Michael Moore's Sicko

[mikkey]

---

Members do not see this ad.

A word from Canada:

Private practice is very difficult to have here. We have like 3 private clinics and the government is trying to shut them down.

And I actually laughed when I found out that Michael Moore went to Ontario to seek medical treatment and waited only 20 minutes to see a doctor!!!
I live in Quebec, which I must say is worst than Ontario, but I have never heard of such a short waiting time. If you show up in an ER in Quebec, you could easily wait 10 to 15 hours. And this is not for a cold, but a miscarriage. This poor lady was bleeding all over the floor and they still refused to increase her priority level and speed up the process. She actually miscarried on the floor!
And when I carried my sister to the ER because she could no longer stand, let alone walk, due to her migraines, they made us wait 3 hours in a very noisy and bright ER. When we asked for a stretcher, they said they didn't have any. We were in an ER, not a clinic! The waiting time was only 3 hours because their was only 3 other people in the ER that night.
If you need a doctor's appointment for such things as tests or a check-up, you are placed on a list. An acquaintance of mine needed a test for breast cancer and was put on one of those lists. She decided against waiting and went to the US to get it done. Turns out she has first stage cancer which is curable and gets surgery. FOUR years later, the hospital called her up and asked her if she still wanted to be on the list! She could have died waiting for a test!
These are only a few examples. They are, however, very representative of our system. In Canada, we do not treat patients; we do damage control because people have been waiting so long that their illness is now untreatable or has a much poorer prognostic.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the face of 100% socialized medicine.

 

[da8s0859q]

A word from Canada:

Private practice is very difficult to have here. We have like 3 private clinics and the government is trying to shut them down.

And I actually laughed when I found out that Michael Moore went to Ontario to seek medical treatment and waited only 20 minutes to see a doctor!!!
I live in Quebec, which I must say is worst than Ontario, but I have never heard of such a short waiting time. If you show up in an ER in Quebec, you could easily wait 10 to 15 hours. And this is not for a cold, but a miscarriage. This poor lady was bleeding all over the floor and they still refused to increase her priority level and speed up the process. She actually miscarried on the floor!
And when I carried my sister to the ER because she could no longer stand, let alone walk, due to her migraines, they made us wait 3 hours in a very noisy and bright ER. When we asked for a stretcher, they said they didn't have any. We were in an ER, not a clinic! The waiting time was only 3 hours because their was only 3 other people in the ER that night.
If you need a doctor's appointment for such things as tests or a check-up, you are placed on a list. An acquaintance of mine needed a test for breast cancer and was put on one of those lists. She decided against waiting and went to the US to get it done. Turns out she has first stage cancer which is curable and gets surgery. FOUR years later, the hospital called her up and asked her if she still wanted to be on the list! She could have died waiting for a test!
These are only a few examples. They are, however, very representative of our system. In Canada, we do not treat patients; we do damage control because people have been waiting so long that their illness is now untreatable or has a much poorer prognostic.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the face of 100% socialized medicine.

Wouldn't I just LOVE to see a documentary showing this to counter all the "socialize the US" crap...

 

[punkdoc69]

i don't wanna listen to some guy tell me what's wrong with america when he can't even control his weight... this guy is on a forever super size me....

 

[45408]

Don't jump the gun and blame children's lack of insurance on their parents. There is a necessary effort on the government's part to make sure that parents even know about SCHIP and Medicaid, and many states have set goals to increase enrollment in these programs. Also, even if children are covered, part of "American indifference" lies in the poor availability of healthcare services in underserved areas. Nominal coverage is peachy, but until services are feasibly accessible to individuals, it's not going to be effective.

Well, I do blame their lack of insurance on the parents. Would you blame malnourishment on parents? I would. A parent has a responsibility to take care of their child, and not having health insurance is irresponsible in nearly every case. If you can't afford health insurance for your children: (1. the gov't will probably pay it anyways (2. don't have children you can't afford. I'm not sure about where you're from, but our "underserved areas" are in the inner city, which has hospitals within 2-4 miles of just about anywhere. Clinics are even closer, and there's a pharmacy at every Walgreens.

 

[Miami_med]

I completely agree. The system self perpetuates as is so evident on this board. I mean, why rock the boat to benefit the greater good if you're in a sweet position? At least, that's the sense I get from all the cynicism toward this film.

Not going to say what's wrong or right with the film since I haven't seen it, but I am excited to see it, and excited about the potential there is for change once the public starts becoming more aware of the possibilities.

That's just it, it's a Moore film, so the public will instead be enlightened with an openly biased and one sided account that glorifies everything not like the US with utter neglect for any flaws that may exist.

P.S. It is possible to both want to make money and believe that more government mandates in healthcare are not for the "greater good."

 

[Miami_med]

A word from Canada:

Private practice is very difficult to have here. We have like 3 private clinics and the government is trying to shut them down.

And I actually laughed when I found out that Michael Moore went to Ontario to seek medical treatment and waited only 20 minutes to see a doctor!!!
I live in Quebec, which I must say is worst than Ontario, but I have never heard of such a short waiting time. If you show up in an ER in Quebec, you could easily wait 10 to 15 hours. And this is not for a cold, but a miscarriage. This poor lady was bleeding all over the floor and they still refused to increase her priority level and speed up the process. She actually miscarried on the floor!
And when I carried my sister to the ER because she could no longer stand, let alone walk, due to her migraines, they made us wait 3 hours in a very noisy and bright ER. When we asked for a stretcher, they said they didn't have any. We were in an ER, not a clinic! The waiting time was only 3 hours because their was only 3 other people in the ER that night.
If you need a doctor's appointment for such things as tests or a check-up, you are placed on a list. An acquaintance of mine needed a test for breast cancer and was put on one of those lists. She decided against waiting and went to the US to get it done. Turns out she has first stage cancer which is curable and gets surgery. FOUR years later, the hospital called her up and asked her if she still wanted to be on the list! She could have died waiting for a test!
These are only a few examples. They are, however, very representative of our system. In Canada, we do not treat patients; we do damage control because people have been waiting so long that their illness is now untreatable or has a much poorer prognostic.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the face of 100% socialized medicine.

This pretty much sums up my experiences talking with Canadian friends of mine.

 

[mfpullen]

In response to the wall fo text about the Canadian health system: You do realize that Canada has a very poorly funded and structured social healthcare system, right? If we're going to use extremes, let's take Sweden.

My was a State Trooper for a long time. His partner was married to a Swedish woman. When she needed healthcare that included a visit to a hospital, it was cheaper and easier for her to fly from Alaska to Sweden, get the treatment, and fly back to Alaska. No long waits in Sweden, health care is free, etc.

Now, do I think Sweden is a eprfect example of the social system? No, it's an extreme, just as Canada is an extremely BAD socialized system. Instead of saying "well, this country does this, but this other country does that", why don't we look at what seems to be working across the board, namely universal BASIC health care. I'm not saying the government needs to pay for every surgery, radiograph, etc. How about they just subsidize basic prescriptions and GP visits? There's no way Big Pharma and the private insurance industry is going to let the nation completely socialize health care, considering Pharma is one of the largest contributing lobbyist groups, right under Big Oil.

 

[mikkey]

In response to the wall fo text about the Canadian health system: You do realize that Canada has a very poorly funded and structured social healthcare system, right? If we're going to use extremes, let's take Sweden.

My was a State Trooper for a long time. His partner was married to a Swedish woman. When she needed healthcare that included a visit to a hospital, it was cheaper and easier for her to fly from Alaska to Sweden, get the treatment, and fly back to Alaska. No long waits in Sweden, health care is free, etc.

Now, do I think Sweden is a eprfect example of the social system? No, it's an extreme, just as Canada is an extremely BAD socialized system. Instead of saying "well, this country does this, but this other country does that", why don't we look at what seems to be working across the board, namely universal BASIC health care. I'm not saying the government needs to pay for every surgery, radiograph, etc. How about they just subsidize basic prescriptions and GP visits? There's no way Big Pharma and the private insurance industry is going to let the nation completely socialize health care, considering Pharma is one of the largest contributing lobbyist groups, right under Big Oil.

