Gillespie

Additionally, if a universal healthcare system is having trouble in a country with 33 million residents (Canada), how would a country with 300 million (United States) possibly make it work?

In any case, I fail to see how paying health insurance yearly for healthcare differs from the government taking money from your yearly income tax to pay for healthcare. In the latter system, those that can't afford to pay recieve healthcare, but someone's still footing the bill. The less that pay, the higher the amount of money gets taken from those that CAN pay.

America has a large amount of slackers. Look at the welfare system. ;P

Kerostasis

Yes, I notice a trend. The trend is people complaining about insurance companies, not health care providers. Tell me again, which system exactly are you claiming is broken?

I think Health Insurance is pretty messed up here too, but Health Care Providers are doing an excellent job (in most places...there are always exceptions).

__________________

Ferris Bueller

Ok, time for another long winded rant.

To start off, Pistos, I agree with you ten thousand percent. A governing body with impeccable integrity and unimpeachable morals is a pipe dream. The federal reserve? They dont govern anything. They make the money. Everything they do is overseen by the Department of the Treasury, who are riddled with problems. As for the supreme court, let's ask the majority of americans about some of the questionable decisions the supreme court makes. Lets also take a look at some of the scandals that supreme court justices have been involved in in fairly recent history. Then let's decide just how impeccable their integrity is.

Our federal government is riddled with corruption, self-service and payoffs. We all know this. But the problems run so deep, theres no way of just going in and cleaning house anymore. If a new department were to be created for nationalized healthcare, it would be staffed by some of the same corrupt bureaucrats we already have in power. So tell me how much you'd like to see that ball get rolling.

Also, yes, the cost of medical care in the US is higher than canada, but what that statistic doesnt tell you is that the average consumer in the united states has an 87.4% approval rating of their medical care, while that same statistic in canada is 41.6%. Thats less than half of the people that go in for medical care coming out satisfied. Personally, I'd like to pay a little more to make sure i'm feeling well when I come out of the hospital.

Hambergler, I have to disagree with some of your points. First off, there IS a shortage of doctors and nurses. A HUGE ONE. In the united states, there is an average of one doctor per 610 people and one nurse (RN level) per 394. Sure, that fits the bill now since not everyone gets sick or hurt at the same time, but what happens if theres an epidemic outbreak like the Spanish Influenza of the 1920s that killed thousands and thousands of people? I'm talking hospitals so overcrowded that theres no space to move in the hallways. How about a nuclear disaster in a major metropolitan area like new york city? You think NYC has enough doctors and nurses to treat 16 million crisis victims? Everyone thinks in terms of small bananas, but you have to examine the what-if's as well.

Capping salaries will simply drive more people away from the field. Sure, it's nice to say that theres all of these super-magnanimous doctors and nurses who wouldnt care because theyre not in it for the money. There are a few. But it's still a job. People still need to eat, people still have ambitions, and what happens to those people when you tell them that theyre never going to even have the opportunity to make more than X amount, no matter how hard they work or how high their standing is in the field (especially when that X amount is far less than what people were making 5 years ago when salaries werent capped)? People dont deal well with stagnation. They will avoid it at all costs.

Healthcare premiums, by the way, are NOT the same as taxes. Taxes are required to be paid by law. If I dont want to pay my healthcare premiums, I call Humana and tell them to cancel my policy. No penalty, no fee, no lawyers involved, no wage garnishment, no jailtime for evasion. It's just cut off. Healthcare IS a luxury. Eating IS a luxury. Housing IS a luxury. Anything in this world that you pay for is a luxury, simply because you had to PAY for it. It didnt come free. It doesnt come free anywhere, dont ever let anyone delude you into thinking otherwise. A socialist healthcare system isnt free. You pay out the wazoo for it. The difference is that the government yanks the money out of your paycheck instead of you writing a check to a private company every month.

