[Rumor]

MichaelMoore.com : SICKO

The next documentary from Moore focuses on the failing healthcare system in the US. It will be interesting if any changes are made from it, like the small changes due to Bowling.

I'm going to reserve judgement on it until it is released later this month.

[peeb]

The film, yes, but my mind is made up about the US health care 'system'.

[King Bob On The Cob]

How would you suggest we fix the US healthcare system without harming our level of care?
(We have some of the best cancer survival rates on the planet).

[peeb]

Have you read Tim Harford's thoughts on this? I agree it's great if you have great insurance, it sucks if you don't, and has virtually no public health component.

Basically, the idea is that you take the average amount of the cost of health care per person per year, let's say this is 3000 per person per year.

Then you give people a tax-free savings vehicle to put money into that can only be spent on health (writ large, so gym membership etc counts).

So most people, most of the time, use their own money to buy health care, so they shop around, and health care becomes more competitive because people demand good value and are spending their money, not insurance.

Then, people buy insurance against their accounts being inadequate (basically catastrophic illness). So insurance is cheaper, because most people will not make claims (you would only make a claim if your account was empty).

For low income, the state gives a tax credit into the fund, or maybe capitalises it.

[OldManMac]

I'm going to see it, as I've read some good reviews, and, being without insurance, this topic is interesting to me. Basically, however, I'm amazed that, as the world's largest power, we have one of the most screwed up health systems of any "civilized" country, and that we spend much more per capita than many countries that give better care to all of their citizens. It is also interesting that our life span is also decreasing, and we're no longer near the top.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Countries like the US, India, China, anywhere where population numbers have climbed too high, aren't going to be able to offer a national health service of the same quality that a smaller nation can provide. They have to have a public-private partnership. Until know Democrats and Republicans have wrung their hands too much and not been serious about reform.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is working on a great new proposal to have every Californian insured for healthcare. He is in talks with all the insurance companies and is persuading them to stop discriminating against people from certain wage brackets or social backgrounds. If Schwarzenegger's reforms are successful other states will also reform.

As for Sicko, Michael Moore's depiction of the British NHS is so utopian and far from the truth that it does ironically make for sicko viewing. Michael Moore is a person who likes to use other people's suffering to get lots of attention for his obese self and to earn a quick buck out of.

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

Countries like the US, India, China, anywhere where population numbers have climbed too high, aren't going to be able to offer a national health service of the same quality that a smaller nation can provide. They have to have a public-private partnership.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is working on a great new proposal to have every Californian insured for healthcare. He is in talks with all the insurance companies and is persuading them to stop discriminating against people from certain wage brackets or social backgrounds.

As for Sicko, Michael Moore's depiction of the British NHS is so utopian and far from the truth that it does ironically make for sicko viewing.

Having insurance is all nice and dandy, until they deny your claim.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

Having insurance is all nice and dandy, until they deny your claim.

That's part of the reform package, that no person be denied. We don't know the specifics yet, but when you look at the business side of this idea it makes sense for insurance companies to be involved at such a wide level because the majority of insured people don't make claims. The companies make their profit, everyone has insurance and can get healthcare if they need it, and government is eased of a burden.

As for being denied, even a national heath service doctor can deny you treatment (and they do). In many cases treatment will take a long time and can be poor. Try getting injured on a Friday night in the UK and you'll find yourself waiting for hours to see a doctor as they have to deal with one drunk after another with minor or no problems. Even worse are immigrants who go to hospital for relatively minor problems, like stomach ache because they eat too much spicy food, and are unable to understand what the doctor is saying (don't eat spicy food). The UK's national health service is slow, cumbersome, poor and on the verge of bankrupcy. Michael Moore presents it in a completely opposite light where you go there, are given high quality service quickly, and can withdraw welfare cash from the hospital like it's all yours for the taking.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

As for Sicko, Michael Moore's depiction of the British NHS is so utopian and far from the truth that it does ironically make for sicko viewing. Michael Moore is a person who likes to use other people's suffering to get lots of attention for his obese self and to earn a quick buck out of.

Have you seen Sicko?