In response to your post, the Canadian system is not underfunded: we just spend waaaaaaaaaaaay too much money on bureaucracy and useless employees. And keep in mind that Canada is highly unionized, so the cleaning lady doesn't work for anything less than 30 $ an hour and she is on the government's payroll.
I work in a hospital here and I have never seen so many useless people, starting with the nurses and secretaries. On my floor, there are 10 patients (its the infectious ward, so they all stay in their rooms) and there are 20 nurses. Most of them just sit in the nursing station talking all day long, while one nurse does everything.
However, I agree that a doctor's salary here is ridiculous. Performing a regular check-up pays 12 $ and performing a full abortion will bring in a whooping 26$ (This is all in CAD$). That is not even enough to pay to get your instruments sterilized.
But now let's talk Sweden. Their system is beautiful isn't it? Except that you forgot to mention that the taxation rate in the Scandinavian countries is around 75%. What is your taxation rate in the US? 25 to 30%?
Socialized med is great, but someone has to pay for it. And that means that people who make over 100 000 CAD$ here have a taxation rate of almost 55%. In Canada, 1.7% of the population pays 46% of taxes. It's really nice and all to think that the rich will pay, but as our system has demonstrated, if you piss off the rich, they leave and there is no one left to pay for the average joe.
And I do agree with you that basic coverage is needed in the US. But I see all the abuses to the system here and I figure that there has to be a better way.

 

[RosaVerde]

That's just it, it's a Moore film, so the public will instead be enlightened with an openly biased and one sided account that glorifies everything not like the US with utter neglect for any flaws that may exist.

P.S. It is possible to both want to make money and believe that more government mandates in healthcare are not for the "greater good."

Well, I think it's a good thing that there's a film out there addressing the issue and spurring a conversation about it. I think an overtly biased film on such an important topic as healthcare is better than nothing. Anything that gets the public to divert their attention from the latest catfight on the View to important policy issues, even for a moment, is a good thing.

 

[mfpullen]

In response to your post, the Canadian system is not underfunded: we just spend waaaaaaaaaaaay too much money on bureaucracy and useless employees. And keep in mind that Canada is highly unionized, so the cleaning lady doesn't work for anything less than 30 $ an hour and she is on the government's payroll.
I work in a hospital here and I have never seen so many useless people, starting with the nurses and secretaries. On my floor, there are 10 patients (its the infectious ward, so they all stay in their rooms) and there are 20 nurses. Most of them just sit in the nursing station talking all day long, while one nurse does everything.
However, I agree that a doctor's salary here is ridiculous. Performing a regular check-up pays 12 $ and performing a full abortion will bring in a whooping 26$ (This is all in CAD$). That is not even enough to pay to get your instruments sterilized.
But now let's talk Sweden. Their system is beautiful isn't it? Except that you forgot to mention that the taxation rate in the Scandinavian countries is around 75%. What is your taxation rate in the US? 25 to 30%?
Socialized med is great, but someone has to pay for it. And that means that people who make over 100 000 CAD$ here have a taxation rate of almost 55%. In Canada, 1.7% of the population pays 46% of taxes. It's really nice and all to think that the rich will pay, but as our system has demonstrated, if you piss off the rich, they leave and there is no one left to pay for the average joe.
And I do agree with you that basic coverage is needed in the US. But I see all the abuses to the system here and I figure that there has to be a better way.

Hmm, I think you need to check your glasses or your sources. Sweden's income taxes are BASED on 75% of their income, of which they pay roughly 32-33%.

No nation pays 75% income tax. Sweden pays about 33% OUT OF 75% of their income.

The internet is an amazing research tool. Use it.

 

[ChandutheMagici]

I've been wondering if I should reply to this thread and I figured hey, why not?

First, lets talk about Michael Moore. Of course the guy is a propogandist. There's no doubt about that. If you come out of a Moore film believing 100% in the arguments he makes, then I'm sorry, but you're just an unintelligent person.

However, what's even more unintelligent is the mention of Moore's weight as the only counter-argument an individual can provide as to why he shouldn't be allowed to comment on health care. That's just ridiculous. People are allowed to have opinions on socialized health care whether or not they are actually healthy.

Failing to review the issues and educate yourself on both the good and bad of both socialized and privatized health care systems is a dangerous thing to do. And ultimately, Moore's one-sided arguments are what I find most irritating about his films. But hey, I expect that coming in.

FYI, Moore used to have a television show in Michigan discussing this very issue. It was on public television I believe.

On socialized health care....

People can review the statistics all they like, but what are we taught in science? Break things down to simple answers. There's nothing that says this can't be done with social issues.

For me socialized health care just isn't the way to go. Of course arguments can be made for why it's a good thing or why it's a bad thing and both arguments (as presented by several posters in this thread) have valid points.

However, when I break healthcare down this is the conclusion I come to. In the end, everything you do as a healthcare provider is a stall. Because in the end you can't prevent someone from dying. You can prevent untimely deaths (such as ER traumas) or you can extend someone's life (such as radiation treatments and chemotherapy), but death gets us all. So following that path of logic, healthcare is ultimately another service to provide quality of life. Note that I said it's a service. Some people feel the need to classify healthcare as either a right or a privilege. When you think about it though, it is neither. A right means that your government has to protect it and in doing so, provide it. That means that every physician, nurse, PA, etc etc would then become an employee of the government. I'm not sure I like that idea. And privilege implies that some are entitled to it while others aren't (one upmanship). Ultimately, healthcare is a service, one that should be provided at an affordable cost to the consumer.

That being said, when does it become the responbility of one human being to pay for the quality of life of another? Let's face the facts, you're forced to pay your taxes at the point of a gun. If you don't pay them, the government will MAKE you pay them. And in the end, if you don't comply, you'll be thrown in jail. When you think about it like that, in it's uncomplicated form, it's really a bunch of BS. Think about it like this...

1. I don't agree with this war, but I'll get thrown in jail if I don't help support it financially.

2. I don't agree with the tactics of Karl Rove, but I'll get thrown in jail if I don't pay my taxes which give the man his salary.

3. I don't agree with having a nuclear arsenal of about 28,000 nuclear weapons, but my tax dollars (which I'll get thrown in jail if I don't pay) go to arming and maintaining these nuclear facilities.

In the case of socialized health care becoming a reality think about it. You would be forcefully made to financially support certain things.

Things like...

1. I don't agree with supporting a crack ***** mother getting her 6th abortion as a form of birth control because she's a stupid idiot.

2. I don't feel it necessary to have my money taken from me to pay for heart surgery because someone has eaten like crap their whole life and not exercised.

3. I don't want to pay for someone's rehab because they were addicted to heroin.

Let's not forget that we survived for a very long time in this country without an income tax. When did the government stop asking and just start taking our money?

The thing about is, if someone just asked me I'd gladly give it to them. Instead of someone taking from me and calling it generosity.

Everyone calls liberals these generous caring people. I think that's a load of crap. It doesn't require any generosity at all to take from another person, give it to someone else, and then take credit for it. That's not generosity.

And as for children not having health care, come on people. We do have medicaid in this country for people who do not have money to support themselves. Isn't medicaid in place for this exact reason? Hmmm, I don't know.

Anyway, these are just my thoughts from a simple perspective. Sorry if they offended.

Chandu

 

[Bolo]

Hmm, I think you need to check your glasses or your sources. Sweden's income taxes are BASED on 75% of their income, of which they pay roughly 32-33%.

No nation pays 75% income tax. Sweden pays about 33% OUT OF 75% of their income.

The internet is an amazing research tool. Use it.

Where did you dig this up? Sweden has ridiculously high income taxes, especially for the top earners--a great way to discourage hard work.

"The following taxes are levied on earned income: local tax at a rate of 26-35 percent (depending on the municipality); national income tax of 20 percent on annual taxable earnings of between SEK 252,000 and 390,400 and 25 percent for income above SEK 390,400 (year 2001)."

You're looking at 60% right there. This isn't including their 'wealth tax' and a couple of additional taxes that get added on. I'm sure you could easily pay around 70-75% living in Sweden.