Also, its relatively rough to compare statistics such as life expectancies of canadians vs americans. You cant really do that anywhere. There are too many mitigating factors involved. Population, being a big one at the rate of US: 301,139,947 vs canada: 33,390,141 (july 2007 estimates). Thats 10x the people with 10x the bad habits, 10x the accident risk, 10x the damage risk, 10x the disease risk. Theres also genetics. How about the fact that the people of Azerbaijan seem to have a statistically longer life expectancy than anywhere else on earth despite the harsh climate and third-world status? 3 of the last 5 oldest people on record according to Guinness have come from there. How do they test your genetics when they take the logevity statistics? My family has a long life expectancy. My great grandparents all lived to be 100+. My 2 remaining grandparents are upwards of 90 now (the other two were both killed by outside forces. one by a drunk driver, one by cancer). My parents are pushing 60 and both in the pinnacle of health. But my family has a history of heart problems, emphysema in smokers, diabetes, and cancer. So where does that stack me up risk wise vs the reality of longevity in my family? Theres too many circumstances to take a longevity statistic seriously.

Yes, our system is broken. Yes, theres a lot of people who dont have healthcare. Yes, theres other countries who have solved their problem through nationalized healthcare. But you have to be REALISTIC about this folks. The realism isnt in the ideology of it. There is no way to convert the US to a nationalized healthcare system without throwing out our government and our laws and starting over. How many of the insurance companies would agree with just shutting down and losing BILLIONS? How many of the privately owned hospitals would do the same? How many doctors and nurses would quit their jobs when they found out their pay was being cut to a fraction of what they make now? It cant happen. The lawsuits alone would bankrupt our government and the courts would HAVE to back the plaintiffs based on the laws we have in place now. We live in a capitalist society in the US. That means that we're driven primarily by money. As such, we suffer the slings and arrows of high cost. Theres no way around that and it cant be fixed without an overhaul which would plunge our society into complete chaos.

So of course the dollar has more influence than people's health does. The dollar has more influence than ANYTHING. Get me a million good, solid, religious, ethical people lined up and I can give you a solid guarantee that I can find 10,000 of them that would be more than willing to throw their morals out the window and kill someone for a price. Probably a much higher number. Hell, there'd probably even be some people who would do it for just a couple bucks! Money is a motivator. But it's also the reason why the US has the best hospitals, best equipment, specialty centers and research institutions in the world. So yeah, it has more influence, but it's importance is simply that of a tool to get the job done. Without that money which people so love to decry, there would be no healthcare, there would be no medical equipment, there would be no nice hospitals, we wouldnt make advances in medicine that allow us to save lives.

So yes, the system is absolutely broken because the people running it are broken. We cant get rid of those people because they train the future generations of people in-charge to be just like them. Gillespie is exactly right when he said that charity work is the only altruistic healthcare. Otherwise, it's just a matter of who takes your money and how they do it.

Health insurance in the US is completely optional. I task any of you to go to a major employer where lower-income people would work, like a restaurant chain. Say Darden, for example, who own Olive Garden, Smokey Bones, Red Lobster and a slew of other restaurants. Ask them how many of their lower-income employees, like servers and dishwashers choose to opt-out of the health insurance they are offered through the company. The numbers would ASTOUND you. It doesnt cost much. One of my best friends works as a server for olive garden, and thus Darden, and has their insurance. It costs her $12 out of each paycheck on average. She just had a baby and her medical insurance paid for all but around $1300 of the costs during the whole pregnancy and postpartum care. Not to mention that she got paid disability leave while she couldnt work, all courtesy of the company! So you have to ask yourself why anyone with lower income who has a cheap option like that to make sure that they're taken care of would turn it down? Is it perhaps because they feel like they are better served by spending that $24 a month on mc donalds? Maybe a new pair of shoes? How about going to the movies? Are those good excuses?

