oh, mikey moore, i damn neared died of anger watching Farenheit 9/11, later to realize most of it was rather lame and propaganda-ish. I would never go back to the movies to get pissed off, especially at summer time.
I saw it and thought it was really good and made some really excellent points. I'd heard the criticism that he was too easy on socialized health care and too hard on our system and didn't address certain aspects of our system, so I was prepared for that, but I think those criticism rang hollow. Socialized medicine is criticized enough in the US that it really doesn't need to be addressed in the film for it to be considered fairly evenhanded, but more importantly people know that Michael Moore is biased and somewhat gimicky at times and he's upfront about that, so I think everyone knows what they're getting from him. Having a bias and occasionally engaging in gimicks is fine if it helps you make your point as long as people know your bias, recognize your gimicks, and most importantly if you are otherwise honest in providing information in the promotion of your cause. And I think Michael Moore does all those things. The degree to which our health care is in shambles is never addressed by the media or viable politicians and I think it's great that he took this on. Take it for what it is and with a grain of salt, but all the people who criticize this movie never criticize Phrma's ads that are far more gimicky with a much more selfish bias and are not honest about it. Michael Moore's films are not propaganda because he admits his bias, and they are an invaluable addition to the national discourse.
I'll admit, his films are a valid counter point to right-wing media types like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Savage. Frankly, against those cats I don't think Mike is biased and hateful enough.
I love the term "socialized medicine" that Americans use. Nobody else uses that term, as it connotes communism. The rest of the world, including up here in Canada, calls it "health care."
No, maybe it's not the best system. There are still long waits, not enough doctors or nurses, and people do occasionally screw up - exactly the things that happen in the US, as well.
And we DO pay for it, through our taxes. It's not free by any means. All it means is that after my broken leg is put in a cast and I'm allowed to go home, I'm not stuck with a huge bill to pay at that moment.
I might be a little bit biased, but I see the American system as adding insult to injury. "You've injured yourself? So sorry! Now give us $8000 to fix you up, or piss off."
The money has to come from somewhere, but frankly, the sheer cost of health care in the US is the single (and probably only) reason that I won't ever try to work there. Even insurance is insane. If I want insurance, it costs me $36 a month. I hear about Americans paying 10 times that. Yikes.
slantsix (or any non-American)...... just for shits and giggles, if you had to guess-timate what percentage of your paycheck is taxed each month, what would you say that percentage is? Let's say a ballpark figure, for someone who makes between $35,000 and $50,000 a year, what percentage of their paycheck would be taken out for taxes?
(I'm asking this because people who defend the American system always claim that other countries are drowning in taxes)
apu--i urge you to watch this movie and then come back here and tell us what you think. personally, it didn't make me angry. it made me curious. it provoked great dialogue between me and my friends. it saved me from the mindless visual stimulation that is transformers.
what i have never understood about healthcare is why employers are charged with providing it. is this a vestige of the days of the unions or what. for one it seems inequitable as mr. x and ms. y could have exactly the same jobs but for different companies and have totally different healthcare coverages. and why aren't businesses upset with the rising costs involved? personally, i get a little p.o'd when the healthcare rep shows up in his porsche cayenne.
i don't know man, i'm pretty pissed at the system as it is. I wouldn't wanna do something crazy because hardly anybody believes me about how truly FUBARED the system is.
I just talked taxes in the America thread and got a little flamed for it, even though i posted a non-sarcastic response about the U.S. income tax i'm sure no one will read. So i will say it again, your income tax does not go to pay for ANY of the government stuff we americans hold so dear (like our national parks and highways) it goes to pay INTEREST on the national DEBT. DEBT that is in the trillions because of military overspending! Your income tax goes to pay off loaner nations so our country can satisfy its crack-like war addiction.
Thank you, i think i should go back the the BTAG thread where i belong in pissed-off revolutionary mode.
i don't pay state taxes (out of paycheck, anyway) but about 19% of my paycheck is taken out for fed taxes.
my employer pays my monthly insurance.
when i worked in germany, it was something like 38%
however, i'll keep hammering this point home:
grew up in europe, several broken bones and illnesses among 3 kids, all in countries w/ "socialized" medicine. never had extended wait times.
when we moved back to the u.s. my sister broke her neck surfing, she had to wait 8 hours in the e.r. just to get it looked at. even when she kept slumping over. it was very unnerving and frustrating.
with "socialized" medicine, you'll have to wait longer for elective surgery. seriously, i got no qualms with that.