 

[FoughtFyr]

Hmm, I think you need to check your glasses or your sources. Sweden's income taxes are BASED on 75% of their income, of which they pay roughly 32-33%.

No nation pays 75% income tax. Sweden pays about 33% OUT OF 75% of their income.

The internet is an amazing research tool. Use it.

Actually, you are right and wrong. The Swedes pay two types of taxes - indirect (those paid by the employer) and direct (paid by the citizenry). The "base" indirect taxes are 32.82% plus a "pension fee" (their version of social security) of 6.95%. So, their direct taxes are drawn on the gross income less pension tax and the base deduction, in other words, based on 60.33% of their income. The remaining taxes are up to 32% local (municipal) income tax and and additional progressive state tax that goes to a max of 25%. At the end of the day, the total taxes paid by the employer and the employee are staggering. But the employee does pay out up to 57% of their "take home" pay. Talking to one of my residency classmates who is from Denmark, the practice in Scandinavia is to quote salaries "pre-tax" (including the employer paid taxes). If you do the math on this, the employee takes home roughly 25-30% of their quoted salary, with the remainder being paid in taxes.

But I agree, the internet is a great research tool.

- H

 

[EctopicFetus]

Why do intelligent people discuss things that are obviously so silly.

In this country the top 5% pay 57% of the taxes.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html

National healthcare, socialized hc and other permutations are dumb.

 

[no-see-um]

I didn't know Bill O'Reilly was a pre-med =)

Believe it or not, he went to the John F. Kennedy School of Government (of Harvard University) for his Masters degree.

 

[da8s0859q]

Why do intelligent people discuss things that are obviously so silly.

You're pretty smart for an ectopic fetus. If only you posted that in my law-gone-abortion debate thread, it'd be really funny.

 

[garyjain]

Alright enough of the Swedes. I think people have commented enough on the movie until it actually comes out. This topic will probably be revisited in full depth when the movie actually comes out.

 

[garyjain]

Alright wanted to start up the discussion again, who saw it? what did you think? I haven't seen it yet, going to go pretty soon.

 

[PBEA]

As some others have posted the buzz term isn't really "socialized heathcare" but changing to a single payer system. A non-profit single payor system could help clean up the current inefficiencies. If you are afraid of the cost of providing care to the "undeserving" then you are 20-30 years too late (or whenever medicaid was started). We already subsidize their care with medicaid so that part of the concern is really moot. With some government oversight (which already exists) then we could avoid the unecessary billionaire CEO's of the healthcare industry. IMO they are the only ones who are at risk from this scenario. They are the administrative fat that gets in the way, time to trim some off. It could mean more dollars actually reach the point of use (provider and patient), instead of landing in someone elses pocket. Big Pharma, and the rest of the industry have little to nothing to complain about with this

 

[Geri_Gal]

I saw "Sicko" last week and I wholeheartedly recommend it to any American -- not just health care providers. The movie centered not on the 44 million uninsured Americans, but the insured. Michael Moore's personality and politics aside, he does illustrate the disparities that exist between our health care system and the health care systems of other Western countries.

The fact remains that our infant mortality rates and adult mortality rates are above that of many "socialized" or single-payer health care systems. Our health care system has been rated as mediocre, at best.

Our government already has strong controls over our healthcare system through Medicare and Medicaid. Insurance companies and Big Pharma have been allowed to grow and acquire wealth almost unchecked because they have shunted so much money into Washington DC. Insurance company CEOs and administrators and Pharma company CEOs and administrators have gained enormous wealth -- at our expense.

Our country needs a more elegant solution to healthcare. A single-payer system -- a more democratic system. And we will not have change until the people demand change!

 

[2008applicant]

the conclusion all of this controversy leads me to believe is simply: americans dont value their health as much as people of other cultures/nationalities. we would rather take away healthcare from the poor than suffer another terrorist attack. the decision is a reflection of our cultural values.

 

[Miami_med]

Why is everyone's solution to the healthcare system giving more power to the same people that you are also accusing of being corrupted by all of the industry money. Insurance CEOs get dinged for doing exactly what they are supposed to do, which is make money. Meanwhile, we want to actually give the guys taking bribes MORE power. These individuals haven't exactly shown any particular prediliction towards honesty, justice, or efficiency for that matter. If more power is given to the government, they will continue to act like the government, and abuse the power. The fact that the government has already mucked up the system isn't really a good excuse to let them muck it up more.

 

[midn]

I watched half of Michael Moore's Sicko and decided not to watch the rest. There is just way too much propaganda for me to swallow and it really didn't tell me anything I didn't know already. The praises for Hillary Clinton and democrats in general was just disgusting. It's not hard to say that the healthcare system needs reform without taking a completely one-sided view. Why does Michael Moore continue to completely sacrifice objectivity? Go back to playing the xylophone, Michael.

The majority of the money being spent for healthcare goes to about 1% (I believe that was the figure, I can't recall off the top of my head; it was in a book I was reading) of people who require ridiculously expensive care. From a business stand point, it makes complete sense to deny somebody care with a pre-existing condition (referring to the part with the crying insurance phone operator, I'm pretty sure that is why they were denied) that has life-long implications. Insurance companies would go bankrupt otherwise and you would have massive amounts of persons going uninsured then. Insurance is a luxury and because it is privately owned, some insurances are obviously going to be better than others. You have to choose your insurance provider wisely. If it is provided by your place of employment and you have no choice in what you get the burden is still entirely yours. I'll say it again: insurance is a luxury.

The select cases of persons being denied for life-saving treatment was certainly appalling and does represent the dregs of insurance companies' money squandering. It is disappointing that such things happen, but I really doubt that Americans will be willing to pay a good portion of their income to see that these select issues will not happen. If I were to be denied coverage for an expensive treatment, I certainly would reverse my opinion immediately and call for a socialized system. But I would only be doing that because it would benefit me. I am sure most of these persons, before finding out about their life-threatening ailment, would not have supported socialized healthcare when hearing about how much money would be coming out of their pockets. I myself would much rather have the liberty of choosing my own private health insurance provider and pay less money monthly at the risk of being denied coverage for certain ailments rather than having to pay over 50% of my salary to fund someone's fourth bypass surgery.

Another person brought up a fantastic point: why should my money go towards paying for people living unhealthy lifestyles? There is perfectly good reason to deny a fat person insurance. Even if they are moderately overweight, they increase their chances of many chronic illnesses that are incredibly expensive to treat.

I am going to stop because this is just turning into a pointless rant. I was working at the ER till 5 am last night and to wake up and watch this bull**** of a documentary pisses me off like no other. To completely deny that patients are not at all fault is ridiculous. There are persons who took the risk of not buying health insurance earlier or choosing a profession that does not allow them to buy health insurance. I see loads of morbidly obese patients coming in with multiple limbs hacked off because they simply couldn't exercise some self-control with their self-inflicted diabetes. Special accommodations have to be made for them just to transport the person from one bed to the other or use the bathroom. I'm pretty sure a significant cause of the rising cost of insurance is because of the need to treat persons with chronic illnesses that could have been prevented by choosing a different lifestyle. It's natural for insurance companies to want to cut these persons off to keep their premiums affordable so they insure other people. And yes, they are trying to turn a profit but such is a consequence of capitalism.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone. I'm just really sleep deprived. I'm sure I'll come back to read this and think "what the hell was I thinking???".

 

[happy snake]

I watched half of Michael Moore's Sicko and decided not to watch the rest. There is just way too much propaganda for me to swallow and it really didn't tell me anything I didn't know already. ......of capitalism.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone. I'm just really sleep deprived. I'm sure I'll come back to read this and think "what the hell was I thinking???".

Please watch the entire movie. After you do, tell me what it said about Hillary selling out to insurance for campaign contributions. Also tell me what you think about 9/11 volunteers and firefighters getting better care in Cuba than they did in America. It's sad when we talk budget and policy to our heroes.

And one more thing, the people he showcased were not isolated "issues". A person's health is not just an "issue". Every life lost to insufficient care is a life failed. Failed by you. Failed by me. Failed by anyone who could have given more. And when an accounting department, and not the doctor, has the reason for someone's death, there is nothing sadder. The movie has a simple message: don't politicize a person's right to health. Whether a person gets treatment is not about red and blue, socialism and communism, Castro or the French. It's about whether someone who could have lived, is now dead. Try and get that message the next time you play the movie. And for God's sake, watch the whole film.