Expanding on this, people have brought up losing their job and subsequently, their insurance. Again, this is a matter of responsibility. If you lose your job due to layoffs, the federal government requires that your former employer extend benefits for a small amount of time. In that time, you have to be responsible enough to seek out new employment and new insurance. There are ways. Let me tell you, if i had a good job that I got laid off from and my family needed medical coverage, I'd work ANY job I could to cover the cost of private medical insurance, no matter how crappy, until I found a better job that took care of it. On the other hand, if you get fired, then you cant blame anyone but yourself. You dont get fired for no reason. You pissed someone off or didnt show up or didnt perform your job up to par. So thats a matter of you not being responsible enough to keep your own job.

As I said, Americans, on the whole, are incapable of being responsible and setting their priorities straight. I read in an earlier post where someone said that some people cant afford to spend that $40 a year for an annual checkup at the doc. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! It's 40 freaking dollars! Sure, maybe if you only make 80 dollars a year and it's half of your money, but for anyone else, theres no realistic excuse! How many of you can honestly say that theres a reasonable excuse for trading your LIFE for 40 dollars? It's not a matter of not being able to afford it, its a matter of being too stupid to make the right decision. The bigger problem is the stupid people who cant put their own health first and complain about not having health insurance either dont try to get it or make other excuses why. Then they get other people to believe that hogwash and make arguments in their defense.

Someone said earlier that theres a lot of things you cant go to the ER for. In some cases thats right. You cant go to the ER to have cancer treated. You cant go to have emphysema treated. You cant go for anything that requires long-term care. But having worked in the ER, I've seen people come in with runny noses to be treated. I've seen parents bring in their kids who fell off their bike and scraped their knee. I've treated stubbed toes. I've treated the common cold. You can come in to the ER and recieve care for almost anything. To go along with this, as was pointed out earlier, treatment in the ER is required by law, regardless of whether or not you can pay. It might not be fun, but you're going to get patched up. Now, i'm not recommending that this is the standard course of action that people should take, but there is an option there. Theres also free clinics. Theres also jobs who provide free healthcare. Theres also jobs that provide cheap healthcare. Theres private companies that provide insurance. It's a matter of being responsible enough to SEEK IT OUT, rather than sitting around complaining because it doesnt come to you.

We have developed a lazy and irresponsible society who are so set in that way that all we do is try and find a scapegoat for our problems. The real problem is us. We have to learn that you have to take your problems into your own hands and solve them when the time requires it. If this means sacrificing your new Nike's so you can afford to go to the doctor (should you need to), isnt it the right thing to do? On paper, people say yes, but when faced with the actual decision, people are too impulsive to go the right way. We lack self control and with that the ability to think smartly, so we blame the system and say that we need the government to take over and do it for us. Does anyone else see a problem in that? Does anyone else see a problem with our incessant need to have our hand held because we're too lazy to do things ourselves? I sure as hell do.

__________________
|TG-6th|Ferris Bueller

tHa_KhAn

I have not seen this movie yet, but I've read many of the reviews and summaries. While I don't agree with much of Moore's views, I do respect that he can make an excellent film(even if most are very twisted truths).

The thing that stands out to me in all of this is simple. Why would people in a better place(Cuba), be willing to risk death to come here? I live in Florida so I check the news enough to see "Coast Guard rescues refugees...." all the time.

France just elected a president who hopes to reduce social benefits. France also has higher unemployment which i think is a direct product of socialized services.

Do I think the US needs some changes in health care? Yes. Do I think socialized medicine is the way to go? No. A lot of our health care problems stem from a law suit happy(Get Rich Quick) populace.

__________________

BigGaayAl

That specific argument doesn't stand scrutiny imo. You can't infer that something in the US is better or worse, judging on how many refugees come over.
I spent some time in Senegal, where every day a boat leaves for the close by Canary Islands. Many of these people die on this 80km trip through the open ocean, in wooden river boats.
You would think that there is a lot to gain for them to try this lethal crossing. Yet there is not. They will be sent back when they are picked up by the Spaniards, or they can live as an illegal for many years to come, and reurn poorer then they were.