It might also interest you that Moore financially helped one of his adversaries. Why Michael Moore Helped Save Enemy Site - Newsweek Entertainment - MSNBC.com

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Have you seen Sicko?

I've seen two segments including the one on the UK NHS, which bears little resemblance to reality.

It might also interest you that Moore financially helped one of his adversaries. Why Michael Moore Helped Save Enemy Site - Newsweek Entertainment - MSNBC.com

Good publicity for the both of them.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

As for Sicko, Michael Moore's depiction of the British NHS is so utopian and far from the truth that it does ironically make for sicko viewing. Michael Moore is a person who likes to use other people's suffering to get lots of attention for his obese self and to earn a quick buck out of.

I wondered how long it would take someone to bash the source without seeing the film.

Good job! You just showed how biased and unresponsive to external stimulation you are.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

I wondered how long it would take someone to bash the source without seeing the film.

I. watched. two. whole. segments. including. the. part. on. the. UK. NHS.

I mean, the NHS can and does refuse patients you know... Daily Express: The World's Greatest Newspaper :: News / Showbiz :: NHS refused to pay to save widow's sight

Also, there have been cases of women who have had breast implants done on the NHS, claiming that having a flat chest made them feel "insecure". They went on to become pornstars. You might argue that is great, but a system that is bogged down by a large number of unnecassary requests for treatment while people who need urgent operations have to wait months for help isn't what Michael Moore depicts on film.

[greenG4]

The main problem is cost: Patient with no health insurance gets seen and can't pay > cost gets passed on to those WITH health insurance > premiums rise >fewer people can afford health insurance >repeat. Another factor to inreased cost is poor preventative medicine. This is the patient's fault for not getting annual checkups.

1. Mandate health insurance just like car insurance (just wait, I'm not done yet)
2. New Law: All health insurance companies must charge a flat rate and cannot deny coverage based on previous health problems, with the possible exception of poor lifestyle choices (sorry, smokers)
3. You must have annual physical health accessments or you lose health insurance coverage
4. Everyone now has health insurance. Get rid of medicare and medicaid.
5. Profit.

Edit: This idea is patent-pending.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

1. Mandate health insurance just like car insurance (just wait, I'm not done yet)
2. New Law: All health insurance companies must charge a flat rate and cannot deny coverage based on previous health problems, with the possible exception of poor lifestyle choices (sorry, smokers)
3. You must have annual physical health accessments or you lose health insurance coverage
4. Everyone now has health insurance. Get rid of medicare and medicaid.
5. Profit.

That's exactly the direction Schwarzenegger's reform is taking (notice all the laws popping up that ban smoking in developed countries) and as a smoker I agree with it all. The US government should also follow the UK's example of heavier taxation on packets of cigarettes to encourage people to quit.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

The US government should also follow the UK's example of heavier taxation on packets of cigarettes to encourage people to quit.

My neighboring state just passed this tax increase on cigarettes. I'm not wild on the "Universal Healhcare" idea that follows, though.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=60770

[brokenjago]

UK's example of heavier taxation on packets of cigarettes to encourage people to quit.

Don't forget the HUGE BLACK labels that tell you the horibble things that happen to smokers!

[peeb]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

My neighboring state just passed this tax increase on cigarettes. I'm not wild on the "Universal Healhcare" idea that follows, though.

I'm guessing that's because you have healthcare.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

My neighboring state just passed this tax increase on cigarettes. I'm not wild on the "Universal Healhcare" idea that follows, though.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=60770

If they think they can raise $150 million a year there's no reason they can't spend it on healthcare for those who can't afford insurance. That's the way it has to be until insurance reform.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

If they think they can raise $150 million a year there's no reason they can't spend it on healthcare for those who can't afford insurance. That's the way it has to be until insurance reform.

Agreed. But, that doesn't mean I have to like it.

[macintologist]

The reason our healthcare system is so inefficient is because of government involvement and regulation.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

The reason our healthcare system is so inefficient is because of government involvement and regulation.