And finally, the movie was not about the uninsured. It was about those that had insurance. You have to have money before the insurance company can take it from you.

 

[happy snake]

i don't wanna listen to some guy tell me what's wrong with america when he can't even control his weight... this guy is on a forever super size me....

ad hominem....bad argument

 

[happy snake]

Well, I do blame their lack of insurance on the parents. Would you blame malnourishment on parents? I would. A parent has a responsibility to take care of their child, and not having health insurance is irresponsible in nearly every case. If you can't afford health insurance for your children: (1. the gov't will probably pay it anyways (2. don't have children you can't afford. I'm not sure about where you're from, but our "underserved areas" are in the inner city, which has hospitals within 2-4 miles of just about anywhere. Clinics are even closer, and there's a pharmacy at every Walgreens.

I'd blame malnourishment on a lot of other things too. Maybe the parents are working three jobs and still can't afford good food for their kids. Maybe paying for daycare is stopping them from buying the veggies.

Most fathers believe it is against their religious values to abort/use contraception. There is one such account in "Uninsured in America". I think a guy would know if the woman was secretly using a contraceptive or vice versa. So asking poor people to just not have kids is probably easy...in a dictatorship. I guess in this case you'd call that a benevolent dictatorship?

Government pays? You could weave a thick sweater with all the strings that come attached with that care.

When I asked around about serving in the underserved areas for a tuition subsidy, they wanted be to go away from the cities...closer to the farms. And who cares where a Walgreens is when nothing in there is affordable. Wait, I think they had a cool spikey ball for 2 dollars the last time I went in there.

 

[happy snake]

That's just it, it's a Moore film, so the public will instead be enlightened with an openly biased and one sided account that glorifies everything not like the US with utter neglect for any flaws that may exist.

P.S. It is possible to both want to make money and believe that more government mandates in healthcare are not for the "greater good."

I think we get enough of the "other side" through all those PhRMA commercials, and other media outlets. As I recall, none of the characters in this movie were acting. Everyone else painting the insurance industry into pastel shades of rose, is actually getting paid for it...a lot.

 

[happy snake]

In response to the wall fo text about the Canadian health system: You do realize that Canada has a very poorly funded and structured social healthcare system, right? If we're going to use extremes, let's take Sweden.

My was a State Trooper for a long time. His partner was married to a Swedish woman. When she needed healthcare that included a visit to a hospital, it was cheaper and easier for her to fly from Alaska to Sweden, get the treatment, and fly back to Alaska. No long waits in Sweden, health care is free, etc.

Now, do I think Sweden is a eprfect example of the social system? No, it's an extreme, just as Canada is an extremely BAD socialized system. Instead of saying "well, this country does this, but this other country does that", why don't we look at what seems to be working across the board, namely universal BASIC health care. I'm not saying the government needs to pay for every surgery, radiograph, etc. How about they just subsidize basic prescriptions and GP visits? There's no way Big Pharma and the private insurance industry is going to let the nation completely socialize health care, considering Pharma is one of the largest contributing lobbyist groups, right under Big Oil.

Well put. Canada may not be the answer. But there are other systems that could work for us better. Universal basic care could save billions in more expensive advanced care. It's a small step but everyone seems to hate change as if it were Lucifer himself.

 

[chef_NU]

I'd blame malnourishment on a lot of other things too. Maybe the parents are working three jobs and still can't afford good food for their kids. Maybe paying for daycare is stopping them from buying the veggies.

Most fathers believe it is against their religious values to abort/use contraception. There is one such account in "Uninsured in America". I think a guy would know if the woman was secretly using a contraceptive or vice versa. So asking poor people to just not have kids is probably easy...in a dictatorship. I guess in this case you'd call that a benevolent dictatorship?

Government pays? You could weave a thick sweater with all the strings that come attached with that care.

When I asked around about serving in the underserved areas for a tuition subsidy, they wanted be to go away from the cities...closer to the farms. And who cares where a Walgreens is when nothing in there is affordable. Wait, I think they had a cool spikey ball for 2 dollars the last time I went in there.

I'm not sure when there was this whole vindication of parents who don't provide for their children. How can you argue that parents aren't to blame when their children don't have health insurance or food or shelter? If you can't provide for your kids, don't have them. But if you do have them, don't blame the government and pretend that it's not your fault when they grow up illiterate, malnourished, and stupid.

If you're working three jobs to support yourself, maybe its a sign that you shouldnt be getting pregnant. You are religious? Fine. No one is forcing you to be religious. People need to live with the choices they make.

 

[happy snake]

I'm not sure when there was this whole vindication of parents who don't provide for their children. How can you argue that parents aren't to blame when their children don't have health insurance or food or shelter? If you can't provide for your kids, don't have them. But if you do have them, don't blame the government and pretend that it's not your fault when they grow up illiterate, malnourished, and stupid.

If you're working three jobs to support yourself, maybe its a sign that you shouldnt be getting pregnant. You are religious? Fine. No one is forcing you to be religious. People need to live with the choices they make.

Yes, parents are responsible. I can't see why an educated people would choose to have kids and then keep them malnourished and ill. It's obvious that the people we are talking about are not in a position to make such responsible choices. Should we punish them then? Should we keep them where they are in poverty and in ill health? Or should we vindicate them of some of the blame and keep them healthy? Wouldn't be cheaper for us to have a healthier population? How much would you and I save that way? Would we do it for them if we see some good in it for us?

Chef_NU, not everyone gets the same start. Not everyone makes the right choice. The question is, should we care any less for those that choose unwisely? Shouldn't we care anyways? Will it really kill us to care for everyone without assigning responsibility or blame? Is basic care really that precious that the richest nation in the world can't afford it for all its citizens without asking everyone to pre-qualify?

 

[chef_NU]

Yes, parents are responsible. I can't see why an educated people would choose to have kids and then keep them malnourished and ill. It's obvious that the people we are talking about are not in a position to make such responsible choices. Should we punish them then? Should we keep them where they are in poverty and in ill health? Or should we vindicate them of some of the blame and keep them healthy? Wouldn't be cheaper for us to have a healthier population? How much would you and I save that way? Would we do it for them if we see some good in it for us?

Chef_NU, not everyone gets the same start. Not everyone makes the right choice. The question is, should we care any less for those that choose unwisely? Shouldn't we care anyways? Will it really kill us to care for everyone without assigning responsibility or blame? Is basic care really that precious that the richest nation in the world can't afford it for all its citizens without asking everyone to pre-qualify?

This is a great question to ask. The problem is the context and the assumption you make that government should be related to these kinds of issues at all. Do I think it's bad to care about the unfortunate? No. Do I turn my nose at charity? No. Do people who have a heart for the unfortunate disgust me? Absolutely not. However, any government provided service costs something. Someone has to pay for that service. And government uses coercion to pay for itself. Universal healthcare means that everyone else pays, whether they like it or not (much like social security, medicare, etc). If I think the government is doing a poor job with my money, I still pay. If government continues to treat patients in the last year of their life at exorbitant cost, I still pay. The problem here is that my freedom to choose the best way to spend my resources is taken away by the government. This is true even if I am a very charitable person, or a very miserly person. In reality, many people who support government programs such as universal health care believe that they are doing the country a moral favor: after all, what can be wrong with helping people who don't get health care? When you think about it though, is it really moral to force people to support any government program? This is comparable, to, say, creating a law that all Americans must volunteer 100 hours a year of their time to an arbitrary charity group. Sure, people would volunteer more, but is this somehow moral? I've always understood morality as a free choice between right and wrong, not someone forcing you to choose right.

We have so many robin hoods out there eager to use political power to steal the resources of others for their crusade for the poor (or whoever your favorite group/demographic is). I have news for you: (most of) your fellow taxpayers didn't lie, cheat, or steal to earn their income like in your fairy tale. Stop pretending that forcing people to support your program gives you another notch on your "feel good" belt. We don't need government coercion to help the unfortunate. We need free, generous people to make willing contributions to the country. Not because they would be arrested for tax evasion, but because they genuinely care.

