# Question to Micheal Moore (and his supporters)



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Dear Micheal:

Your recent movie Sicko, has as its basic premise, that the US should have a government run, universal health care system. It holds up countries such as France and Canada, both of which have government run, universal, single payer or socialized systems. You maintain the only way health care in the US can be "fixed" is for the government to run it.

Question: If you could go back in time to November 2003, just after John Kerry was defeated, and George Bush announced the US health care system would become socialized, would you support him?

Best regards,
Wayfarer


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

What a silly question.

-spence


----------



## samblau (Apr 2, 2005)

Mr. Moore, who I assume has the means to afford health care/healthy lifestyle seems to have foresaken his own health in delivering his message(s). Health care is a sham in some regards but quite frankly a lot of people I know and know of take gross advantage of the system thus increasing costs. Insurance fees, tort settlements etc. have all hurt the system. Personally I think that people should be forced to take care of themselves. Perhaps I come across as a communist or other deragatory political term but people should not be given carte blanche to eat bacon cheeseburgers daily and then demand free health care. Thats a situation you brought on yourself.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> What a silly question.
> 
> -spence


What an even more silly (non)answer. Good work!


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Have you gone to see Sicko? 
I haven't seen the movie yet. I plan on going to see it, but I was more interested in seeing Fantastic Four 2 and the Transformers. :icon_smile_big: The only Moore film I have seen is Bowling for Columbine.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> Have you gone to see Sicko?
> I haven't seen the movie yet. I plan on going to see it, but I was more interested in seeing Fantastic Four 2 and the Transformers. :icon_smile_big: The only Moore film I have seen is Bowling for Columbine.


Have not seen it, will not pay to see it. Isn't capitalism great? I do not have to support those I think are charlatans! However, if a free copy or something should come my way, I'll try to watch it. I tried to watch Columbine and could not finish it, I got lost in the bile.

FWIW, I used to like Moore at one time...before my university education that included things like economics  I come from Big 3 territory and actually thought unions were good things at one time.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

or direct link


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*Mr. Moore*

I do not believe Mr. Moore is a member of AAAC. The man lives in a ball cap, jeans, sneakers, and a t-shirt.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

agnash said:


> I do not believe Mr. Moore is a member of AAAC. The man lives in a ball cap, jeans, sneakers, and a t-shirt.


Yes, but he is insistent on changing them at least monthly, so he comes close to AAAC standards, no?


----------



## BDS (Jul 8, 2007)

Why would we care how would the system be called, soc or other such ism? Fact is that the US health system is f... up pretty good. Another very disturbing fact is that 42 millions DON'T have health ins and so cannot reach the proper care for ailments. Yet another disturbing fact is that many go the ER for very basic ailments, which cost much more than going to a dr if insured. Many use outdated medications and/or medications from people who don't use them or discard them. It's a shame that in this country this situation is allowed to go on, and all in the name of misperceived notions of anti-socialism or whatever.

In Europe, Canada, Israel, where being insured is mandatory and the payment for it is taken form the paycheck automatically, you don't see people dying in the streets b/c of this system, on the contrary, you can have the most advanced procedures and checks and operations for peanuts, practically. 
There are problems, but I'd buy them anytime together w the system.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BDS said:


> Why would we care how would the system be called, soc or other such ism? Fact is that the US health system is f... up pretty good. Another very disturbing fact is that 42 millions DON'T have health ins and so cannot reach the proper care for ailments. Yet another disturbing fact is that many go the ER for very basic ailments, which cost much more than going to a dr if insured. Many use outdated medications and/or medications from people who don't use them or discard them. It's a shame that in this country this situation is allowed to go on, and all in the name of misperceived notions of anti-socialism or whatever.


You are right BDS, we should never worry what the system is called. As words do not alter reality, we should be worried about the reality. However, we do communicate via words, so they do make handy tools to describe reality. Well, for some of us.



BDS said:


> In Europe, Canada, Israel, where being insured is mandatory and the payment for it is taken form the paycheck automatically, you don't see people dying in the streets b/c of this system, on the contrary, you can have the most advanced procedures and checks and operations for peanuts, practically.
> There are problems, but I'd buy them anytime together w the system.


BDS, please do tell me more about healthcare in Canada. So payment is taken from peoples' checks automatically? And all care is done for peanuts you say? Please, give me some details about healthcare in Canada as I am most interested to hear about this foriegn system.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

BDS said:


> Another very disturbing fact is that 42 millions DON'T have health ins


As several news agencies (NBC, Time, Newsweek, etc) have pointed out, most of the people who do not have health insurance are the recently graduated twentysomethings who weigh the risks of not having health insurance against the cost of purchasing, and decide to go without. Right now, according to Medicare, about 60% of all money spent on healthcare is spent by the government. Almost all children under 18 are covered, either through their parents, or through welfare programs that provide coverage to needy children (but not to their parents).

The twentysomethings who do not buy health insurance CHOOSE to not do so because it is too expensive. You see, almost every state in this country requires health insurance companies to charge a (close) to flat rate for health insurance. Carriers are not allowed to adjust premiums for lifestyle risks.

Are you young, in good health, and exercise regularly? Congratulations, you get to pay the same premium as a morbidly obese middle-aged documentary film maker who wears baseball hats.


----------



## BDS (Jul 8, 2007)

Wayfarer, I can tell you from the Israel daily reality. 

ANYONE and EVERYONE, and his family thru him/her, is charged thru his paycheck for the health ins premium. This is taken actually from a broader tax that covers the Social Security mandatory payment in the quantity of 4% from the wage before taxes, IIRC.

As you probably know, the Isr medicine is very, very advanced and innovative. The hosp's are well equiped and have good staff. 

Everyone chooses his own HMO, from a total of a few companies present now, and dr, thru it, also specialists.

Frex, one is entitled to a renewal of hearing aids, every two yrs, if needing them, of course. Then, you go to the HMO and are reimbursed to the extent of 60% up to a max of some updated sum.

Need a check that warrants an MRI, or CT, or X-r? If necessary you get it by your dr, or by you asking it from him.

Medications are covered by the ins, generally. 

Now, there are some procedures or meds that are not covered, and the tendency is to shorten the list of provided items, but all in all, people fare very, very well, in this system.

One is operated, if needed, w/o any significant cost on his part, if he goes thru the HMO channels. One is entitled to choose a specialist thru the HMO and a second opinion, also.

The wait for any procedure is insignificant, generally. Some are/may be given the same day.

Results of any check performed by any dr are yours to keep gratis, unlike here where sometimes you have to pay for them b/c the dr says that it's his, b/c he did it.
Lab work results are available thru a printer in the HMO local offices. You go, print them, take them to your dr who prescribed them, and follow up.

Etc., etc., etc..

The praise for such a mandatory sys is to be sung forever, believe me, w all its ailments, which are inevitable; nothing is perfect. But the system works, and for that matter, very well, for the whole population, w/o discrimination.

Massachusetts and other states have a mandatory health sys, now.

If only people here would not be scared by such scarecrow as socialist system.

If the scare is so profound, why is there a city transportation sys in NYC and many other places? Or the school bus tran sys in the country? Or the integration in schools?

HTH and ask as you wish about this happy go lucky system in all the progressive countries in the developed world.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Possibiy a situation where everyone is required to have insurance and the insurance people are watched to make sure that they offer insurance to everyone might work.

I worry about medicine if it is a government bureaucracy similar to Social Services, though. (Isn't that what Canada has?)

I worked for our State Government for 5 years (Auditor General) and worry about Government's efficiency with any function they handle. They should only have what absolutely needs to be in the government arena under their control.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> What an even more silly (non)answer. Good work!


So if MM said "maybe" would you believe him?

-spence


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BDS:

I had no idea you were in Israel, as your information has Florida posted. 

You mentioned Canada too, specifically. Please tell me more about Canada.

You state in Israel everyone is forced to have insurance and the payments come out of their checks. What if you do not work or cannot afford your premiums? Or do you just pay 4% whether you make $10 or $10 million?