as an added bonus, illegal immigrants with no insurance won't keep bankrupting hospitals.
state level could make some sense as anything at the federal level seems like it could just be too big.
and businesses are annoyed with paying for healthcare in america. both of my parents were business owners and they complained about it for as long as i can remember. moreover, i've heard of companies locating manufacturing plants in ontario, canada instead of michigan or ohio and specifically citing the healthcare cost as one of the advantages.
i haven't done any indepth research on but i'm not convinced that americans really pay that much less in taxes than other countries. granted, those of us at the lower end of the wage scale don't pay a great deal but if you're financially successful in america you can easily lose nearly half of your income to income taxes. the difference seems to be that in america we'd rather spend our money on interstate highways and military/defense.
lastly, i think that the real crisis in american healthcare is the architecture of hospitals/clinics/etc. those buildings are almost universally hideous these days.
we do pay less taxes but it is still way to much. We already have socialized medicine. They say its private but the costs are all controled and artificially high. This may sound sick but I think we need to industrialize the bulk eyes, ears nose throat part - the real bleeding of the system. Its not rocket science. Case in point - my brother had a serious heart infection as a toddler - our doctor for a month said it was pnemonia. The ER said likewise. The indian guy at the clinic in the poorside of town diagnosed it correctly for the lowest price. And with technology - its comming were they just freaking scan you anyways. Prevent.
25,000 for knee surgury and 6 month rehab..... took me 2 years to get that taken care of......
then a few months back i had a stomach issue...went to emergency and all i had was acid reflux...hurt like a bitch...they gave me some malox with something else and charged me $800....wtf..... and i waited for 3 hours.....
i refuse to go to the hospital again...unless i'm in a serious accident or something....
Moore certainly made an interesting point, that the difference between paying regularly in your taxes for health care, versus the giant lump that puts you deep in debt, really is a difference in hope. Rather than being swamped and below par, you could be sharing the costs, paying regularly and feeling good about yourself. It makes you wonder why the government doesn't want that, because then they might actually vote, pay attention to the government and read a newspaper now and then?
I have also been struck by the recent reporting about Chrysler having become more of a health insurance company than a car company, thus making it hard to compete with so-called "socialized" countries. But maybe the American elites are more of globalized elites and don't care so much about American companies, assuming such a thing still exists. Sigh.
That movie made me laugh and cry and laugh and cry... I felt lightheaded when I left.
this isnt a new idea for moore. back when he had his show tv nation in the early 90's, he had a segment where he tracked the healthcare received in the us, canada and cuba for a broken arm. cuba won.
My girlfriend has insurance and was diagnosed with chronic illness that she will have for the rest of her life. I can't imagine how our health care system could be worse: her she is a professional WITH insurance, and we are doubley screwed by insurance that delays her treatment (beat that Canada oh no I have to wait two months for my stomach stapling); denies claims as a reflex, tried to drop her retroactively for a pre-existing condition and back bill us $100K for previously approved services.
Fuck you, Blue Cross. Anyhow, it took the State Insurance commissioner, an attorney, and a class action lawsuit to straighten it out. In the meantime, we personally fronted $20K for the insurance company while they were denying claims. Anyone that thinks that the system is working is both:
A) Healthy, and doesn't know anyone who is sick.
B) Oblivious.
Well that's just it. We've got it all backwards. If you'll permit me to stray a bit from the topic.....this country has got its priorities all effed up. The obesity epidemic is part of a systemic problem that has to do with how the nation thinks.....bad food is cheaper therefore poor people can afford it. People are so obessed with money that it doesn't occur to them to spend more money to eat more healthy foods. They won't, or they can't. Then entire demographics suffer the consequences as if they are malnourished....because they are eating so poorly. This results in obesity, or increased health problems, or both. Which escalates health care costs....it's a vicious cycle.
You have to approach the problem from the top down, and I think Apu is right, it's going to have to be a problem that the state's tackle because the Feds are too busy wasting our money in other ways.
Do you think that the individual states could vote to suspend paying the Federal government income tax? I mean, what is the Fed going to do, send in the Army? They are kind of busy.....
I'll bite, although admittedly I haven't seen the film yet.
I like to think that I have a better perspective of the "two" systems since my wife is from Canada and has dealt with both. Her quote is that she really sees less difference than everyone makes it out to be.