 

[Geri_Gal]

We need free, generous people to make willing contributions to the country. Not because they would be arrested for tax evasion, but because they genuinely care.

With our current health care system, we are already potentially providing health insurance (Medicaid) for those who "lie, cheat" or make a "dishonest" living. (...aside: The poor do not have a monopoly on vice. Some would say politicians base their career on similar vices. ...and remember the Enron executives! 😳)

The people who are the losers in our current system are people who are trying to make a decent, honest living. People working for small businesses that can't afford the exorbitant cost of insuring their employees and give them a fair wage. The self employed. People working for large businesses that offer 'catastrophic' insurance that doesn't cover routine procedures or leaves their policy holders underinsured.

In an ideal world, we would take care of each other without being mandated to give taxes to the government to ensure that basic civic services like police, fire protection, welfare were provided. We do not live in an ideal world -- we are all inherently selfish and want to protect ourselves and our own.

Good governments listen to their people. Our country was founded on this principle. Health care system change -- whether that is through increasing transparity of health care costs (do Dr's offices/hospitals EVER display charges for visits, lab procedures?) and decreasing cost through competition so that capitalism can truly exist in the health care arena -- OR -- creating a single payer system to create more bargaining power with big Pharma or health care device companies and streamline the endless paperwork -- will take place only if people ignore party politics and make some noise for change.

 

[happy snake]

This is a great question to ask. The problem is the context and the assumption you make that government should be related to these kinds of issues at all. Do I think it's bad to care about the unfortunate? No.................Not because they would be arrested for tax evasion, but because they genuinely care.

It's your money, yes. Do as you please, yes. Yes, all service including healthcare costs money. But remember you will have to pay no more than you are paying now, and we could still have a lot of socialized care. Fully, partially, only free basic care, whatever, something. We can still afford it. Like I said on another forum, we just need to shunt through some of the money we are already spending. Oh, and here's the money that you are already spending.

And what's wrong with paying for someone's last hours? I would expect the best in my final hours. Sadly, you shouldn't have to force anyone to support anything. I just felt that such humanism should come naturally. To expect your democracy to take care of its people should come obviously. It's sadder that you feel anyone doing this is doing this for a medal or a badge.

And what's wrong with requiring people to volunteer? Hey maybe, make them volunteer atleast 10 hours a year at the local county hospital. Maybe it will help everyone realize just how important such things are. Maybe if a thousand people do it, your county hospital may change for the better. Maybe then everyone will care more about what stand their politician takes on healthcare issues.

And sorry, morality is not a free choice. If it were, we would not have law enforcement (assuming the law of the land is based on upholding some degree of morality).

"using the government to crusade for the poor"...now wait a minute, isn't that why we went into Iraq? Because someone there was not allowing for a government that could take care of its poor. Isn't that what all of democracy is about?

 

[chef_NU]

With our current health care system, we are already potentially providing health insurance (Medicaid) for those who "lie, cheat" or make a "dishonest" living. (...aside: The poor do not have a monopoly on vice. Some would say politicians base their career on similar vices. ...and remember the Enron executives! 😳)

You misunderstood my analogy. I was inferring that many people feel government is justified stealing from its wealthiest citizens because they are somehow immoral just as robin hood stole from the immoral king because the king levied enormous, unfair taxes on the populace.


I'm not arguing that universal healthcare is better or worse than our current system. I'm arguing that both are bad, and trying to demonstrate why. Government doesn't belong in healthcare, or many many of the arenas it has overstepped its bounds in. You say our government was founded on "listen[ing] to their people". This couldn't be further from the truth. Our government was founded upon negative rights and the preservation of freedom. When the government does a lot of listening, that is when things get fouled up.

 

[chef_NU]

happysnake:

Again, I'm sorry if I somehow conveyed that our current healthcare system is better than universal healthcare. I don't necessarily believe this is true, nor do I really care. You mention requiring people to do certain things is not a bad thing. How can you justify laying claim to someone's time or resources. Under what authority or logic can you argue this?

Why don't you define morality for me as I seem to be mistaken. Perhaps I am wrong and most people interpret it is being forced to follow a set of rules?

 

[Geri_Gal]

happysnake:

Again, I'm sorry if I somehow conveyed that our current healthcare system is better than universal healthcare. I don't necessarily believe this is true, nor do I really care.

🙁
Apathy will not promote change.

Civil movements have influenced legislation in positive ways. The 19th amendment. Desegregation and civil rights.

 

[Miami_med]

Yes, parents are responsible. I can't see why an educated people would choose to have kids and then keep them malnourished and ill. It's obvious that the people we are talking about are not in a position to make such responsible choices. Should we punish them then? Should we keep them where they are in poverty and in ill health? Or should we vindicate them of some of the blame and keep them healthy? Wouldn't be cheaper for us to have a healthier population? How much would you and I save that way? Would we do it for them if we see some good in it for us?

Chef_NU, not everyone gets the same start. Not everyone makes the right choice. The question is, should we care any less for those that choose unwisely? Shouldn't we care anyways? Will it really kill us to care for everyone without assigning responsibility or blame? Is basic care really that precious that the richest nation in the world can't afford it for all its citizens without asking everyone to pre-qualify?

When did not giving someone something become punishment? This argument is based on a false premise, and that is people are entitled to healthcare, which is taken away as punishment. No one gets it in a vacuum. The resources have to come from somewhere.

We are the richest nation in the world because we still have a system that rewards the most productive, thus encouraging productivity. Your last statement is an oxymoron, because becoming a nation that gives progressively more things away will inevitable make us no longer as rich. The whole argument is based on a flawed understanding of economics.

Yes, our politicians have vices. So do many business men who are in with the politicians. WHO DO YOU THINK BENEFITS IN UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE? Follow the money. The parasites in Washington will support the least productive members of society. Those that honestly do well will pay. Modern healthcare regulation is the major driver of cost when coupled with malpractice. Both of these are imposed by the GOVERNMENT. Drop those things and the cost will come down. Pure and simple.

 

[happy snake]

happysnake:

Again, I'm sorry if I somehow conveyed that our current healthcare system is better than universal healthcare. I don't necessarily believe this is true, nor do I really care. You mention requiring people to do certain things is not a bad thing. How can you justify laying claim to someone's time or resources. Under what authority or logic can you argue this?

Why don't you define morality for me as I seem to be mistaken. Perhaps I am wrong and most people interpret it is being forced to follow a set of rules?

Morality is what we teach children- right vs. wrong, and the like. You could surely not force it on children. You could give them the choice do as they please. Let them choose to do right or wrong. I am sure they'll have a fabulous education on ethics if they grew up with such a freedom. Yes, as a human being you have the right to choose to do right or wrong. But forcing someone to do right by their people is never bad. Isn't the whole idea of disciplining someone, actually, a way of forcing them to do right? So what's wrong with expecting a population to act in a morally concious fashion?

The authority: Every person's right to live combines their right to live with good heath. Therefore, this demands some basic healthcare. The logic: I am not asking that your money be used to pay for Blackwater, or subsidizing Big Oil. I am only asking for it to be used to help some poeple (sure, that includes ganja addicts.) So what, it's for far nobler a cause, wouldn't you agree?

 

[happy snake]

When did not giving someone something become punishment? This argument is based on a false premise, and that is people are entitled to healthcare, which is taken away as punishment. No one gets it in a vacuum. The resources have to come from somewhere.

We are the richest nation in the world because we still have a system that rewards the most productive, thus encouraging productivity. Your last statement is an oxymoron, because becoming a nation that gives progressively more things away will inevitable make us no longer as rich. The whole argument is based on a flawed understanding of economics.

Yes, our politicians have vices. So do many business men who are in with the politicians. WHO DO YOU THINK BENEFITS IN UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE? Follow the money. The parasites in Washington will support the least productive members of society. Those that honestly do well will pay. Modern healthcare regulation is the major driver of cost when coupled with malpractice. Both of these are imposed by the GOVERNMENT. Drop those things and the cost will come down. Pure and simple.