I will not address false analogies such as NYC bus sytem = nationwide healthcare. It is a bad argument and I will not even waste time dealing with it.

These HMOs in Israel, does the government own them? Are the workers there government employees?

You said there is a list of things not covered. Can you give some examples? Also, can you pay your own money to get the services that are not covered?

But most of all, since you mentioned Canada, I would like more information on it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> So if MM said "maybe" would you believe him?
> 
> -spence


Spence, first, you need to answer the OP. Or you need to state you do not support Moore. It's my thread, go start your own if you want to try and get *me* to answer *your* questions first.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*How far are you willing to go?*

Magic wand waved, and everyone in the United States has health insurance tomorrow. What happens next? By giving everyone coverage, you will drive prices up. Imagine what has happened with the Federal student loans program and college tuition rates, but drastically amplified. How do you pay for the program? Raise taxes? Cut spending elsewhere? The first creates a drag on the national economy, the second has never been politically feasible. Yes, forcing people to spend their own money to purchase health insurance (Massachussette) is a tax, even if they get a credit to get some of the money back. Will people still be allowed to purchase private insurance to make up for what the government does not cover? Will we force doctors to spend a certain percentage of their time taking the public insuance cases (similar to the UK), when they make more money from the private insurance cases?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

agnash said:


> Magic wand waved, and everyone in the United States has health insurance tomorrow. What happens next? By giving everyone coverage, you will drive prices up. Imagine what has happened with the Federal student loans program and college tuition rates, but drastically amplified. How do you pay for the program? Raise taxes? Cut spending elsewhere? The first creates a drag on the national economy, the second has never been politically feasible.


Shhhh agnash! No one is buying the dour science here!


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Shhhh agnash! No one is buying the dour science here!


But I'm willing to give it away:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

agnash said:


> But I'm willing to give it away:icon_smile_big:


LOL, they don't want it for free either!


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Dear Micheal:
> 
> Your recent movie Sicko, has as its basic premise, that the US should have a government run, universal health care system. It holds up countries such as France and Canada, both of which have government run, universal, single payer or socialized systems. You maintain the only way health care in the US can be "fixed" is for the government to run it.





Wayfarer said:


> Have not seen it, will not pay to see it. Isn't capitalism great? I do not have to support those I think are charlatans! However, if a free copy or something should come my way, I'll try to watch it. I tried to watch Columbine and could not finish it, I got lost in the bile.


It's interesting, but not at all unexected that you weigh in so strongly against a film you haven't even seen, and, since you haven't seen the film, whose concepts you can only be aware of through hearsay. Do you actually expect anyone to see this as anything other than yet another of your self-righteous right-wing rants?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rip said:


> It's interesting, but not at all unexected that you weigh in so strongly against a film you haven't even seen, and, since you haven't seen the film, whose concepts you can only be aware of through hearsay. Do you actually expect anyone to see this as anything other than yet another of your self-righteous right-wing rants?


Ah, I am right wing am I? This tells me the level of your comprehension on my literally hundreds of posts on the topic of healthcare. Rip, once again you have demonstrated that very often, what one has to say about another, more often tells a bystander more about you than your target.

Glad to see you could pontificate without addressing the question too. I would have to say an all around stellar performance on your part!

Funny too, no one left of center has yet to answer this. Very telling, any detractor has only attacked me vs. addressing the OP. Very telling.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Ah, I am right wing am I? This tells me the level of your comprehension on my literally hundreds of posts on the topic of healthcare. Rip, once again you have demonstrated that very often, what one has to say about another, more often tells a bystander more about you than your target.
> 
> Glad to see you could pontificate without addressing the question too. I would have to say an all around stellar performance on your part!
> 
> Funny too, no one left of center has yet to answer this. Very telling, any detractor has only attacked me vs. addressing the OP. Very telling.


Why would anyone from the left bother to answer someone who hasn't even seen the film, yet readily pontificates about its contents. As far as your political persepctive, as we established in another thread, "Quack, quack, waddle, waddle".


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rip said:


> As far as your political persepctive, as we established in another thread, "Quack, quack, waddle, waddle".


Ah rip, so happy you would bring that thread back up. What we established there my elderly friend, is that when confronted with facts, you stop posting! To wit:


Wayfarer said:


> Click here to read rip ignoring me


And still no answer to the OP or maybe comments on my literally hundreds of posts concerning healthcare.

Rip, you should quit while you are behind.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Ah rip, so happy you would bring that thread back up. What we established there my elderly friend, is that when confronted with facts, you stop posting! To wit:
> 
> And still no answer to the OP or maybe comments on my literally hundreds of posts concerning healthcare.
> 
> Rip, you should quit while you are behind.


You've not seen the film; your arguments have no merit... end of story.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rip said:


> You've not seen the film; your arguments have no merit... end of story.


My "arguments" rip? Here is what I said, please point out a) the argument(s) and b) where my facts are incorrect.



> Dear Micheal:
> 
> Your recent movie Sicko, has as its basic premise, that the US should have a government run, universal health care system. It holds up countries such as France and Canada, both of which have government run, universal, single payer or socialized systems. You maintain the only way health care in the US can be "fixed" is for the government to run it.
> 
> ...


Is the movie's premise not that the US should have universal healthcare? Are those not some example countries used by Moore? Do those countries not all have single payer or socialized systems? Where exactly is my factual error?

And since you raised the other thread, would you maybe address the error in your little duck simile? Ah no, of course you will not. You will just continue to dodge all substantive debate, as you always do with me. Am I that scary a foe that you cannot engage in direct debate?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Oh rippie! You seem to have fallen asleep suddenly after a flurry of posts to me. To make it easier for you to answer your duck simile, here is the post from the other thread where I originally answered your flawed comparison and will note you did not reply again in that entire thread.



Wayfarer said:


> Pro-abortion, want basic universal healthcare, want free needle exchanges, agnostic/athiest, pro civil union.


So share with me the right wing status of these positions I hold please. Oh wait! Maybe they disprove your characterization of me and that is why you have decided to quit while you are behind?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

So sewing machine owners can't afford to replace their own needles?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> So sewing machine owners can't afford to replace their own needles?


:icon_hailthee:


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

It was just difficult to see the left-wing aspect of subsidizing sewing machine owners. You understand, of course. While I can see that this position would be popular on a clothing board, it is not one I hold personally.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> It was just difficult to see the left-wing aspect of subsidizing sewing machine owners. You understand, of course. While I can see that this position would be popular on a clothing board, it is not one I hold personally.


On the serious side, it does irk me that issues like this one become "left wing" vs. "right wing". All the data shows free needle exchanges do not increase IVDAs but it does show a marked decrease in diseases transmitted through dirty needles. It would seem a no brainer to me.

However, as a point rejected by any "right winger" I've ever run into, I think it is a good example rip is, once again, incorrect.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I actually agree with your position (the one you really meant.) I'm just saddened that it is necessary. 

(I used to party with the best of them and played with a lot of different stuff. The idea of using a needle always has totally grossed me out. The pictures of people with abcesses on their arms back in 7th grade Lutheran School Drug Education made their mark on me, even if a lot of the rest of it missed the mark. That may have saved me from some difficult rehabbing.)


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Some of you may be interested in checking out this interview on the healthcare subject and Moore's film:

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11826524

The guy says that Moore gets a good deal right, but cuts several corners and doesn't get it all right. I found it a pretty reasoned discussion about an important subject that should transcend the simplistic left-right framework. I haven't seen the movie yet either, although I saw that none other than Fox News gave it a fine review, calling it "brilliant and uplifting."


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

rip said:


> You've not seen the film; your arguments have no merit... end of story.


In his defense, not that he needs my assistance, I have never eaten s**t and I am still absolutely confident that it tastes like s**t and would make me quite ill.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Bertie: I personally had 'Net radio disabled by IT, can't listen to it at work :icon_smile: Leaving tomorrow for my piping College so no great hopes I'll hear it soon. I have no doubt some, most, or all of what Moore filmed is accurate. He of course "cheery picks" his facts, as Dr. Gupta of CNN pointed out though. Also, as we all know, one can have their facts straight and still make a bad conclusion by considering only the facts one has already decided fits one's (pre)determined position.

whomewhat, thanks


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Come now. Doesn't everyone who posts in the interchange end up eating a little bit of s--- now and then??