The simple fact of the matter is, they are fooled by all the commercials they too see on tv, all the celebs, all the stars. They do have internet, they do see all this. Yet they have no idea of the difficulties our society. They think they can just fool the authorities by throwing away their papers. They think they will get a good job. They don't have a clue of what it costs to build/hire a house. They haven't even realized something like "heating" is needed in a European house. I could go on. Sure some get rich, but that is such an incredibly small percent it's like winning the lottery.

Well to sum it up, I think that argument is totally false. Just because some Cubans think they might get rich, doesn't say anything about the quality of life in Cuba vs the US.

__________________
Support your right to arm bears. ~Cleveland Amory

I am a kind of paranoiac in reverse. I suspect people of plotting to make me happy. ~J.D. Salinger

tHa_KhAn

Then why not after a month or so go back? Are you saying the pro-america advertising is so amazing as to overshadow the obvious? Advertising of that kind can only work if there is a promise of something much better. If it is so good, then the advertising would not work. The argument is completely valid considering if the individual is not legal could be deported not needing to risk a wooden boat, assuming they find it worse here.

Most of the cubans I know are second or third generation. So it was their parents or grandparents that came over. Zero percent mention going back for more than visiting family. Again, those are just the Cubans I personally know.

__________________

Gillespie

I see the point you're trying to make, but better healthcare is not the sole reason for the exodus of Cuban refugees to Florida.

As an aside, I still remember the days of Rick Sanchez and Channel 7 news. They were set in Miami, and as such catered to the Cuban population there with bombastic, overly-dramatic "news reports" every single time the Coast Guard picked up another boatload of refugees (if any newscast was a blueprint for today's "news entertainment" that blinds you with flashy graphics and deafens you with the newcaster's breathless reporting, it was Channel 7 news on Fox). Elian Gonzalez was a HUGE deal down there, if you recall that stupidity.

Anyway, someone commandeer this ship and get it back on course.

MoreGooder

OK, try this link. Here's a list of folks complaining about American Health Care. There are several big buttons across the top. Even one for International health care.

http://www.sicko-movie.com/4/american-health-care/

People.... When did this become a bash MoreGooder and all of his thoughts thread?

How bout a change of tone. Starting with me. Let's get constructive.
And, who are we trying to convince? Each other? That will get us nowhere fast. Status quo will surely be guaranteed. We're a big community. We have a voice, and should use it.

How 'bout a TG community poll? Would anyone like to tackle the poll catagories, and start the thread?

__________________


Sometimes I feel like 2/3'rds Rice Krispies. Past "Snap" and "Crackle" but just shy of "Pop"!

MoreGooder

Here is a fact check page for many of Moore's claims:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/checkup/

Regarding the Canadian system:

**snip**

SiCKO: Canadian "wait times" not nearly as long as some try to allege.

According to Statistics Canada, the official government statistical agency, "In 2005, the median waiting time was about 4 weeks for specialist visits, 4 weeks for non-emergency surgery, and 3 weeks for diagnostic tests. Nationally, median waiting times remained stable between 2003 and 2005 - but there were some differences at the provincial level for selected specialized services.… 70 to 80 percent of Canadians find their waiting times acceptable" "Access to health care services in Canada, Waiting times for specialized services (January to December 2005)," Statistics Canada, http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepu...75-XIE/82-575-
XIE2006002.htm

A recent study of emergency care in Ontario found that overall, "50% of patients triaged as CTAS I [most acute] were seen by a physician within 6 minutes and 86% were seen within 30 minutes of arriving at the [Emergency Department]. In contrast, the 50% of patients triaged as CTAS IV or V who were seen most quickly waited an hour or less, while 1 in 10 waited three hours or more. Understanding Emergency Department Wait Times: How Long Do People Spend in Emergency Departments in Ontario? Canadian Institute for Health Information, January 2007.
http://www.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage...._page=reports_
wait_times_bulletins_e

"Gerard Anderson, a Johns Hopkins health policy professor who has spent his career examining the world's healthcare, said there are delays, but not as many as conservatives state. In Canada, the United Kingdom and France, 'three percent of hospital discharges had delays in treatment,' Anderson told The Miami Herald. 'That's a relatively small number, and they're all elective surgeries, such as hip and knee replacement.' John Dorschner, "'Sicko' film is set to spark debate; Reformers are gearing up for 'Sicko,' the first major movie to examine America's often maligned healthcare system," Miami Herald, June 29, 2007.