Giving someone something for free is not punishment. And the US is not taking away healthcare from anyone as punishment either. People should have something in the first place, for you to take it away from them. People here never had universal basic care for you to take it away as punishment or otherwise. And if you want to see where the resources can come from, please click the link in my previous post. I am tired of people citing monetary concerns when there is plenty to go around.

Also, the people who most need some form of free basic care or some assistance, atleast according to the movie, are the ones that are indeed productive- the ones with many jobs, etc- the middle class and lower. Personally, I don't see what your definition of productive is? Do you mean "most productive" as defined by how much money you make? Or does "most productive" mean working more jobs? Because if how much you earn makes the difference, then I see what you mean. We have become the richest nation by reserving resources for those of the highest net worth.

And if you want to go beyond classical economics then you might even understand that a healthier population (spanning all socio-economic strata) will be far more productive. Don't talk productivity and then go on to defend a system that gets richer by reserving resources for the few. Yes, the few may earn it. But surely, the rest are not sitting on their behinds. Everyone must get something.

Many politicians will find a way to get rich in any system. And who will benefit from universal care? You and me and that guy down the street.

 

[chef_NU]

Morality is what we teach children- right vs. wrong, and the like. You could surely not force it on children. You could give them the choice do as they please. Let them choose to do right or wrong. I am sure they'll have a fabulous education on ethics if they grew up with such a freedom. Yes, as a human being you have the right to choose to do right or wrong. But forcing someone to do right by their people is never bad. Isn't the whole idea of disciplining someone, actually, a way of forcing them to do right? So what's wrong with expecting a population to act in a morally concious fashion?

You're making an argument for textbook paternalism and you don't even realize it. Sure, we could not force right and wrong upon children. We could let them do as they please. We could also let them smoke, cigarrettes, drive cars, and watch pornography. The point is that children are not rational adults, and thus they DO need people to make certain decisions for them. However, once people become adults (most) governments claim to declare people independent individuals capable of making their own choices. This is why adults are also allowed to engage in risky behavior: because they are rational and understand the risks and benefits involved in making their own decisions. The idea is that people don't need governement to make decisions for them because they are free, rational individuals. Should the government be allowed to tell people not to skydive because it is dangerous? Or disallow fast food restaurants because overeating makes us fat? The answer is no, but surely you can see that government paternalism continually tries to creep into American lives where it shouldn't.

The authority: Every person's right to live combines their right to live with good heath. Therefore, this demands some basic healthcare.

I'm not sure how everyone's right to life means right to good health. People love to extrapolate this from the constitution, but let's remember that the bill of rights provides negative rights. These are essentially rights to non-interference by the government and protection of freedoms to action. "Right to good health" is in a category all its own, much as rights to affordable housing and cheap gasoline are. These are fundamentally not "rights" because they lay claim to a service or commodity that must be provided by another individual. When you claim a right to health care, you are claiming the services of a health care provider by government coercion. I know "free" healthcare sounds good, but let's remember that there is no free anything, unless you are talking about freeDOM from intrusion of others. I encourage everyone who supports universal healthcare to really think about what such entitlement programs really mean.

 

[chef_NU]

Personally, I don't see what your definition of productive is? Do you mean "most productive" as defined by how much money you make? Or does "most productive" mean working more jobs? Because if how much you earn makes the difference, then I see what you mean. We have become the richest nation by reserving resources for those of the highest net worth.

People with the largest incomes are the most productive people in the country. Think about it: what is money, really. It's a piece of paper that represents a fixed value of a service or good. In order to obtain money, you must trade a service or good. It's always a mutual agreement. You want the money more than the person you are trading your good or service to, and the person you are trading wants your good or service more than their money. When you provide lots of goods and/or services to a lot of people, you end up with a lot of money. Of course, you can also loan money to earn interest, but this is the same as loaning people a good or service that you have already produced. The beauty of this system is that people who provide the best products and services (i.e. the stuff that people want more than the dollar in their pocket) end up with the most money. Essentially, the population "votes" with their dollars for what are the best products and services. The market accomplishes this impersonally, and without any regulation or control. Your claim that we have become the richest nation by reserving resources for those with the highest net worth confuses me. How do we "reserve" resources for rich people? Perhaps you mean that we have lower marginal and capital gains tax rates than other countries and that as a result of this we have stolen less money from the richest people for use by the government. I'm not sure why so many people have a "tax the rich, punish the rich" mentality. Is it envy? Pride? Who knows.

P.S. I see that happysnake you are attending rush next year as an M1. I'm going to be going into my M2 year there in the fall and I'd love to talk more about healthcare policy with you when you arrive on campus.

 

[happy snake]

You're making an argument for textbook paternalism and you don't even realize it. Sure, we could not force right and wrong upon children. We could let them do as they please. We could also let them smoke, cigarrettes, drive cars, and watch pornography. The point is that children are not rational adults, and thus they DO need people to make certain decisions for them. However, once people become adults (most) governments claim to declare people independent individuals capable of making their own choices. This is why adults are also allowed to engage in risky behavior: because they are rational and understand the risks and benefits involved in making their own decisions. The idea is that people don't need governement to make decisions for them because they are free, rational individuals. Should the government be allowed to tell people not to skydive because it is dangerous? Or disallow fast food restaurants because overeating makes us fat? The answer is no, but surely you can see that government paternalism continually tries to creep into American lives where it shouldn't.



I'm not sure how everyone's right to life means right to good health. People love to extrapolate this from the constitution, but let's remember that the bill of rights provides negative rights. These are essentially rights to non-interference by the government and protection of freedoms to action. "Right to good health" is in a category all its own, much as rights to affordable housing and cheap gasoline are. These are fundamentally not "rights" because they lay claim to a service or commodity that must be provided by another individual. When you claim a right to health care, you are claiming the services of a health care provider by government coercion. I know "free" healthcare sounds good, but let's remember that there is no free anything, unless you are talking about freeDOM from intrusion of others. I encourage everyone who supports universal healthcare to really think about what such entitlement programs really mean.

Basically,

Healthcare is too important to leave to lobbyists and CEOs.

There is plenty of money to afford such a system.

Expecting your government to care for all its citizens (and not just the most productive) is not encouraging parentalism. It is just expecting the government to do its job- which is to take care of its citizens. I believe citizens are entitled to such a thought.

Any program that seeks to improve the overall health of the nation can only help productivity at the national level. A healthier happier population contributes more to GNP.

 

[happy snake]

People with the largest incomes are the most productive people in the country. Think about it: what is money, really. It's a piece of paper that represents a fixed value of a service or good. In order to obtain money, you must trade a service or good. It's always a mutual agreement. You want the money more than the person you are trading your good or service to, and the person you are trading wants your good or service more than their money. When you provide lots of goods and/or services to a lot of people, you end up with a lot of money. Of course, you can also loan money to earn interest, but this is the same as loaning people a good or service that you have already produced. The beauty of this system is that people who provide the best products and services (i.e. the stuff that people want more than the dollar in their pocket) end up with the most money. Essentially, the population "votes" with their dollars for what are the best products and services. The market accomplishes this impersonally, and without any regulation or control. Your claim that we have become the richest nation by reserving resources for those with the highest net worth confuses me. How do we "reserve" resources for rich people? Perhaps you mean that we have lower marginal and capital gains tax rates than other countries and that as a result of this we have stolen less money from the richest people for use by the government. I'm not sure why so many people have a "tax the rich, punish the rich" mentality. Is it envy? Pride? Who knows.

P.S. I see that happysnake you are attending rush next year as an M1. I'm going to be going into my M2 year there in the fall and I'd love to talk more about healthcare policy with you when you arrive on campus.

It's simple progressive taxation. The principle applies to all progressive pricing of goods and services. Again, you will not have to tax the rich any more than you are now. I am just expecting a more responsible use of tax money. And voting with money means some people's vote counts more than other's. Some people then become more equal than others? Such a bias souldn't apply when healthcare is the issue. Sure if you own more stock in the company you will have more say. But should we leave healthcare to such a mechanism? i don't know about that.