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

Count me in as one who will see his film once it reaches HBO but would never line his pockets with my hardearned money. 

He's one of the few individuals who makes me physically ill. He's a loudmouth hypocrite who is quite possibly the biggest slob i have ever seen, appearing on talk shows in sweatpants with a ball cap on his head. All the healthcare in the world isnt going to help him when he drops dead of a hearattack in a few years.

MrR


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Spence, first, you need to answer the OP. Or you need to state you do not support Moore. It's my thread, go start your own if you want to try and get *me* to answer *your* questions first.


A litmus test? 

For the record I think Moore is pretty pathetic. I'd pay him about the same amount of respect as I would Rush Limbaugh.

But your question was silly. Is there only "one" kind of government sponsored health care system?

-spence


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> A litmus test?
> 
> For the record I think Moore is pretty pathetic. I'd pay him about the same amount of respect as I would Rush Limbaugh.
> 
> ...


I do not believe I stated there was only "one" kind. In fact Spence, please actually *read the OP* and you will see I mention at least two. In lieu of the fact you seem to have gotten exactly zero things correct so far, the only silliness here is your continued characterization of my OP.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

MrRogers said:


> Count me in as one who will see his film once it reaches HBO but would never line his pockets with my hardearned money.
> 
> He's one of the few individuals who makes me physically ill. He's a loudmouth hypocrite who is quite possibly the biggest slob i have ever seen, appearing on talk shows in sweatpants with a ball cap on his head. All the healthcare in the world isnt going to help him *when he drops dead of a heart attack in a few years*.
> 
> MrR


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

If he doesn't die at home, YOUR TAXES may be used transporting his corpse to the funeral home. (I think that the government divides this up and only uses the taxes of conservative people when they do liberal things.)


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

In times past, when someone was ill, the doctors would often "bleed" them. They would cut open a vein in the hopes that the illness would bleed out. Needless to say, it often just made things worse.

Now our healthcare system is ill. The nature of the illness is that many people can't afford good health care. So what is the solution of big-government socialists? They want to bleed us through taxes to pay for the healthcare we can't afford!

Maybe if we didn't have to pay almost 50% of our incomes to government every year, and maybe if government wasn't in a fascistic/symbiotic relationship with Big Pharma, people would have more money to spend on a more affordable healthcare system.

But no, the post-baby boom big-government junkies are too hooked into the entitlement system to even _ponder_ cutting the apron-strings of the nanny state or weaning themselves from the teet of the welfare state, so naturally their 'solution' to this problem is exactly the same as their 'solution' to everything else: give more money and more power to government and hope against hope that government actually gets something right for once.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> In times past, when someone was ill, the doctors would often "bleed" them. They would cut open a vein in the hopes that the illness would bleed out. Needless to say, it often just made things worse.
> 
> Now our healthcare system is ill. The nature of the illness is that many people can't afford good health care. So what is the solution of big-government socialists? They want to bleed us through taxes to pay for the healthcare we can't afford!
> 
> ...


It's a deep problem that includes tendrils running into the way we run our political process, including elections. Look at how the presidential election has been framed recently: little more than a money-raising horserace.

Here's an article you may find worth reading:

https://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/167/2/163.pdf


----------



## BDS (Jul 8, 2007)

Wayfarer:

You asked me to tell you more about the health ins in Israel. Here is a link to the institution of the Isr equivalent of Soc Sec, National Insurance.

I cannot answer for Canada, as you wanted, sorry, you'll have to go to their gov site for that.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I do not believe I stated there was only "one" kind. In fact Spence, please actually *read the OP* and you will see I mention at least two. In lieu of the fact you seem to have gotten exactly zero things correct so far, the only silliness here is your continued characterization of my OP.


So the question is more like "would you support Bush if his goal was the same healthcare system as Canada or France?"

Seems silly. Reality is a lot more complicated than that. Why ask black and white questions simply intended to trap?

-spence


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

*Beware the Jabberwock, my son*



Wayfarer said:


> .....
> BDS, please do tell me more about healthcare in Canada. ..... Please, give me some details about healthcare in Canada as I am most interested to hear about this foriegn system.


the jaws that bite, the claws that catch

-careful


----------



## BDS (Jul 8, 2007)

The most heard comments on universal health care in US, is that it will raise costs and it's a Socialist approach.

Well, for one, all the people who lack ins and go to care centers, i.e., hopitals and ERs, pass THEIR payments to the insured ones.

Two, in universal health care will be more than one HMO, of course, so the market will correct any discrepancy, as it does now, or should do.

As for the Socialist argument, did anyone stop to think that the military is a Socialist way of guarding the country? It's controlled, budgeted and directed by the gov.
Public schools the same, public transportation, same, etc.
Amtrak is subsidized, housing for the poor, food stamps, stipends, and so on and so forth.

So, no need to fear this scarecrow of an argument. Not at all. 

We simply cannot afford to ourselves to continue this social inegality or inability to use better ways of living. It comes at our expenses, ultimately, one way or the other.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

The mere fact that armies are national does not make a case for socialism.

Yes, we do have public schools, public transportation, and so on. Their existence also points out the need for private schools, private transportation and so on.

I think it was Winston Churchill who once said, "The chief evil of capitalism is the unequal sharing of its blessings. The chief evil of socialism is the equal sharing of its miseries".

Sorry, you can keep your socialist mediocrity. I want better.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

BDS said:


> The most heard comments on universal health care in US, is that it will raise costs and it's a Socialist approach.
> 
> Well, for one, all the people who lack ins and go to care centers, i.e., hopitals and ERs, pass THEIR payments to the insured ones.


The solution is cash up front or patient-specific repayment programs, like in the old days. This would be possible if the government didn't tell us that we're only allowed to actually have half of our incomes. It would also help if doctors weren't paid shills for Big Pharma in collusion with the FDA.



> As for the Socialist argument, did anyone stop to think that the military is a Socialist way of guarding the country? It's controlled, budgeted and directed by the gov.
> Public schools the same, public transportation, same, etc.
> Amtrak is subsidized, housing for the poor, food stamps, stipends, and so on and so forth.


Exactly. Scrap it. It doesn't work.

The Federal Department of Education (only in existence since 1980) has made our kids fat and stupid. Federal funding for public transportation is contingent on state/local compliance with government social policy; this keeps us all beholden to the so-called 'morality' of whatever beltway insiders can whine the loudest.

Don't even get me started on "housing of the poor, food stamps", etc. I'm from Appalachia. I have seen what these things do to the human spirit, and it ain't pretty.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*Lies, damn lies, and statistics*

Okay, 44 million people do not have health insurance in the U.S. That works out to about 16% of the population. Currently, Medicare/Medicaid insures about 33% of the overall population. The rest have some form of insurance through their employer. According the GAO (Government Accounting Office), the U.S. spends a larger percentage of GDP (14%) on health care than any other nation (Germany is second at 10.7). This is without creating a new program to get to the 16% without insurance.

The GAO has this wonderfully ironic series of graphs, that show the growth in the government health insurance programs, and the growth in per capita health care costs. Funny how the two increase hand-in-hand, almost as if one was driving the other.:crazy:


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Ironic, but we are looking at National Health Care like a past traditional western medial practitioner. We are treating a disease without considering the patient, the external influences, inheritence factors etc. And we are overprescribing a cash fix like an antibiotic that has become ineffective because of pathogen immunity. Moore is a slovenly doppleganger of The Music Man. He shows up yelling "Oh we got trouble!" and we buy band instruments made in China.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Only if Moore is as effective as Professor Harold Hill.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

Here's a great radio interview discussing our healthcare problems with a current presidential candidate (who just happens to be a medical doctor):

https://www.mylonglife.com/audio/MyLongLife070710a.mp3

Those host gets a bit off track part way through, but they take it back to healthcare again.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Dear Michael Moore,Will you be starring in or directing any more films?