I do not agree. I work in healthcare. That's a gross oversimplification. There must be government regulation of a lot of what we do for the safety of our customers (patients). Some things in the health industry could be deregulated, but much of it is needed.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

Agreed. But, that doesn't mean I have to like it.

If it's coming from tax on tobacco products and you're a non-smoker then it's not coming out of your pocket. Smokers voluntarily pay tax on their habit to improve the health of others whose air is being polluted by cigarettes.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

The reason our healthcare system is so inefficient is because of government involvement and regulation.

Michael Moore and the old socialist tinpot Tony Benn who he interviews argue in favor of government involvement and regulation. That's what a national health service is.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

Michael Moore and the old socialist tinpot Tony Benn who he interviews argue in favor of government involvement and regulation. That's what a national health service is.

There is a difference between regulation and control. The socialists argure for total government control. Conservatives argue for control by the private sector whoch is simply reiquired to folow applicable laws.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

There is a difference between regulation and control. The socialists argure for total government control. Conservatives argue for control by the private sector whoch is simply reiquired to folow applicable laws.

I was addressing the other guy for believing there was too much regulation when there isn't (regulation would enable the laws needed for reform), but please don't make healthcare reform a Conservative issue. Many Liberals are in favor of private sector healthcare reform. (and let's all not forget that Liberalism must never be equated with Socialism).

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

I was addressing the other guy,

Oh.

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

but please don't make healthcare reform a Conservative issue.

Most certainly not. The divisiveness comes from the method of reform. I think everyone knows we need something

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

Many Liberals are in favor of private sector healthcare reform. (and let's all not forget that Liberalism must never be equated with Socialism).

That's why I chose "socialism" and not "liberalism". I think we're on the same page here.

[peeb]

Out of interest, why do you think that government involvement in healthcare insurance is a bad thing? There are certain sectors where the government steps in to provide essential infrastructure, for example, roads. Do you favor privatizing all roads?

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Out of interest, why do you think that government involvement in healthcare insurance is a bad thing? There are certain sectors where the government steps in to provide essential infrastructure, for example, roads. Do you favor privatizing all roads?

This really is a poor comparison. The government is not building roads. Private companies are. Albeit, financed by tax dollars. Now, do you really want your healthcare to be determined by the lowest bidder?

[peeb]

Right, they subcontract, but the government decides where the roads will go, and pays for them. No, of course I don't want my healthcare determined by the lowest bidder, but then, neither is road construction decided solely that way.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Right, they subcontract, but the government decides where the roads will go, and pays for them.

Nor do I want the government telling where I can get my healthcare. And it would happen.

[peeb]

Right, but you are happy to let the government decide where to put roads, and how many to build, and where? I wonder why there is such a difference for you?

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Right, but you are happy to let the government decide where to put roads, and how many to build, and where? I wonder why there is such a difference for you?

Governments and councils rely on private consultancy companies, utility companies, independent analysts, businesses, consumer groups, environmental groups, property owners and landlording corporations to decide where to put roads and what to do on other renovation projects.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

How would you suggest we fix the US healthcare system without harming our level of care?
(We have some of the best cancer survival rates on the planet).

We also have some of the highest infant mortality rates in the industrialized world. Hmmm, I wonder how we might explain the discrepancy? One is the result of basic health practices and consistent care, while the other is based on the "system" shelling out bucks for expensive treatments developed by really huge pharmaceutical companies. I wonder what this might say about our "system?"

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

We also have some of the highest infant mortality rates in the industrialized world. Hmmm, I wonder how we might explain the discrepancy?

The US has the highest population size of all industrialised countries. As soon as we start talking about large population sizes then the figures for everything you can imagine go up, good and bad.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

We also have some of the highest infant mortality rates in the industrialized world.

http://www.geographyiq.com/ranking/r..._Rate_aall.htm

I would hardly call this one of the highest.

[OldManMac]

It's certainly not one of the highest by any measure, but it's nothing to brag about either, considering the resources we have available.

[peeb]

I have not seen a coherent response to why government involvement in health care is thought to be a bad thing by some in the US, especially when they have so much government involvement in so many areas.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I have not seen a coherent response to why government involvement in health care is thought to be a bad thing by some in the US, especially when they have so much government involvement in so many areas.