Meeting up to talk will be nice, Chef_NU. It would be a lot easier than typing!

 

[happy snake]

July 7, 2007
What's Online
What’s Lacking in ‘Sicko’
By DAN MITCHELL
WHEN it comes to economic decisions, there are always trade-offs. Gain one thing and you lose something else. This is particularly true in health care, a market in which a scarce good is ridiculously expensive, but needed by everybody.

The central argument of Michael Moore’s movie “Sicko” — that the cure to the nation’s health care problems is a single-payer system — is hardly novel and is certainly worth consideration, whether or not you agree with it. But in comparing the American system with single-payer plans of other countries —Britain, France, Canada and Cuba — Mr. Moore left out the trade-offs, characterizing those countries as health care paradises.

The elisions have been noticed — and criticism is coming not just from Mr. Moore’s most bellicose and dogmatic detractors.

Kurt Loder, the film critic who is best known as the anchor of “MTV News,” wrote a scathing critique of the film for MTV’s Web site. “ ‘Sicko,’ ” he allowed, “does a real service” in portraying victims of American insurance companies — like the people who died because their only treatment options were deemed “experimental” and therefore not covered.

But the film as a whole, he concluded, is “breathtakingly meretricious,” in large part because of its characterizations of other countries’ health care systems (mtv.com).

When “governments attempt to regulate the balance between a limited supply of health care and an unlimited demand for it, they’re inevitably forced to ration treatment,” Mr. Loder asserted. He ticked off a number of negative anecdotes and statistics to counter the positive ones offered by Mr. Moore. Mr. Loder cited the short film “Dead Meat,” which presents anecdotes of failure in the Canadian single-payer system. In its one-sidedness, “Dead Meat” (available online at onthefencefilms.com) might have made for a nice double feature with “Sicko,” and left moviegoers with a more complete understanding of the complications of deciding on a health care system.

Mr. Moore also decided to ignore or gloss over problems in other countries, like France’s high taxes and Britain’s cash-short hospitals.

This all makes an otherwise “emotionally compelling film not necessarily an intellectually gratifying one,” wrote Darren Barefoot, a Canadian blogger (darrenbarefoot.com)................from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/07/business/07online.html?ex=1185508800&en=c5fa2fddfe6b5684&ei=5070 (requires you to log in).

 

[Geri_Gal]

🙄 The NYT reported on Kurt Loder's opinion of "Sicko"? Kurt Loder of MTV news?!?

 

[Chulito]

🙄 The NYT reported on Kurt Loder's opinion of "Sicko"? Kurt Loder of MTV news?!?

Here's his actual review. It's pretty good.

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1563758/story.jhtml

 

[QuikClot]

A few notes on this conversation:

The EU spends on average about $2,400 per person to provide universal care. For their money, they are getting 3-4 more years of healthy life compared to Americans, who have gone from the tallest population in the Western world to the shortest (representing poorer care of childern, resulting in a smaller stature).

So while the pro-libertarian vs. pro-democracy argument can always be made, the reality is that, since one would not necessarily have to raise taxes to provide universal care, the debate is moot. The government is already spending over $3,000 dollars per person on healthcare (about half the total). So while it would be a good idea to raise taxes on the rich, it isn't necessary in order to provide universal healthcare. We could do it with the money we are spending today.

As far as the arguement itself is concerned: as recently as the 1950s, the marginal income tax on earned income over $400,000 was 90%. Yet the economy grew just fine, communism did not sweep the nation, and the business community was not destroyed.

The argument that wealthy Americans are the most productive is not supported by the evidence. Hedge fund managers, for example, take home bonuses in the hundreds of millions of dollars to invest money in the market, yet as far as economists have been able to determine, no one does better than the market except by chance. The productivity of these hedge fund managers is nil; their income and the ridiculous way it is taxed have become a national scandal.

It is not necessary or wise to try a seperate the "deserving" poor from the "undeserving" poor. People's ability to make money and spend it wisely is affected by all sorts of things that are not under their control including their genetic endowments, how they were raised, their health, their education and so on. It would take a million social workers with the wisdom of King Solomon to determine who did the best that they could with what they were given, and who deserved to suffer. And to be far, we should also, then, carefully scruitinize the successful to see where the market has failed in the other direction; giving wealth and security to people who deserve to suffer. Quite the tall order.

It is more sensible as well as more humane to set a floor beneath which no one is allowed to fall; to say that everyone, crazy or sane, lazy or hardworking, educated or ignorant, economically valuable or superflueous -- gets to have a roof over their head, gets medical care, gets an education, gets to eat. It's not an impractical idea; the French do it, and they combine the highest per-hour productivity in the world with the lowest poverty rate (6%). Nor is it immoral to tax people in order to maintain those standards. There are no great fortures without a social contract; there are no billionaries in a state of nature. If you want to amass money by playing in a casino, you pay a rake to the house. If you want to play the game of buying and selling in a nation-state, you pay taxes.

 

[Miami_med]

A Quikclot, how I missed you 🙄

Without the time to really get into most of this, I'll point out that the economic boom of the 50s, which happened to coincide with the return of a healthy economy after a reasonable proportion of the population returned from overseas, may have occurred with a 90% marginal rate, but there is no evidence that it was "ideal" or anything else. As that same economy faltered in the 60s, Kennedy, a democrat, was the one who claimed that marginal rates were too high and killing the economy and lowered them to 70%. Of course, none of this really brought prosperity, especially during the Vietnam War. After the Carter debacle of Stagflation, which coincided with a similar predicament all over the world, a series of leaders came into power, which included Reagan in the US and Thatcher in Britain. Both lowered tax rates systematically across the board, and both saw miraculous recoveries of struggling economies.

France, which you continuously claim is the most productive per-hour economy on earth, allows its citizens to work so few hours that the point is moot. They also have an unemployment rate that continuously sits in the double digits. Youth unemployment is worse. No new company has broken into the French top 10 in over 40 years, while the dynamic US economy has essentially replaced the entire lead group. It was also in France that 1000s of people died in a "heat wave" which reached temperatures that are routine for half of this country every summer. People died sitting in the French Hospitals as workers were essentially ordered to go home due to work hour restrictions. I don't know if this is a perfect example of anything that we should be doing.

Frankly, I'd love to figure out how Per-hour productivity is determined and who is making the determination.

There is no doubt that a non-productive wealthy class exists in the US, and they would almost be the equivalent of royalty on this side of the pond. Meaning, they are by and large individuals well connected to the government who receive special favors not given to the population at large. A powerful government can make friends and play favorites. Of course, this is an argument for less government power, not more.

A few notes on this conversation:

The EU spends on average about $2,400 per person to provide universal care. For their money, they are getting 3-4 more years of healthy life compared to Americans, who have gone from the tallest population in the Western world to the shortest (representing poorer care of childern, resulting in a smaller stature).

So while the pro-libertarian vs. pro-democracy argument can always be made, the reality is that, since one would not necessarily have to raise taxes to provide universal care, the debate is moot. The government is already spending over $3,000 dollars per person on healthcare (about half the total). So while it would be a good idea to raise taxes on the rich, it isn't necessary in order to provide universal healthcare. We could do it with the money we are spending today.

As far as the arguement itself is concerned: as recently as the 1950s, the marginal income tax on earned income over $400,000 was 90%. Yet the economy grew just fine, communism did not sweep the nation, and the business community was not destroyed.

The argument that wealthy Americans are the most productive is not supported by the evidence. Hedge fund managers, for example, take home bonuses in the hundreds of millions of dollars to invest money in the market, yet as far as economists have been able to determine, no one does better than the market except by chance. The productivity of these hedge fund managers is nil; their income and the ridiculous way it is taxed have become a national scandal.

It is not necessary or wise to try a seperate the "deserving" poor from the "undeserving" poor. People's ability to make money and spend it wisely is affected by all sorts of things that are not under their control including their genetic endowments, how they were raised, their health, their education and so on. It would take a million social workers with the wisdom of King Solomon to determine who did the best that they could with what they were given, and who deserved to suffer. And to be far, we should also, then, carefully scruitinize the successful to see where the market has failed in the other direction; giving wealth and security to people who deserve to suffer. Quite the tall order.