----------



## BDS (Jul 8, 2007)

All who deride the "socialist" system (and I really don't care for what name is it called, it is the system that interests me) in force in so many uncivilized and backward countries, like, not to believe, all of Europe, Canada, Israel (yet another westernized and very developed country), overlook the fact that it works and it does so quite efficiently.

Yes, it has its problems, as the US broken system has, and as any system has in any place and any time, BUT it works. And everything related to medicine and health there is in many instances a step or more ahead of here, new meds, frex.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

BDS said:


> All who deride the "socialist" system (and I really don't care for what name is it called, it is the system that interests me) in force in so many uncivilized and backward countries, like, not to believe, all of Europe, Canada, Israel (yet another westernized and very developed country), overlook the fact that it works and it does so quite efficiently.


How efficiently does it work? Take Canada for instance. Can you explain how it works more efficiently in Canada? As a matter of fact, I think Wayfarer already asked you about that once.

By the way, did you listen to that radio interview with the _medical doctor_ running for president, wherein he discusses how socialized/government-controlled health care is not the answer? What did you think?


----------



## BDS (Jul 8, 2007)

Jolly Roger:

I don't have details of the efficiency of the systmes in Europe, Canada and Israel, but the undeniable fact is that it works. How, you'll have to find it for yourself, it's not so hard, really.

Do you think that it is acceptable in such a developed country like US to have tens of millions uninsured, which really means w/o any means of medical help and recourse, but to go to ER and pay their shirt off or put hospitals in the place of charity org's, b/c they treat them free of charge for them but to the hospital it's a sum that is in the millions every year everywhere in the country. 
I think it's a shame.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

What about people in Canada who have to wait for months to get routine tests even in life threatening cases?


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> What about people in Canada who have to wait for months to get routine tests even in life threatening cases?


Still a challenge, but one the Canadians seem to recognise as needing improvement. At least that's what Robert S. Bell, CEO of University Health Network, is saying:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared#Wait_times

But for this inconvenience, the Canadians are paying half what their U.S. counterparts are.

I wonder (seriously) if wait times are encouraging Canadians to be more proactive about their health, especially with respect to cardiac health. I wonder if there have been significant changes in diet and/or exercise on the part of people who fear wait times for critical care, and so do all they can to minimise the likelihood that they will have a heart attack.

Not a bad idea regardless of one's health system.

Maybe the wait times are a market-based incentive to encourage better health and reduce the strain on the system...like those HMO co-pays to keep the merely chatty and lonely from yakking the doc's ear off for no legitimate reason.


----------



## BDS (Jul 8, 2007)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> What about people in Canada who have to wait for months to get routine tests even in life threatening cases?


I, personally, didn't encounter in Israel such instances, but it may happen and it happens, and I'm sure, here, too. This is not the rule, though, but the out of common in Europe, etc..

Do you really believe that in an emergency case a person would be endangered b/c of wait time? Also, if there's a problem of allocation of means, then hey, if a dr can test only so many and if an instrument can be used only so much, then nothing in the world can change reality, here included.
I assure you that no one, but no one, dies in those countries b/c of wait time. Heads will fly in a matter of minutes, w/o doubt.

Pls, understand, in all those countries people live and give birth and are treated in a very respectable, developed and advanced environment, w good staff and medications and instruments, for much, much less, than in US and w a full inclusion of the whole population.

This alone gives the individual a relaxed state of mind in this regard. Everyone knows that he's covered, he's not thrown to then dogs or left shirtless and/or w/o his home b/c med expenses.

This in turn influences the society in a positive way.

The socialistic argument is a scare crow that saddly caught w the US average guy b/c of the capitalistic mentality.
Now this mentality did many, many good things, but in this regard and in many others, like environment, less gas consumption for more milleage, etc., the money talks unashamed, usually w the "raise in costs" sister scare-crow, which under close scrutiny doesn't hold an ounce of water in most cases.

Some states here already did it and have mandatory health ins, like Massachusetts. And it will spread, b/c it's sound policy, as env issues catch speed and impact in individual states, like FL just the other day.

This situation cannot go on w/o a fundamental change and the change will come, want it or not, in the dircetion of universal health ins.


----------



## BDS (Jul 8, 2007)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> What about people in Canada who have to wait for months to get routine tests even in life threatening cases?


I, personally, didn't encounter in Israel such instances, but it may happen and it happens, and I'm sure, here, too. This is not the rule, though, but the out of common in Europe, etc..

Do you really believe that in an emergency case a person would be endangered b/c of wait time? Also, if there's a problem of allocation of means, then hey, if a dr can test only so many and if an instrument can be used only so much, then nothing in the world can change reality, here included.
I assure you that no one, but no one, dies in those countries b/c of wait time. Heads will fly in a matter of minutes, w/o doubt.

Pls, understand, in all those countries people live and give birth and are treated in a very respectable, developed and advanced environment, w good staff and medications and instruments, for much, much less, than in US and w a full inclusion of the whole population.

This alone gives the individual a relaxed state of mind in this regard. Everyone knows that he's covered, he's not thrown to the dogs or left shirtless and/or w/o his home b/c med expenses.
This in turn influences the society in a positive way.

The socialistic argument is a scare crow that saddly caught w the US average guy b/c of the capitalistic mentality.
Now this mentality did many, many good things, but in this regard and in many others, like environment, less gas consumption for more milleage, etc., the money talks unashamed, usually w the "raise in costs" sister scare-crow, which under close scrutiny doesn't hold an ounce of water in most cases.

Some states here already acted independently and have mandatory health ins, like Massachusetts. And it will spread, b/c it's sound policy, as environment issues catch speed and impact in individual states, like FL just the other day.

This deplorable situation cannot go on w/o a fundamental change, and the change will come, want it or not, in the direction of universal health ins.


----------



## narticus (Aug 24, 2006)

BDS said:


> usually w the "raise in costs" sister scare-crow, which under close scrutiny doesn't hold an ounce of water in most cases.


Lower deductibles = higher utilization
Lower out-of-pockets = higher utilization
Lower copays = higher utilization
Higher coinsurance = higher utilization

Higher utilization = increased cost

I guess you don't think facts hold an ounce of water.


----------



## BDS (Jul 8, 2007)

narticus (BTW, the handle has a Hebrew meaning - purse or small bag):

Nice try, but you missed the mark by far, using wrong facts that really don't hold water. You're mistaken: More utilisation means more amortisation and so lower costs.

"Socialistic" is a scarecrow that saddly succeeds here even w intelligent people who don't stop to think beyond the immediate.


----------



## narticus (Aug 24, 2006)

BDS said:


> narticus (BTW, the handle has a Hebrew meaning - purse or small bag):
> 
> Nice try, but you missed the mark by far, using wrong facts that really don't hold water. You're mistaken: More utilisation means more amortisation and so lower costs.
> 
> "Socialistic" is a scarecrow that saddly succeeds here even w intelligent people who don't stop to think beyond the immediate.


If the same group of people use more services, and they substitute more expensive services for less expensive, then costs per person will go down? I don't think so.

Perhaps you're alluding to risk pooling. Risk pooling doesn't lower costs. It lowers the variance of costs. Not the same thing.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Krugman's column today addresses this issue.

https://select.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/opinion/16krugman.html?hp

He quotes a recent BusinessWeek story that reads:

"In reality, both data and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long or longer than patients living with universal health-care systems."

Here is the link to the original:

https://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042072.htm

Krugman's column begins:

Being without health insurance is no big deal. Just ask President Bush. "I mean, people have access to health care in America," he said last week. "After all, you just go to an emergency room."

This is what you might call callousness with consequences. The White House has announced that Mr. Bush will veto a bipartisan plan that would extend health insurance, and with it such essentials as regular checkups and preventive medical care, to an estimated 4.1 million currently uninsured children. After all, it's not as if those kids really need insurance - they can just go to emergency rooms, right?