In the USA the health care is excellent for people that need it really badly. Need brain surgery, heart bypass, transplants, etc. Although it might not be cheap, more medical advances happen in the US than any other country. Most countries don't have a true counterpart to John's Hopkins or the Mayo Clinic. That is a national asset partly available due to the for profit nature of the US system.
"In Canada those that think their health care is great are those that rarely use it." That's a quote from some friends in Alberta. For simple and standard procedures like a case of the flu or a simple broken limb, pregnacy, yeah, it does just fine. However, I've heard people up there scream about Canada's system equally as much as American's do of their insurance companies.
Cost is debatable since it's more than just payroll taxes. Canada has very similar payroll taxes to the US, and in some cases smaller. However, Canada has a GST tax that the US does not, and cost of goods are generally higher...much higher now that their currency is near par with the US dollar. Additionally, on average the wages in the US are higher. One could argue those financial advantages in the US are funneled back into healthcare. Also, the US gov't has several "socialized" health care programs. Medicare and Medicade ring a bell? The elderly, poor, handicapped, etc. all have gov't health care already off the taxpayer.
My take is that no system is perfect. All have faults and weaknesses. Don't believe I'd be any better off in Canada than I am now in the USA. However, it is a nice piece of mind knowing the Mayo Clinic is just a two hour drive down the road.
my girlfriend is in public health and I saw "Sicko" with her, so it was nice being able to talk about it with someone educated about the ideas and she mentioned basically what aqua did, which I think is a valid point... the US does have more top notch hospitals and it does do more research and development in health care than most (if not all) other countries, and the for-profit nature of health care definitely plays into that. But it still doesn't excuse how difficult (or sometimes) impossible it is to get good treatment for the vast majority of (insured and uninsured) Americans. That the wealthiest nation in the world doesn't provide health care for all its people is enough of a shame, but that people need to have bake sales to pay for cancer treatment would be unthinkable if it weren't so prevalent.
If we enact a nationalized health care system, does anyone think all those doctors are going to go to Brazil or whatever the next most industrialized country without a nationalized system is to get away from the "overbearing" government? Will they all quit and become janitors or window washers or some other non-regulated workforce? After the initial flood of people who can't afford procedures now is over (which, if you want to get technical about it, is a wait caused by the current system) why will we have these insurmountable delays where you will have to wait 15 years to get a band-aid or whatever completely anecdotal scare story big pharma is using...
i had a friend break a few vertibrae (neck) when he was on an exchange program....needless to say they fixed him right up and he didnt have to pay a dime.......this was in some other country...denmark/itlay or something......... have that happen in the states..... you'll be lucky to even get attention.....
Well, I have a couple of ideas about it.
1. I'm totally for Sociallizing healthcare. Go for it. I just don't want you dragging me into it. The govt. can socialize healthcare as long as they allow provisions for people like me to use private health care. I don't have health insurance, and sometimes the bills hurt worse than the injury, but I pay them so that I can go to the doctor of my choice and get the best healthcare I can afford. I don't want to loose that right.
2. Do you really want the same organization that runs Walter Reed Army Medical Center, FEMA, the DMV, and the Dept. of Homeland Security running your healthcare? Personally I don't, and quite frankly I don't see a line of citizens breaking down the door to get admitted to the VA or Walter Reed.
I think this issue has turned into the repetition of talking points on both sides. I'm sure I probably heard those points somewhere else, and have just adopted them as my own. They just make more sense to me.
Yeah, nobody would ever use the VA given the choice. Oh wait - they do. Nobody makes you go to the VA, you have the option to use the VA if you've served and been discharged with your benifits. This article - though admittedly from a biased but fact-checked source - shows why govenment health-care can work. Which is if it can bargain independently of restrictions imposed upon it by special interests lobbying congress or the pentagon. Sure, that would never happen in the "free" market system -
Here's one big reason. As Lawrence P. Casalino, a professor of public health at the University of Chicago, puts it, "The U.S. medical market as presently constituted simply does not provide a strong business case for quality."
Casalino writes from his own experience as a solo practitioner, and on the basis of over 800 interviews he has since conducted with health-care leaders and corporate health care purchasers. While practicing medicine on his own in Half Moon Bay, Calif, Casalino had an idealistic commitment to following emerging best practices in medicine. That meant spending lots of time teaching patients about their diseases, arranging for careful monitoring and follow-up care, and trying to keep track of what prescriptions and procedures various specialists might be ordering.
