," she says. "We have no working poor. There are no kids living in cars with no child care. We pay high taxes for it. But in the end, how much money do you need?"

I think this statement sums up the huge difference in philosophies. To an American, "how much money do you need?" is an irrelevant question. I am not saying this is wrong or right. It's just how it is. But I think all the talk of the efficiencies of the free market, etc. just obscures the real issue, which is that Americans prize self-reliance over collectivism and just DO NOT LIKE being taxed.

[/ QUOTE ]

as other have pointed out, those studies aren't controlling for correlated omitted variables, such as food consumption choices, exercise, etc.

per capita spending = innovation
213 of the last 218 blockbuster drugs came from US firms--wonder if there is a reason for that.......

individual v collectivist is well documented in the psych literature. I love the individualist viewpoint as it has lead to greater innovation and growth. Plus, as far as I know, I only control me and that is hard enough. I cannot imagine having the godlike complex to feel as though I know the correct answers for others' lives.