O.K., it's not news that Mr. Bush has no empathy for people less fortunate than himself. But his willful ignorance here is part of a larger picture: by and large, opponents of universal health care paint a glowing portrait of the American system that bears as little resemblance to reality as the scare stories they tell about health care in France, Britain, and Canada.

The claim that the uninsured can get all the care they need in emergency rooms is just the beginning. Beyond that is the myth that Americans who are lucky enough to have insurance never face long waits for medical care.

Actually, the persistence of that myth puzzles me. I can understand how people like Mr. Bush or Fred Thompson, who declared recently that "the poorest Americans are getting far better service" than Canadians or the British, can wave away the desperation of uninsured Americans, who are often poor and voiceless. But how can they get away with pretending that insured Americans always get prompt care, when most of us can testify otherwise?


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Another interesting bit from the Krugman article:

"On the other hand, it's true that Americans get hip replacements faster than Canadians. But there's a funny thing about that example, which is used constantly as an argument for the superiority of private health insurance over a government-run system: the large majority of hip replacements in the United States are paid for by, um, Medicare.

That's right: the hip-replacement gap is actually a comparison of two government health insurance systems. American Medicare has shorter waits than Canadian Medicare (yes, that's what they call their system) because it has more lavish funding - end of story. The alleged virtues of private insurance have nothing to do with it."

https://select.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/opinion/16krugman.html?hp


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BDS said:


> narticus (BTW, the handle has a Hebrew meaning - purse or small bag):
> 
> Nice try, but you missed the mark by far, using wrong facts that really don't hold water. You're mistaken: More utilisation means more amortisation and so lower costs.
> 
> "Socialistic" is a scarecrow that saddly succeeds here even w intelligent people who don't stop to think beyond the immediate.


BDS: Narticus's summary is exactly correct in his first three statements. I am not 100% sure what he means in his fourth, but if he means that the better supplemental coverage people have to cover co-pays, the higher the utilization, he is again 100% correct. To state his facts are "wrong" shows a severe lack of understanding. I will point you to the various utilization studies done by the RAND group that constitute the seminal work in demonstrating the health care demand curves do indeed have a slope.

Please take this away: more utilization means more costs. It would seem pretty simple to me that if you do not use a service, the cost is zero. If you use it sparingly, the costs will be sparse. If you use excessively, it will be excessive.

"Socialism" is not a scarecrow. Your perseveration on this is interesting. It is a term that gives the reader a specific set of conditions to be expected in said system. You keep insisting Canada has a socialist system. It simply does not and to say it does is wrong and shows a need for further education on your part.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Another interesting bit from the Krugman article:
> 
> "On the other hand, it's true that Americans get hip replacements faster than Canadians. But there's a funny thing about that example, which is used constantly as an argument for the superiority of private health insurance over a government-run system: the large majority of hip replacements in the United States are paid for by, um, Medicare.
> 
> ...


Bertie, this is a statement that while true, lacks a certain contextual component. "Medicare" in the US is for those people 65 and older, ESRD patients, or disabled for two or more years. It is not for the general population. In Canada, "Medicare" is the term used for *the entire health care system* and I believe the term was in use in Canada somewhat prior that in the US.

Further, the coverage of ORIFs by the US Medicare system is something that drives up costs for the Medicare system. You see, in Canada, if you are in the end stages of dementia at age 90, roll out of bed, and break a hip, you are very unlikely to receive surgical intervention. You will most likely die with that hip not operated on. In the US, if you are in the end stages of dementia at age 90, roll out of bed, and break a hip, you will have an ORIF done within 12 hours and your family will be hiring a lawyer to see if there is a litigation possibility.

So, in summary, US Medicare != Canadian Medicare. Canada used the term first, so I would say regarding the US, yes, "they" call it that too! Lastly, proliferation of ORIFs under US Medicare = part of the problem of increased costs, ergo a bad example to be used in this case IMO.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rip said:


> You've not seen the film; your arguments have no merit... end of story.


Rip, I was gone over a week....should have been plenty of time for you to actually reply in a factual manner vs. your usual method which is to stop posting in a thread when presented with incontrovertible facts. I see you were true to form once again.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Another interesting bit from the Krugman article:
> 
> "On the other hand, it's true that Americans get hip replacements faster than Canadians. But there's a funny thing about that example, which is used constantly as an argument for the superiority of private health insurance over a government-run system: the large majority of hip replacements in the United States are paid for by, um, Medicare.
> 
> ...


That's correct. America's heathcare system is already socialized: walk into any county health clinic and they are required by law to treat serious medical problems, free of charge if necessary.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> That's correct. * America's heathcare system is already socialized: *walk into any county health clinic and they are required by law to treat serious medical problems, free of charge if necessary.


That is not socialism. Socialism is characterized by the state owning the means of production and distribution. Except for the VA system, which is text book socialism, there is no socialism in the US health care system.

What you have imperfectly described above, as anyone remotely versed in health care knows, is the EMTALA legislation, *which includes all hospitals*, not just county ones as you claim. Initial screening in an ED must be done without consideration of ability to pay. If the screening shows no emergent condition, no further obligation exists. If one does, treatment must be given until the person is stable and/or can be safely transfered to a charity type hospital. Also, women in active labour must be treated. This act conveys no ownership of hospitals to the government (socialism); it is just plain extortion of services albeit in the name of humanitarian aide.

DYOH Frank.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Dear Michael Moore,have you ever thought of making your own show?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I have serious problems taking advice of any kind from some one that looks and acts like MM. 

To MM: "See to your own house, Sir."


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

Personally I can't wait until Hillary brings us the bounty of socialized health care. My personal healthcare and wellness will be administered with speed and efficiency by the same government employees who bring us the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Transportation Security Administration.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Another interesting bit from the Krugman article:
> 
> "On the other hand, it's true that Americans get hip replacements faster than Canadians. But there's a funny thing about that example, which is used constantly as an argument for the superiority of private health insurance over a government-run system: the large majority of hip replacements in the United States are paid for by, um, Medicare.
> 
> ...


Bertie:

I cannot get through to the link, I lack a NYT subscription. However, I pondered this quote for a few minutes as I knew something was greatly amiss. Here's the thing Bertie: either Krugman, the supposed expert, did not know the difference in the US definition of the term "Medicare" vs. the Canadian version of the term. The other possibility is he is misleading people on purpose, as anyone reading this would assume Canadian Medicare was also for only retired people.

Either way, this "expert" lacks some basic knowledge or is misleading people to create a false conclusion.


----------



## BDS (Jul 8, 2007)

Wayfarer and Narticus - Re utilization, I suggest that you acquaint yourself w basic economic rules, i.e., amortization - Writing off an intangible asset investment over the projected life of the assets; the reduction of the value of an asset by prorating its cost over a period of years.
Also, in some cases, the accounting of depreciation of an asset.


----------



## BDS (Jul 8, 2007)

Yet again, it is absolutely unacceptable that tens of millions are uninsured and so left to their own devices and a liability for the tax payer and the insured, b/c of the costs incurred by caring for them gratis, where it happens.

The social burden is something very real, w consequences beyond the real time and circumstances into the near and far future. 

The cost raise argument is pure crap, b/c now, the payments are super inflated by the ins co's for bigger profits, w/o any relation to the real cost, just to pure greed. Imagine a universal tax for ins in different co's for competition, as in Israel, w free choice of dr's and specialists, hospitalization, complex and sophisticated checks, etc..

This argument reminds me of the anti-solar energy argument expressed shamelessly in Florida by the capitalist reactionary and greedy forces, when Germany, much more clouded than FL, which has plenty of sun for this goal, is the foremost solar energy user; Israel has on almost every roof water solar heaters.

Greed, and only greed, is the reason for putting obstacles in the issue of health ins. Exactly as in car gas consumption reduction for increased mileage, where the car industry literally spits in the face of the nation and the world, just to keep profits going, w the aid of their senators. This has already a repercussion on US car sales, b/c Toyota has already an edge over GM w their more-gas-saving cars.