Yet Casalino quickly found out that he couldn't sustain this commitment to quality, given the rules under which he was operating. Nobody paid him for the extra time he spent with his patients. He might have eased his burden by hiring a nurse to help with all the routine patient education and follow-up care that was keeping him at the office too late. Or he might have teamed up with other providers in the area to invest in computer technology that would allow them to offer the same coordinated care available in veterans hospitals and clinics today. Either step would have improved patient safety and added to the quality of care he was providing. But even had he managed to pull them off, he stood virtually no chance of seeing any financial return on his investment. As a private practice physician, he got paid for treating patients, not for keeping them well or helping them recover faster.
The same problem exists across all health-care markets, and its one main reason in explaining why the VHA has a quality performance record that exceeds that of private-sector providers. Suppose a private managed-care plan follows the VHA example and invests in a computer program to identify diabetics and keep track of whether they are getting appropriate follow-up care. The costs are all upfront, but the benefits may take 20 years to materialize. And by then, unlike in the VHA system, the patient will likely have moved on to some new health-care plan. As the chief financial officer of one health plan told Casalino: "Why should I spend our money to save money for our competitors?"
this is intriguing cause ive been to 3 such events in the last year.
the last one raised $40,000
if paying $150/mo which is close to what people pay each month in insurance anyways - it would take 22 years to earn that much. If I went to a 10-20 dollar event once a month every year to help out a comunity member with cancer, andd they agreed to do like wise for me if I needed it, It would cost me $3,960
clamfan, I don't care how many bake sales you've been to.. your anecdotal "evidence" doesn't account for the thousands of people who die each year waiting for proper health care but cannot afford it themselves and are either uninsured or are not being given the opportunity to utilize that health care by their insurance company. There are plenty of people who cannot afford cancer treatments and who are not being helped by insurance et al, and who live in communities of people in similar situations, so how then are they supposed to raise the money they need? you can cry all you want about the beautiful neocon myth of individualism and perosnal responsibility, but people are dying for chrissake.
that's depressing...this after hearing on the nightly news how the federal gov blew $32B on bags of ice bought after katrina. those bags were kept frozen in trailers for two years and were finally destroyed [melted] after they decided they were no longer fit for human use
(Again, as a Canadian) I don't see the level of care as all that different between our countries. But the lump sum bill that Americans receive upon discharge from hospital is what bankrupts families. I don't know which system costs more to run (per capita), but as I said earlier, I truly appreciate not getting handed a bill when I leave the hospital.
For what it's worth, my income tax is 22%. We also have a nation-wide tax of 6% (Goods and Services Tax) and a 8% Provincial Sales Tax. So yes, we are taxed, no doubt about that.
However, I'm moving to a province that is trying to attract young professionals. The major incentive is that they'll pay your income tax over the course of 6+ years, to an amount equivalent to 60% of your tuition costs. That'll save me about $25,000 by the time I'm finished school.
I think what clams was trying to suggest frank if i may be so bold is that health care happens more efficiency on a community level than a national level, hence my original observation about providing health care on the state-to-state level and letting them decide what is best for their citizens. The smaller an organization is, the more easily it can adapt and there's less bureaucracy.
I damn near applauded reading rfuller's no. 2 point. If you want to compare the 2, look at your average HMO (Aetna) and the U.S. Federal Gov. I don't care how evil the HMO's are, when you compare their track record with our government's track record (Philippines, Katrina, Iraq, El Salvador, MKULTRA, Columbia, Panama, Nicaragua, pretty much everything the CIA has ever done, SUPERFUND, Medicare/Medicaid, FEMA, Iran, Japanese concentration camps, the marginalization of blacks, the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, Project Echelon....) the HMOs look like the March of Dimes in comparison. Trust my health care to the U.S. government? Not on your life. I know i sound crazy, but seriously, getting the U.S. government to handle your health care is like asking John Wayne Gacy to take care of your kids.
All you liberals feel free to flame me for saying that.
"Do you really want the same organization that runs Walter Reed Army Medical Center, FEMA, the DMV, and the Dept. of Homeland Security running your healthcare? Personally I don't, and quite frankly I don't see a line of citizens breaking down the door to get admitted to the VA or Walter Reed."
Alas, in the privatized system this is already the case. Damn near all of the examples you cite above AND health care in the United States are all run by the same thing: unaccountable corporate contractors driven by their responsibility to their shareholders and not the public good.