How many areas can you point to where the government handles something cheaper and more efficient than the private sector? The arguement really rests with you, and I haven't seen why you think our big inefficient government would handle healthcare so well.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

How many areas can you point to where the government handles something cheaper and more efficient than the private sector? The arguement really rests with you, and I haven't seen why you think our big inefficient government would handle healthcare so well.

It's hard to tell, because there are so few pure comparisons, but the UK for example, has much cheaper health care than the US, and outcomes that are comparable (it's not possible to make direct comparisons, because there are so many factors that are different, but both are similarly advanced economies with modern healthcare).
My more general point, is why are you happy to allow the government to have a monopoly on roads, for example, another crucial item of infrastructure? Why is there no outcry at government control of these? Surely the private sector could deal with this more efficiently?
Well, of course not. The fact is that there are many core areas where the market fails us. Roads, railways, healthcare and power are all good examples of areas that require either full government involvement, or heavy regulation to work effectively.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by peeb 

My more general point, is why are you happy to allow the government to have a monopoly on roads, for example, another crucial item of infrastructure? Why is there no outcry at government control of these? Surely the private sector could deal with this more efficiently?Well, of course not. The fact is that there are many core areas where the market fails us. Roads, railways, healthcare and power are all good examples of areas that require either full government involvement, or heavy regulation to work effectively.

Okay, I think I understand your question, but again this is a poor comparison. Imagine if private corporations were allowed to build roads wherever they wanted. Can you imagine the chaos that would result? Clearly this is one areas where the government must have oversight and control to prevent a much bigger mess than any that exists now. I simply don't see that in health care. There obviously needs to be improvement, but I think the private sector can accomplish that improvment with only minimal government involvement. Simply put, I think the government should only have complete control when it imposible for the private sector (including non-profits) to effectively accomplish the goal.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

Okay, I think I understand your question, but again this is a poor comparison. Imagine if private corporations were allowed to build roads wherever they wanted. Can you imagine the chaos that would result? Clearly this is one areas where the government must have oversight and control to prevent a much bigger mess than any that exists now. I simply don't see that in health care. There obviously needs to be improvement, but I think the private sector can accomplish that improvment with only minimal government involvement. Simply put, I think the government should only have complete control when it imposible for the private sector (including non-profits) to effectively accomplish the goal.

So we agree, in principle, that some areas need more government involvement than others. And we agree that the private sector is doing a pretty poor job in the US right now. So the only area of disagreement is the degree to which government involvement is necessary?

[peeb]

So what do you want to see?

[greenG4]

Sounds good to me.

[peeb]

So what do you want to see?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

The US has the highest population size of all industrialised countries. As soon as we start talking about large population sizes then the figures for everything you can imagine go up, good and bad.

They're figured per capita! Duh!

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

http://www.geographyiq.com/ranking/r..._Rate_aall.htm

I would hardly call this one of the highest.

We're #36! You do know that the lower the number, the higher the rank, the BETTER, right?

I said one of the highest among industrialized nations. I only see South Korea and Israel below us with any claim to being first world--and tenuous claims at that. So I think my point kinda stands.

[Atomic Rooster]

In that little teaser I noticed a mistake.

Guantánamo Bay is not U.S soil but occupied Cuban territory. So that would make only U.S. state and federal prisoners with free universal health care.

Yes...No?

Wiki...
The United States assumed territorial control over Guantánamo Bay under the 1903 Cuban-American Treaty, which granted the United States a perpetual lease of the area. The current Cuban government considers the U.S. presence in Guantánamo illegal, arguing that the Cuban-American Treaty violates Article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties...

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Re: roads. Private companies wouldn't built them where they wanted. They would consult all the same groups that government consults.

[andi*pandi]

massachusetts just enacted mandatory health insurance:

Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector

I'm not sure what I think about it, I don't know how much it would cost for Joe Minimum Wage, whether the costs would be crippling or manageable.

[peeb]

If you can't afford health insurance, you sure as hell can't afford the bill you're going to get if you don't have it.