It's astounding that people buy such crap directed against their best interests. It has its reasons: Minds battered continuously w lies, and Non-thinking, 'swallowing fast mind-food' attitude on the part of the masses.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BDS said:


> Wayfarer and Narticus - Re utilization, *I suggest that you acquaint yourself w basic economic rules,* i.e., amortization - Writing off an intangible asset investment over the projected life of the assets; the reduction of the value of an asset by prorating its cost over a period of years.
> Also, in some cases, the accounting of depreciation of an asset.


BDS,

Back at you slugger. Go learn some basic econ yourself. Hell, I even told you exactly where to go to look in regards to utilization, the RAND studies on co-payments. I have also deciphered what Narticus meant in his last point, and he is 100% correct, overly burdensome co-payments lead to increased utilization costs, as the demand curve will be perverted to prevent intelligent utilization, leading to more tertiary interventions at higher costs. Co-payments must be just enough but not too high.

BDS, since you seem to refuse to do your own homework, here is a quote for you to possibly educate yourself and the basic economics you keep claiming others lack:



> With no co-insurance costs, patients have no financial disincentive to forgo care, even if it is of dubious value; but once patients bear some of the economic costs of receiving medical care, they are more likely to use only those health care services that are worth the additional cost that they must pay. On the other hand, co-insurance amounts that are too high can lead individuals to avoid medical care which is actually necessary to their health and/or impose a substantial financial burden. Very high levels of co-insurance may undermine one of the primary reasons that people insure themselves in the first place - which is protection from financial ruin if they become seriously ill.


Available at: https://www.kff.org/insurance/upload/7566.pdf

Alrightie BDS, digest that and come back to me with something other than GAAP. Until then, I am done with you on the topic, but please continue to quote non-relevant accounting definitions at me.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Looks like we can expect a few more ER visits soon, courtesy of das HUGO:

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/...en=b0e3dc876deed7de&ei=5123&partner=BREITBART


----------



## BDS (Jul 8, 2007)

hehe, Wayfarer, you bid your own demise in your own quote. The, wery well considered and heeded pt, is tackled in the insured countries, i.e., paying a sum for ANY service by EVERY insured person, to counter extensive and unnecessary use of med service.
Are you trying to deny the amortization econ principle? Foolish! What you're doing is showing why some might abuse the ins, that's all, and as said, this is taken care of by co-pay for ANY and EVERY service by EVERYONE.

Again, what is imp is to counter my statement about the unaccepatbility of tens of millions uninsured in the most developed country. Do it! Let's deal w basic technicalities after that, which is done quite satisfactorily in the progressive world, BUT in the US, b/c of a reactionary capitalistic set of mind, tending to its greed, successfully. Now, the imperative issue is what to do w the throngs of uninsured, that's waht should bother us all, in the name (don't laugh at me, now) of basic human fraternity. I'm serious.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BDS said:


> hehe, Wayfarer, you bid your own demise in your own quote. The, wery well considered and heeded pt is tackled in the insured countries, i.e., paying a sum for ANY service by every insured person, to counter extensive and unnecessary use of med service.
> Are you trying to deny the amortization econ principle? Foolish! What you're doing is showing why some might abuse the ins, that's all, and as said, this is taken care of by co-pay for ANY and EVERY service.
> 
> Again, what is imp is to counter my statement about the unaccepatbility of tens of millions uninsured in the most developed country. Do it! Let's deal w technicalities after that, which is done quite satisfactorily in the progressive world, BUT in the reactionary capitalistic set of mind of the US, tending to its greed, successfully. Now, the imperative issue is what to do w the throngs of uninsured, that's waht should bother us all, in the name (don't laugh at me, now) of basic human fraternity. I'm serious.


BDS, you really have a great talent for poor argumentation. Some talents are not ones that I would encourage people to develop, and this is one. Please point out to me where I argued *for* having people uninsured. The truth is, if you were to search the vast multitude of threads I have addressed healthcare in, you would see that I am an advocate of a basic, BASIC, universal health service. However, like so many ideologues on both sides, since I do not march in lock step with you, I am of course 100% incorrect and "the opposition" or even "the enemy".

This perseveration of yours on the principle of amortization, as some mystic answer, does indeed have me puzzled. The simple definition is along the lines of making payments on a balance over time. What this has to do with insurance, the concept of sharing risks in the present so one does *not need to* suddenly incur a large balance in a possible future, which might well need amortization, is beyond me. It does seem to hold the key to the universe to you though, so please carry on my friend! If you have some alternate definition for amortization, that is widely accepted, please educate me.

Btw, just for shytes and giggles too, even under a single payer system, co-pays and user fees has been determined to be of benefit to the system to modify utilization. Unless you have economic consequences for all, the vast majority of people in any population that customarily make poor choices with their own money, can be counted on to make even poorer choices with, "the government's money" which I usually refer to as my tax burden.

Carry on BDS, you become more entertaining with each post


----------



## BDS (Jul 8, 2007)

I enjoy enjoying you. 

I am not aware from the posts in this thread that you are for univ health ins. You are not 100% incorrect b/c you don't agree w me, this would be a very dishonest thing to do, so I don't discredit just b/c of disagreement.

If you're for basic, or more, health univ ins, then I'm happy. 

Pls, point to me where is my argumentation poor. I'm really curious. Also, pls show me how utilization (the actual hours a tool is producing product divided by the scheduled production hours for the tool) makes the tool more expensive? On the contrary, if you use it, then you pay for its initial cost, wouldn't you say so? Basic econ, 101. The more bought/used, the less the marginal cost, and so the price to pay for it. In addition, if you don't use it, you still have to pay the headup cost of the facility.

Your turn.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

So there are, depending on where you look, 45 million uninsured people. Why do so many people think that the answer to this problem should involve enrolling 300 million people in a government program, rather than just finding a way to insure, to some degree, the 45 million without insurance?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BDS said:


> I am not aware from the posts in this thread that you are for univ health ins.


Please re-read my last post for comprehension. I specifically mentioned doing a search for *other threads I have posted in on this topic*. Your poor argumentation came in asking me disprove something I never disagreed with in the first place.



BDS said:


> Pls, point to me where is my argumentation poor. I'm really curious.


Read my last sentence above.



BDS said:


> Also, pls show me how utilization (the actual hours a tool is producing product divided by the scheduled production hours for the tool) makes the tool more expensive?


Now maybe I see the problem. Please go research what the term "utilization" means in the nomenclature of health care economics.  You will see you are using the term incorrectly relative to this conversation. Maybe read the link I provided above from a RAND study too?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> So there are, depending on where you look, 45 million uninsured people. Why do so many people think that the answer to this problem should involve enrolling 300 million people in a government program, rather than just finding a way to insure, to some degree, the 45 million without insurance?


HK:

There are many here that will disagree with me on this, but I think basic universal coverage comes under the concept of a public good. Phinn will even disagree with the concept of a public good, so you can see this is a topic with many viewpoints. Also, this is one of those things where I find the theory pretty reasonable, but I am afraid of the implementation. Public education is a great example of this. I believe in the positive externalities of a literate populace, hence the public good in a basic public education system. However, I think the dodgey nature of public education in the US is a telling argument against trying to implement my proposed basic universal coverage.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

BDS said:


> In Europe, Canada, Israel, where being insured is mandatory and the payment for it is taken form the paycheck automatically, you don't see people dying in the streets b/c of this system, on the contrary, you can have the most advanced procedures and checks and operations for peanuts, practically.
> There are problems, but I'd buy them anytime together w the system.


BDS,

Please allow me to complain a bit as well. The UK system (a nationalized health service) is a pig's breakfast and if you don't have private insurance, you are not unlikely to die on some surgery waiting list. In Germany, the system is widely available and freaking efficient. Only problem is that you have to pay 17.5% of your gross salary for it. Any other Europeans with similarly shining examples?

I just don't believe matters are as simple as you suggest. Not with an ageing population in all Western countries.

All the best,
A.


----------



## BDS (Jul 8, 2007)

Note - 'overhead' cost, not 'head up' cost. English is not my first language, so... 
----------------------
OK, so you are for univ health ins. Good. It's unimportant if I missed it, what's imp is that we agree on the basics.