Before you accuse me of being a communist, I think I should point out that a free market solution is possible, but does not currently exist. In order for the free market to work in this sort of situation what is good for the patient and what is profitable have to coincide - currently they are mutually exclusive.
cryz, no offense, but why go to a hospital for stomach pain? why not just go to a walk-in clinic? there lies some of the problem, many people that go to the emergency room for flu's, colds, and low grade problems that walk-in's could take care of. leave emergency rooms for gun shots, accidents, broken bones, skull fractures, brain, heart, and other internal maladies. i, believe it or not, am also in favor of limiting malpractice claims, that is also part of the problem.
america should have a standard of care that says we will care for all of these things - pick from column 'a' - and you will not be billed. items from column 'b' you'll pay a little, and hollywood plastic surgery you'll pay this....
that being said i do plan to go to India in the near future for some elective surgery that would cost me 3 times as much here in the states.
To add fuel to the fire a friend in Winnipeg emailed this to me last night.
Brett Skinner is a doctoral candidate at the University of Western Ontario and the director of health, pharmaceutical and insurance policy research at the Fraser Institute in Toronto, Canada.
At a pivotal scene in "Sicko," filmmaker Michael Moore marvels at Canada's single-payer health system, suggesting that it is a medical utopia. "It's really a fabulous system," explains one healthy Canadian, "for making sure that the least of us and the best of us are taken care of."
But healthy people don't use much health care. If Moore had interviewed ill Canadians, he would have gotten a whole different story.
In reality, Canada's health care system is not the paradise Moore presents. I should know - I live there.
Consider Canada's notorious waiting lists. In 1993, Canadians referred by their doctors to specialists waited an average of 9.3 weeks for treatment. By 2006, that time had nearly doubled to 17.8 weeks -almost twice what's considered clinically reasonable.
In the words of Canada's Supreme Court, "access to a waiting list is not the same thing as access to health care." The court used that phrase when it struck down the single-payer system in one Canadian province in 2005. Yet somehow Moore missed this, the biggest story in Canadian health policy in the last 40 years.
Canada's long waits are partially caused by a shortage of doctors. Whereas the United States had 2.4 practicing physicians per 1000 residents in 2004, Canada had only 2.1. That's a difference of 300 fewer doctors in a city of 1 million residents.
New York's population exceeds 8 million. Imagine what health care would be like in the Big Apple with 2,400 fewer physicians and you have some idea what it's like in Canada.
Over the last 10 years, around 10 percent of the doctors trained in Canada decided to practice medicine in the United States. This is the result of low physician salaries, which are paid by the state.
The average Canadian physician earns only 42 percent of what the average U.S. doctor takes home each year. Simply put, single-payer systems exploit medical labor. Any U.S. state that adopts a single-payer approach is going to lose doctors to other states.
Canada's single-payer system is also letting its hospitals rot on the vine. While the average U.S. hospital is only nine years old, the average hospital in Ontario, Canada's largest province, has been around for 40 years.
And Canada's system limits the adoption of new technology. Among the 24 Western nations that guarantee access to health care, Canada ranks 13th in access to MRIs and 17th in access to CT scanners. The lack of access to medical technology contributes to longer waiting times for diagnostic tests.
The rationing of medical procedures and drugs is another harmful result of Canada's system. In 2003, twice as many in-patient surgical procedures were performed in the United States per 1,000 residents than in Canada.
And Canada's "universal" health care system doesn't offer universal drug coverage. Only about one-third of the population is eligible for government drug programs in Canada. The rest pay cash or has private insurance.
Canada's cost advantage is also an illusion. True, Canada spends less per Gross Domestic Product on medical care than America - but so does Ethiopia. Such comparisons are meaningless without considering value for money.
Compared with Americans, Canadians get relatively little in return for the money they spend. Canada's single-payer system does not cover many of the advanced medical treatments and technologies that are commonplace in America, and Canadians have access to fewer doctors, fewer treatments and fewer new drugs. Yet in Canada, public spending on health care is still growing faster than the ability of the government to pay for it. As of 2006, public health spending in six out of 10 Canadian provinces was on pace to consume more than half of total revenue from all sources by the year 2020 - without even taking into account the added pressures from an aging population.
As of 2003, the growing unfunded liabilities for health care reached 46 percent of Canada's total economic output.
These are the hidden costs of Canada's health system, and they're far worse than the monetary price of U.S. medical care. But Michael Moore is not interested in such facts. He makes fictional films.
That article, to me, holds about as much sway as the film does. If Michael Moore can make "fictional" films than why couldn't some random guy I've never heard of write a fictional article with made-up facts? I certainly don't see any references there....