It is more sensible as well as more humane to set a floor beneath which no one is allowed to fall; to say that everyone, crazy or sane, lazy or hardworking, educated or ignorant, economically valuable or superflueous -- gets to have a roof over their head, gets medical care, gets an education, gets to eat. It's not an impractical idea; the French do it, and they combine the highest per-hour productivity in the world with the lowest poverty rate (6%). Nor is it immoral to tax people in order to maintain those standards. There are no great fortures without a social contract; there are no billionaries in a state of nature. If you want to amass money by playing in a casino, you pay a rake to the house. If you want to play the game of buying and selling in a nation-state, you pay taxes.

 

[QuikClot]

I'll point out that the economic boom of the 50s, which happened to coincide with the return of a healthy economy after a reasonable proportion of the population returned from overseas, may have occurred with a 90% marginal rate, but there is no evidence that it was "ideal" or anything else.

You put "ideal" in quotation marks, but I didn't use the word "ideal" in my post. I said that the economy grew and nothing terrible came to pass.

As that same economy faltered in the 60s, Kennedy, a democrat, was the one who claimed that marginal rates were too high and killing the economy and lowered them to 70%. Of course, none of this really brought prosperity, especially during the Vietnam War. After the Carter debacle of Stagflation, which coincided with a similar predicament all over the world, a series of leaders came into power, which included Reagan in the US and Thatcher in Britain. Both lowered tax rates systematically across the board, and both saw miraculous recoveries of struggling economies.

Um . . . no. That is a distorted, heavily slanted, and oversimplified history of the economic growth of the past fifty years. You explain away rapid economic growth when taxes are high, and you do not hesitate to pronounce Reganomics to be the cause of economic growth in the eighties. Clinton's even larger boom, while raising taxes, is completely ignored.

But you do a nice job of proving my point that the economic debate is moot. Reagan and Thatcher, hand in hand, right? Yet even Margaret Thatcher was forced to proclaim "The NHS is safe in our hands" in order to be electable. The NHS under Thatcher continued to be free and universal (some small co-pays existed, as they do today) -- and an economic boom swept through Britain reguardless. Egro, universal health care can coexist with your right-wing economic theories and -- equally signifigantly -- once people have tasted universal health care, not even so formidable a personality as Lady Thatcher can turn the clock back.

France, which you continuously claim is the most productive per-hour economy on earth,

"Continuously" seems out of place in that sentence. How could I be claiming it continuously on an internet forum?

It's a well-documented economic statistic, and it's true, as you go on to concede.

They also have an unemployment rate that continuously sits in the double digits.

There's that word again. Have a bit of a love affair with it at the moment? I get that way with words. Unfortunately, you are again incorrect. French unemployment stands at 8.1% as of May, down from 8.7% as of 2006. Not only is it not "continuously" in the double digits, it's not in the double digits right now.

In the larger sense, the question is, who cares? 6% of the French live in poverty. 13% of Americans do (and 22% of all children.) It is an accomplishment that millions of Americans work and still live in poverty? It is a failing that France's unemployment rate is 3-4% higher than America's, when the consequences of unemployment are far less severe?

No new company has broken into the French top 10 in over 40 years, while the dynamic US economy has essentially replaced the entire lead group.

We just have different ideas of the purpose of an economy. You appear to think that a successful economy is one in which the maximum amount of people work the maximum number of hours, and which gives rise to "dynamic" companies like Walmart, the world's largest. I, on the other hand, think that the purpose of an economy is to produce things that people need and want, and a successful economy is one in which people get those things. And have enough leisure to enjoy them. What good is a fat paycheck while one in four Americans do not get a single day of paid vacation a year, and half of those that get vacation don't use all of it? French workers get five weeks of paid vacation a year, period. Think about it. It's one of the things that slows job creation in France but, once again, who cares? Lowest poverty rate in the world. And you don't have to wonder if tomorrow you'll get sick, be unable to work, and lose everything.

France's economy provides a good life to the French. That's what an economy is for.

I don't know if this is a perfect example of anything that we should be doing.

Again, you are the one who keeps introducing the concept of a "perfect" or "ideal" system, which you have previously identified with pre-civil rights, pre-women's sufferage, 19th century robber-baron America -- the era of using the National Guard to attack picket lines. I, on the other hand, am interested in improving our current situation in the realm of healthcare by bringing us into the modern era of universal coverage, where the rest of the developed countries have preceeded us. Perfection is not on my agenda. Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien.

 

[chef_NU]

A few notes on this conversation:

The argument that wealthy Americans are the most productive is not supported by the evidence. Hedge fund managers, for example, take home bonuses in the hundreds of millions of dollars to invest money in the market, yet as far as economists have been able to determine, no one does better than the market except by chance. The productivity of these hedge fund managers is nil; their income and the ridiculous way it is taxed have become a national scandal.

This is an interesting conclusion to draw. Another way of saying this is that no one should invest in anything but index funds. On average, yes no one does better than the market. But this is a far cry from concluding that many individuals cannot and do not choose wise investments and therefore come out ahead. My mother used to think the same way about "Wall Street" people: they aren't productive and all they do is take from the "pie". This is completely wrong. Investors have a job, and a very, very important one especially in large economies: to assess risks in business ventures and to allocate the most resources to those that show the most potential for success. Since top hedge fund managers provide no service to anyone and make loads of cash, I wonder why more people don't become top hedge fund managers? I agree with you that the way hedge fund managers are taxed is inconsistent with the progressive tax system of the US, but I'm sure we could go on all day inconsistencies of US government policy

It is not necessary or wise to try a seperate the "deserving" poor from the "undeserving" poor. People's ability to make money and spend it wisely is affected by all sorts of things that are not under their control including their genetic endowments, how they were raised, their health, their education and so on. It would take a million social workers with the wisdom of King Solomon to determine who did the best that they could with what they were given, and who deserved to suffer. And to be far, we should also, then, carefully scruitinize the successful to see where the market has failed in the other direction; giving wealth and security to people who deserve to suffer. Quite the tall order.

Great observation. Your answer is to steal people's money and distribute it to every poor person through government. Whether they spend it on FEMA trailers or food stamps, I have no way of holding the government directly accountable. I always pay, and I (usually) always lose. My answer is to allow private citizens to contribute to charities that they choose. If their charity sucks and wastes money, they stop contributing. The best and most worthwhile charities get the most donors and the most money. If no one contributes to private charities, no one cares about poor people and therefore why should we use government to force people to care?

It is more sensible as well as more humane to set a floor beneath which no one is allowed to fall; to say that everyone, crazy or sane, lazy or hardworking, educated or ignorant, economically valuable or superflueous -- gets to have a roof over their head, gets medical care, gets an education, gets to eat. It's not an impractical idea; the French do it, and they combine the highest per-hour productivity in the world with the lowest poverty rate (6%). Nor is it immoral to tax people in order to maintain those standards. There are no great fortures without a social contract; there are no billionaries in a state of nature. If you want to amass money by playing in a casino, you pay a rake to the house. If you want to play the game of buying and selling in a nation-state, you pay taxes.

Quikclot, there is a fundamental difference between you and I. You value equality over freedom, and I value freedom over equality. I'm not sure why you feel this way, but I value freedom over equality because human beings developed to function in a free, unequal environment for millions of years. I believe that we function best and are happiest when we live in such conditions. Sure, we may grumble, but, rich and poor alike, we have our best moments in this sort of environment.

You say that in order to have society, we all pay a debt to the government. While this may have been true, I am really inspired by the fact that this is essentially unstable. With the advent of globalization, the most capital, the best minds, the most successful companies, and the most productive people will all go to the place that steals the least from them and lets them do as they please. The least restrictive governments will be the most attractive and therefore the most successful. Other governments can either ease their restrictions and become free, or perish. Unless the world somehow combines into one giant nation-state with an all-powerful government, we will end up with a sort of federalism that the American founders always wanted: except in this situation we will be left with a loose coalition of social experiments that are not states, but countries. I really am awed by those of you who are so dedicated to "from each, to each" philosophies, but they will always be marginalized and unsuccessful. 😉