Utilization - Do you really think that such a technicality cannot be overcome and solved? Of course it can be. So, suppose we solved the cost issue, I understand that you and I are on the same side of the barricade, aren't we? All that parts us is cost and form of use issues.

OK, then, if so, then let us provide for the poor and unable the things that as a society we are bound to, in spite of some difficulties. So many such issues are dealt w in this way, why not this one? In the great scheme of things, I really cannot see why not univ ins in the US? There are already so many plans of help for the underprivileged, why not for this one, which by the way already has its state help as in Medicare and Medicaid in two ways: in the plans and in the - unintended - ER visits paid by the plans, ultimately. I think I'm correct in this, right? 

I repeat, the basic q is to provide for the poor UNIVERSALLY, esp when so many are helped already in many plans, from education thru housing and health, even to more afluent groups b/c of overlapping and cooptation.


----------



## BDS (Jul 8, 2007)

Albert: 

Of course matters are not simple, but if you substitute the high tax in Europe and Israel w the high payments, exorbitant really, for adequate care in the US, payments that can cost you your house, your future savings, your job and sometimes your marriage b/c the repercussions in every facet of life of the extremely high health care costs here, then you can see why it's better to pay higher taxes perpetually and so be done w, instead of paying your shirt for one operation. 

One ex: Carpal tunnel - $3000!! Uninsured, yo're stuck w a disability that disables you from working practically anywhere, and I'm talking about a real current story in my place of a woman who is uninsured and cannot find a job b/c of the inability to pay, and the vicious circle goes on and on. 

Is there any excuse for charging 3000 dollars for such a procedure?

The prices here are incredible, just exorbitant, it's usury, really.

$980 for a root canal? Come on, man! $175 for recementing a tooth bridge? A 5 minutes, literally, procedure, my experience. Oh, c'mon, be real.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BDS said:


> Utilization - Do you really think that such a technicality cannot be overcome and solved? Of course it can be.


I could well be mistaken of course, but it would seem to me I have offered several posts to the solution for this problem, which you have repeatedly told me is wrong headed. It seems that the information flow is not working both ways.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

BDS said:


> Is there any excuse for charging 3000 dollars for such a procedure?


Yes there is. To pay your malpractice insurance so that if she has a bad outcome and sues you don't lose everything.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> Yes there is. To pay your malpractice insurance so that if she has a bad outcome and sues you don't lose everything.


Well you see, that is one of the reasons I am theoretically for a basic universal coverage but am afraid of the implementation. Trial attorneys are a huge lobby and would be even more impactful under another Clinton administration. I am about 100% sure any system implemented would be just crammed full of handouts, special interest payouts, etc. Not unlike the original Medicare legislation from circa 1965 where LBJ and Congress bought off hospitals and physicians.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

BDS said:


> Albert:
> 
> Of course matters are not simple, but if you substitute the high tax in Europe and Israel w the high payments, exorbitant really, for adequate care in the US, payments that can cost you your house, your future savings, your job and sometimes your marriage b/c the repercussions in every facet of life of the extremely high health care costs here, then you can see why it's better to pay higher taxes perpetually and so be done w, instead of paying your shirt for one operation.
> 
> ...


BDS,

Similar prices are charged to the German health system, just that everybody has to bear the costs via the mandatory contribution of 17.5% of your gross income. Sometimes you have to top-up with your own money. I think it would make sense to force people into a universal insurance system that covers the really expensive cases, say of more than $5,000 or some other arbitrary but high limit. Those are low-frequency, high risk events where it makes sense to force the "good risks" to act in solidarity with the "bad risks" (i.e. healthy people vs. unhealthy people). That wouldn't be too extreme in terms of mandatory contribution.

Below that, you should IMO give people the freedom to decide how much cover they want. Otherwise, they are all running to the doctors for whatever small little matter or just to have a nice chat and everybody has to pay 17.5% of their gross compensation (which is a complete bloody shame and one of the reasons why I will never work in Germany). In economics, you call this the problem of the common good.

Cheers,
A.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Albert said:


> In economics, you call this the problem of the common good.


But it is all about amortization per our friend Albert!


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> But it is all about amortization per our friend Albert!


Sorry, I do beg your pardon?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Albert said:


> Sorry, I do beg your pardon?


Just a quip based on the argument given us by our friend BDS.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Just a quip based on the argument given us by our friend BDS.


Oh, I see! Always bashing the socialists, eh?


----------



## BDS (Jul 8, 2007)

Wayfarer, we agree in basics but you still quip about technicalities. Tsk, tsk, tsk... 

OK, to recap, for my pure narcissistic perverted pleasure:

Universal health care is accepted in principle by you, and me, also.

Will that be a fair qualification of the current state of affairs?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BDS said:


> Wayfarer, we agree in basics but you still quip about technicalities. Tsk, tsk, tsk...


If my disagreement with your repeated assertion that amortization is the answer to the summary Narticus provided us regarding demand curves and utlization patterns is a "technicality" to be brushed aside, there is little hope for meaningful conversation between us on the topic my friend.



BDS said:


> OK, to recap, for my pure narcissistic perverted pleasure:
> 
> Universal health care is accepted in principle by you, and me, also.
> 
> Will that be a fair qualification of the current state of affairs?


Only on a very gross level. A level so macro, as to render it almost meaningless, from what I have read from you so far.


----------



## BDS (Jul 8, 2007)

What you've read from me so far is quite detailed and based on basic humanism. If you brush it aside as irrelevant, then I'm off from this topic, to which I contributed quite a piece. 

The economic part of it is a mere technicality, something to deal w in the end of the solution, which is Universal Health Care.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

BDS said:


> The economic part of it is a mere technicality, something to deal w in the end of the solution, which is Universal Health Care.


BDS,

I think the question is whether you would consider a universal BASIC health care as a humanist solution as well.

All the best,
A.


----------



## BDS (Jul 8, 2007)

I would, yes, b/c of some limits of budget and facilities and so on, which makes one practical.

I wouldn't know what would be called basic, but it should be, IMO, the possibility to go to any medicinal care w/o fearing the loss of your life savings, or excluding the possibility of not going at all b/c of such fear, which happens. I understand that this elucidation is quite schematic, but I'd say that it quite sums it up.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BDS said:


> What you've read from me so far is quite detailed and based on basic humanism. If you brush it aside as irrelevant, then I'm off from this topic, to which I contributed quite a piece.
> 
> The economic part of it is a mere technicality, something to deal w in the end of the solution, which is Universal Health Care.


Yes, I can see now we are at total loggerheads over this. For me, economics weighs in at least as heavy. My concept for a basic, *BASIC*, universal coverage is economically based, along with the principles of public health.


----------



## BDS (Jul 8, 2007)

I am of the opinion that for such a cause as univ care, which in my mind is humane as socially responsible as well, a sacrifice, in the form of some deficit or subsidy, is totally warranted. Again, there are plenty of exs in this country for such gov behavior, so it would not be the first gov act of its kind in this regard.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BDS said:


> I am of the opinion that for such a cause as univ care, which in my mind is humane as socially responsible as well, a sacrifice, in the form of some deficit or subsidy, is totally warranted. *Again, there are plenty of exs in this country for such gov behavior, so it would not be the first gov act of its kind in this regard.*


Okay, back to the poor argumentation. Just because a government has done something, does this in anyway prove it correct, moral, or ethical? No, the mere act of doing something does not. The US government, for example, has used minority groups as medical experimental subjects, i.e. Tuskeegee. I find that example of a government act to be anything but moral or ethical. So appealing to this in some manner as justification is meaningless.

A sacrifice? Funny how when people talk about this, in regards to social programs, it is always those that work their way to the upper echelons that are expected to bear the brunt of any sacrifice. In fact, it is usually couched as a moral imperative that they are the ones that should sacrifice the most.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

BDS said:


> The socialistic argument is a scare crow that saddly caught w the US average guy b/c of the capitalistic mentality.





BDS said:


> "Socialistic" is a scarecrow that saddly succeeds here even w intelligent people who don't stop to think beyond the immediate.