Like I said earlier, I think it will be the states that need to step up and handle health care because the Feds are too incompetent/overwhelmed. But I think HMOs should be highly regulated, because I think they are criminal.
Having just reviewed my options for health insurance as I transfer from the working world back to grad school, I must say that I am angry once again. If I go with a Cobra plan, I will end up paying roughly $2130 a year for health insurance. And I am a healthy person....no conditions or chronic illnesses. (knock on wood) Now that's a lot of money and if I thought that my money was going to help out some one who needed it when the time came for them to draw on their insurance, I may not be so upset, but that's not happening....
Grrrr. Fortunately I can go with cheaper University health insurance. Of course it is still managed by an HMO, and I actually found the clause that says you have to call a special phone number and get administrative clearance within 24 hours of an emergency room visit. What if you have to go to the emergency room on a Friday night? D'oh, probably screwed.....
Health care in this country is f*#$ed up, period. It's broken. How do we fix such a mess?
where no ones dirty hands would be involved to create the new monster.
let each state deal with it and let the feds match funds...and stop funding the damn military industrial complex...a few crappy overpriced ospreys would have helped us for years.
...Or at least force an insurance industry that is not for profit. Oh, and stop corn subsidies, they more than anything have underwritten the growing waist-lines of america.
at least some folks enjoy "socialized health care":
San Francisco Chronicle
Taxpayers pick up Bush's bill
David Lazarus
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Democratic lawmakers in Washington say they're drafting a health care reform bill that would expand coverage for low-income kids. President Bush says he'll veto any such legislation, warning that it would lead the nation "down the path to government-run health care for every American."
Like that would be a bad thing.
What's particularly galling about Bush's position is that it's coming from a man who just underwent a colonoscopy performed at the taxpayer-funded, state-of-the-art medical facility at Camp David by an elite team of doctors from the taxpayer-funded National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md.
If anyone understands the benefits of government-run health care, it's the president.
But let's not get sidetracked. Bush wasn't being entirely accurate when he derided the notion of government-run health care for every American. That might make for a fine little sound bite, especially among those who fear the specter of "socialized medicine," but it's not really what's at stake.
Rather, advocates of health care reform are seeking government-run insurance for every American, leaving the health care part to those who know best - doctors and nurses.
This is a crucial distinction at a time when 47 million Americans lack medical coverage and, according to researchers at Harvard University, about a third of the $2 trillion spent annually on health care in this country is squandered on bureaucratic overhead.
"Cuba is socialized medicine," observed Dr. Kevin Grumbach, who heads the Department of Family and Community Medicine at UCSF. "The government employs all the physicians and owns all the hospitals. That's not what anyone is talking about for this country."
Rather, the focus here is on two indisputable facts: that the United States spends about twice as much per person on health care as most other industrialized democracies, and that Americans on average do not live as long as people in countries that guarantee medical coverage to their citizens.
"Why have all other countries figured out a way to do this?" Grumbach asked. "Why are we the only ones that are so uncivilized?"
The United States spent an average of $6,102 per person on health care in 2004 (the latest year for which figures are available), according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Canada spent $3,165 per person, France $3,159, Australia $3,120 and Britain a mere $2,508. Life expectancy in the United States was lower than in each of these other countries and infant mortality was higher.
Looking at the numbers another way, the Kaiser Family Foundation determined earlier this year that health care spending accounts for 15.2 percent of the U.S. economy.
By contrast, health care spending represents 9.9 percent of Canada's gross domestic product, 10.4 percent of France's, 9.2 percent of Australia's and just 7.8 percent of Britain's.
And again, the citizens of these countries on average live longer than we do.
In Washington, Democratic lawmakers are crafting legislation to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which subsidizes insurance for low-income kids.
The Senate Finance Committee last week approved a five-year plan to increase funding for the program through a 61-cents-per-pack increase in the federal cigarette tax. This would maintain coverage for 6.6 million recipients while adding 3.2 million uninsured kids to the system.
Bush told an audience in Nashville last week that the Senate bill is "the beginning salvo of the encroachment of the federal government on the health care system." He said he'd veto any such legislation making its way to his desk.
That's a fine how-do-you-do for a guy who had five growths removed from his colon on Saturday largely at the government's expense and had them promptly examined by government experts at the government-run National Naval Medical Center.
Happily, the tests showed no sign of cancer. So Bush can rest easy for another few years, thanks to all that government health care.