**snip**

And, from WHO:

**snip**

SiCKO: The United States is ranked #37 as a health system by the World Health Organization.

"The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds." "World Health Organization Assesses The World's Health Systems," Press Release, WHO/44, June 21, 2000. http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-44.html

**snip**

37th. Why?

__________________


Sometimes I feel like 2/3'rds Rice Krispies. Past "Snap" and "Crackle" but just shy of "Pop"!

Gillespie

And France is ranked #1, the United Kingdom is ranked #18, and Canada is ranked #30, according to that 8 year old report.

(source: http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html)

Why? I dunno. World Health Organization's criteria for selection are reportedly spotty, anyway.

Take a look at: http://society.guardian.co.uk/nhsper...085249,00.html

The World Health Organization factored in such unavoidable things as smoking and diet habits, accidents, and suicides. In that article, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine took those things out of the equation and came up with a new list, published in the British Medical Journal.

Sweden
Norway
Australia
Canada
France
Germany
Spain
Finland
Italy
Denmark
Netherlands
Greece
Japan
Austria
New Zealand
United States
Ireland
United Kingdom
Portugal

- The U.S. went from 37th to 16th, and Canada went from 30th to 4th.

It bears to consider that the United States is also the world's fourth largest country in terms of population (298,212,900 mil). The top three from first to third are the People's Republic of China (1,315,844,000 bill), India (1,103,371,000 bill), and - unfairly, in my opinion - the European Union (494,070,000 mil, but comprised of 27 separate countries which each have their own respective healthcare system).

The country that comes closest to our population on the new list from that news article would be Japan, standing at 128,084,700 million and ranked at #13.

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lation_density)

So keeping in mind our population of 300 million residents, and taking into account all deaths (whether preventable or not, according to the WHO's reasoning), being ranked 37th in the world is acceptable in my eyes.

I think SiCKO should have concentrated on illuminating America's health insurance industry rather than lumping the health care system into it. The services provided by the health care system are wonderful, but the faceless monolith of the U.S. health insurance industry sometimes squashes the consumer in order to retain profits and keep the premiums low.

Gillespie

May I add that this is a truly wonderful discussion/debate we're having?

Gillespie

Certainly hope not. I'm sure not personally bashing you.

deathknight

Every system has its problems. Universal healthcare would be a problem because the government would regulate it. But then, they could perhaps rein in some of the horrible issues that plague Americans. It's not all insurance companies. It's not all health care providers. It's not all the fault of the pharmaceutical companies. It's a combination of problems from all 3. I have no doubt about the dedication of the people who work hard in the hospital such as RNs, Drs, technicians, etc. I also have no doubt about the fact my insurance company was billed $10,000 for one unit of blood when my daugher was diagnosed with AML last year. Or that they were billed $15,000 for lab test. Or in all they were billed over $70,000 for less than 24 hours of health care. The system is broken and needs fixed. If UHC will do that, I'm for it. If it can be fixed without it, all the better. But from what I've heard, some firsthand and others second-hand, health care in places like France, England, Canada, etc is far better than here. And that's because they don't have to deal with as much red-tape. No system is perfect and I am sure there are people who do not like the systems in those countries.

MoreGooder

Yeah, I'm starting to come to that conclusion too. But, how do we force reform within the insurance industry if not through government intervention?

__________________


Sometimes I feel like 2/3'rds Rice Krispies. Past "Snap" and "Crackle" but just shy of "Pop"!

Gillespie

Well said.