False.

It is people like YOU who fail to grasp the long-term implications of acquiescing to the gradual encroachment of socialism into all things and the expansion of government power because you expect government (among the least efficient and least altruistic of all human institutions) to coddle you from cradle to grave.

Don't preach to me about how swell socialism is. I'm married to someone who grew up in the GDR under the the thumb of totalitarian socialism. I assure you that she would take umbrage to your suggestion that my concerns are unfounded.


----------



## BDS (Jul 8, 2007)

Roger, I was born in a socialist country, lived in such countries for many years, so don't preach to me about its good and evil face. 

I'm saying that if my solution, and others', too, smacks of socialism, I don't give a damn about it. All I care is the abolition of the shame of tens of millions of uninsured, that's all, a very commendable interest and pursuit.

For any and every problem that reaches beyond the local dimensions, Big Gov solutions are the only relative objective answers. At least you can hold someone accountable. 

The capitalistic corp's show their greed w/o restraint. See, frex, Fla wind ins fiasco and raises and dumpings, see oil prices and profits, see rampant and blind development and consumerism, and so on.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BDS said:


> Roger, I was born in a socialist country, lived in such countries for many years, so don't preach to me about its good and evil face.


I was born and raised in a country with a healthcare system you seem to think is proper, am multi-degreed in health care, made health care my career (in both countries) yet you have no problem preaching to me. Why is that?



BDS said:


> For any and every problem that reaches beyond the local dimensions, Big Gov solutions are the only relative objective answers. At least you can hold someone accountable.


Hold Big Gov. accountable? Now that is a side splitter. The only thing that ever happens is one person gets made a scape goat and the buearucrates carry on.

Here is a question for you BDS: if socialism is so great and the US has so many things wrong, why did you chose to move here? I mean, I would think only a foolish person would move somewhere that they believe has so many things wrong. You do not strike me as foolish so I am puzzled by your recent immigration.


----------



## BDS (Jul 8, 2007)

I'm not preaching to anyone, Wayfarer, only paraphrasing Roger, so... I'm trying to convince, w/o much success, apparently, but time is endless, and I'm sure that my proposed solution will be the prevalent one here, also.

And w this, I'm off this thread, having exhausted my (repeated) argument arsenal. 

Fare thee well!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BDS, do not leave the thread until you answer my question mate! Why move to the US knowing there are so many major things about it you viscerally disagree with?


----------



## BDS (Jul 8, 2007)

Oh, man, this is hard. It's a decision based on very personal reasons, so bear w me for not telling, but every place has its evils and goodies, so US is not an exception. Also, when I decided to come here, I didn't know what I know now. Also, I'm insured and will be for a long time to come, no problem here, I just think it's a gross indecency what happens here in this regard and that people get sideblinded so easily here, contrary to their best interests, and they recite their 'enemies' arguments as if it's litera scripta. Don't know if to laugh or to cry. Undecided, I'm doing them both, hehe.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

BDS said:


> I just think (...) that people get sideblinded so easily here, contrary to their best interests, and they recite their 'enemies' arguments as if it's litera scripta.


BDS,

Maybe it's because they believe in the American Dream, which is essentially based on independence and self-responsibility. Some people just don't trust that nanny knows it best.

Cheers,
A.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> BDS, do not leave the thread until you answer my question mate!


Uh-oh. Never mess about with a Scotsman.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

It's summertime and you know what that means, people are dying in Europe from the heat. Yay for socialized medicine!

https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2134086.ece


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

BDS you are full of crock!! And, Krugman is end to end lying.

Canadian health care is a joke compare the USA. One year the budgeted money ran out about 3 months early, so almost nothing happened until the next year. For years Canadian has been shutting down building after building- nowadays some Canadians have to drive 500 miles just for basic medical, whereas, 30 years ago there were many places for people to go. I have heard of Canadian government promises that they won't shut any more down for years, but they still haven't quit shutting down places. People griped when they had to go 200 miles, when, before they only had to go 30, and then a few years later 200 became 500, now I think it is further. Some people have to wait three years for some medical care, so they come across the border and get the same care in 2 - 3 months. There is no way I want Canadian health care for me. Like anything else- socialism is only good up to a point, and then it becomes the enemy. I value my Freedom.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Wayfarer, please explain why the VA is an example of socialism? Post military service care has a history largely started by a brave woman on the Crimea battlefield. It is a social contract, payment seldom fully rendered for services provided. From my personal perspective, it is anything but socialism, more like good old capitalist theft from the worker.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Kav said:


> Wayfarer, please explain why the VA is an example of socialism? Post military service care has a history largely started by a brave woman on the Crimea battlefield. It is a *social contract,* payment seldom fully rendered for services provided. From my personal perspective, it is anything but socialism, more like good old capitalist theft from the worker.


Kav:

I thought it would have been self-evident, definitioningly speaking.



> The term socialism is often used to refer to an economic system characterized by state ownership of the means of production and distribution.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Socialism_as_an_economic_system

The US government owns and operates the VA system, workers are employees of the government. QED my friend. Did you know also, I cannot work for the VA system? One must be a citizen.

Do not get your panties in a knot, the VA is one encapsulated socialist medical system that I do not think any of us disagree with. Also though, you yourself mention social contract theory. Rawls of course revitalized it in the mid-20th century with his "veil of ignorance" concept, but he also used it to justify socialism I do believe, or at least socialist democracy. You yourself then have acknowledged this about the VA system.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

Kav said:


> Wayfarer, please explain why the VA is an example of socialism? Post military service care has a history largely started by a brave woman on the Crimea battlefield. It is a social contract, payment seldom fully rendered for services provided. From my personal perspective, it is anything but socialism, more like good old capitalist theft from the worker.


The idea behind the VA isn't socialism but the way it has been implemented is. Stand alone hospitals administrated by the government which veterans must go to to reap thier benefits. The result is lackluster care compared to the private sector. Many veteran's choices are poor care, no care, or expensive private sector care.

A capitalist alternative would be if the fed.gov provided an insurance card to veterans which could be used at any regular ole hospital. Vets get thier free health care, the government gets out of the health care business and let the experts handle it, and market forces and competition between hospitals vying for all this federal money will produce better care versus Walter Reed.


----------



## Beefeater (Jun 2, 2007)

Skimmed this thread somewhat. . . . I am inclined to agree with BDS in principle but I didn't post to argue. 

Just a case in point: I went to PrimaCare today for an ongoing respiratory illness (regular Doc couldn't fit me in the schedule). I have insurance but was amazed to listen to the 4 people that came up behind me stating that they had none and put down the credit cards and paid 5 times what I paid (just a copay). I wonder how long it'll take for them to pay the credit cards off without paying interest on the healthcare they received . . .


----------



## Gradstudent78 (May 7, 2003)

crazyquik said:


> It's summertime and you know what that means, people are dying in Europe from the heat. Yay for socialized medicine!
> 
> https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2134086.ece


I doubt this had anything to do with having socialized medicine. Plenty of people in US die every year from the heat.

https://0-www.cdc.gov.mill1.sjlibrary.org/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5529a2.htm


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Beefeater said:


> Skimmed this thread somewhat. . . . I am inclined to agree with BDS in principle but I didn't post to argue.
> 
> Just a case in point: I went to PrimaCare today for an ongoing respiratory illness (regular Doc couldn't fit me in the schedule). I have insurance but was amazed to listen to the 4 people that came up behind me stating that they had none and put down the credit cards and paid 5 times what I paid (just a copay). I wonder how long it'll take for them to pay the credit cards off without paying interest on the healthcare they received . . .


Yeah, perfect justification for socialized medicine.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Gradstudent78 said:


> I doubt this had anything to do with having socialized medicine. Plenty of people in US die every year from the heat.
> 
> https://0-www.cdc.gov.mill1.sjlibrary.org/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5529a2.htm


People die everywhere from the results of the heat, no two ways about that. I do believe the point though, was to French hospitals turning away the victims of heat induced dehydration by the hundreds in the recent past.


----------