No one at the White House could be reached to discuss how much the president paid out of his own pocket for the colonoscopy and subsequent testing.
Presidents typically have their own health insurance, although the first-class treatment they receive is largely defrayed by taxpayer funds. In other words, they're prime beneficiaries of government-run health care - just like in Cuba.
In a paper found on the Web site of the Defense Department's Armed Forces Institute of Pathology ( www.afip.org ), former White House physician George Fuller outlines the mission of the taxpayer-funded White House Medical Unit.
He writes that a primary purpose of the group is to provide "confidential, immediate and private access to preventive, routine and urgent care for the principals." This, Fuller adds, "is a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week commitment with no exceptions."
The quality of health care is so exacting, he observes, "that the president cannot even ride an elevator in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building without a physician escort."
According to Fuller, the president enjoys the benefits of medical and dental clinics in the White House, as well as "a fully equipped and supplied outpatient clinic" at Camp David, where Bush's colon was explored.
He says the White House Medical Unit also "keeps a unique and extensive library of medical facilities throughout the world" to provide for the president's health care needs during overseas travel.
All in all, Bush is the last person with a right to complain about government-run health care for every American. We should all be so lucky.
David Lazarus' column appears Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. He also can be heard Saturdays, 4 to 7 p.m., on KGO Radio. Send tips or feedback to [email protected]
Rather, the focus here is on two indisputable facts: that the United States spends about twice as much per person on health care as most other industrialized democracies, and that Americans on average do not live as long as people in countries that guarantee medical coverage to their citizens.
"Why have all other countries figured out a way to do this?" Grumbach asked. "Why are we the only ones that are so uncivilized?"
The United States spent an average of $6,102 per person on health care in 2004 (the latest year for which figures are available), according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Canada spent $3,165 per person, France $3,159, Australia $3,120 and Britain a mere $2,508. Life expectancy in the United States was lower than in each of these other countries and infant mortality was higher.
DubK, i think there are many more reasons than health insurance as to why americans cost so much to take care of.
Reason 1: Population. On that list (Britian, France, Aussie, Canada) the U.S. has a far bigger population and large disparities in income, which i think contributes to health issues. Three times the population=three times the bullshit.
Reason 2: Lifestyle. We are extremely sedentary and consume more food, especially high fat, processed foods than probably any other country in the world. Not to mention we have higher crime rates (more crime related injuries), more drivers (more auto related injuries), more litigation (more malpractice insurance) and alot more bullshit to shovel than those other countries.
Reason 3: Quality of care. The U.S. has largely unrivaled medical expertise at work here. This is because we pay doctors very high salaries compared to other countries, and other reasons like top-notch medical schools. The technology available in the U.S. is also very advanced and very expensive.
Reason 4: Corruption. Doctors, Lawyers, Insurers, and Government officials all exist in a huge racket that pulls more money out of pockets than other nations may have to deal with. Doctors are know to farm patients out to other doctors until all the benefits under a particular policy have expired, this is very prevalent in auto insurance. Ever heard of an MRI for an ankle sprain? I have.
There are other reasons im sure, but i'm done ranting right now.
None of this will be fixed by making a federal health insurance plan for all americans. Two trillion lost to bureaucratic overhead sounds bad now, imagine how bad it would be if all Americans were being covered by an inept, overly-bureaucratic government. Healthcare reform has to happen from the smallest community up, that's why I advocate reform largely at the state level.
imagine how bad it would be if all Americans were being covered by an inept, overly-bureaucratic
system
You don't need to imagine it: it's happening now, it's just that the inept, overly-bureaucratic private corporations. at the very least, if the government was running it it would be not-for-profit. my only point is that it's easy to think (and a lot of people do) that the government will be inherently less efficient than a private corporation, but i don't think this is so. if there was one, single system, that alone would drastically reduce the bureaucratic red tape and make health care more readily available. i think you're point about bottom-up, state-run programs is interesting and i tend to think that the states do a much better job of domestic policy and programs than the federal government, but i also think the benefit of a national system, aside from the fact that many people have to go out-of-state for certain procedures, is that it would mean everyone was insured by the same system, greatly simplifying the situation.
Jul 26, 07 12:20 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
SiCKO
our national health care policy:
don't get sick.
oh, mikey moore, i damn neared died of anger watching Farenheit 9/11, later to realize most of it was rather lame and propaganda-ish. I would never go back to the movies to get pissed off, especially at summer time.
Oh my gosh. I can't begin to describe how helpless I felt when I left this movie.
The one glimmer of hope I did find was in seeing this link:
http://www.hookacanuck.com/
(OK, I'm joking but still....the movie was really depressing)
I saw it and thought it was really good and made some really excellent points. I'd heard the criticism that he was too easy on socialized health care and too hard on our system and didn't address certain aspects of our system, so I was prepared for that, but I think those criticism rang hollow. Socialized medicine is criticized enough in the US that it really doesn't need to be addressed in the film for it to be considered fairly evenhanded, but more importantly people know that Michael Moore is biased and somewhat gimicky at times and he's upfront about that, so I think everyone knows what they're getting from him. Having a bias and occasionally engaging in gimicks is fine if it helps you make your point as long as people know your bias, recognize your gimicks, and most importantly if you are otherwise honest in providing information in the promotion of your cause. And I think Michael Moore does all those things. The degree to which our health care is in shambles is never addressed by the media or viable politicians and I think it's great that he took this on. Take it for what it is and with a grain of salt, but all the people who criticize this movie never criticize Phrma's ads that are far more gimicky with a much more selfish bias and are not honest about it. Michael Moore's films are not propaganda because he admits his bias, and they are an invaluable addition to the national discourse.
I'll admit, his films are a valid counter point to right-wing media types like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Savage. Frankly, against those cats I don't think Mike is biased and hateful enough.
I love the term "socialized medicine" that Americans use. Nobody else uses that term, as it connotes communism. The rest of the world, including up here in Canada, calls it "health care."
No, maybe it's not the best system. There are still long waits, not enough doctors or nurses, and people do occasionally screw up - exactly the things that happen in the US, as well.
And we DO pay for it, through our taxes. It's not free by any means. All it means is that after my broken leg is put in a cast and I'm allowed to go home, I'm not stuck with a huge bill to pay at that moment.
I might be a little bit biased, but I see the American system as adding insult to injury. "You've injured yourself? So sorry! Now give us $8000 to fix you up, or piss off."
The money has to come from somewhere, but frankly, the sheer cost of health care in the US is the single (and probably only) reason that I won't ever try to work there. Even insurance is insane. If I want insurance, it costs me $36 a month. I hear about Americans paying 10 times that. Yikes.
slantsix (or any non-American)...... just for shits and giggles, if you had to guess-timate what percentage of your paycheck is taxed each month, what would you say that percentage is? Let's say a ballpark figure, for someone who makes between $35,000 and $50,000 a year, what percentage of their paycheck would be taken out for taxes?
(I'm asking this because people who defend the American system always claim that other countries are drowning in taxes)
apu--i urge you to watch this movie and then come back here and tell us what you think. personally, it didn't make me angry. it made me curious. it provoked great dialogue between me and my friends. it saved me from the mindless visual stimulation that is transformers.
what i have never understood about healthcare is why employers are charged with providing it. is this a vestige of the days of the unions or what. for one it seems inequitable as mr. x and ms. y could have exactly the same jobs but for different companies and have totally different healthcare coverages. and why aren't businesses upset with the rising costs involved? personally, i get a little p.o'd when the healthcare rep shows up in his porsche cayenne.
i don't know man, i'm pretty pissed at the system as it is. I wouldn't wanna do something crazy because hardly anybody believes me about how truly FUBARED the system is.
I just talked taxes in the America thread and got a little flamed for it, even though i posted a non-sarcastic response about the U.S. income tax i'm sure no one will read. So i will say it again, your income tax does not go to pay for ANY of the government stuff we americans hold so dear (like our national parks and highways) it goes to pay INTEREST on the national DEBT. DEBT that is in the trillions because of military overspending! Your income tax goes to pay off loaner nations so our country can satisfy its crack-like war addiction.
Thank you, i think i should go back the the BTAG thread where i belong in pissed-off revolutionary mode.
And vado, please key his car, it is a disgrace to automotive design and should not be driven by an HMO rep. Tell him to get a volvo XC90 instead.
he's not even from the hmo he's from the company that reps the hmo. or ppo or whatever its called these days.
i don't pay state taxes (out of paycheck, anyway) but about 19% of my paycheck is taken out for fed taxes.
my employer pays my monthly insurance.
when i worked in germany, it was something like 38%
however, i'll keep hammering this point home:
grew up in europe, several broken bones and illnesses among 3 kids, all in countries w/ "socialized" medicine. never had extended wait times.
when we moved back to the u.s. my sister broke her neck surfing, she had to wait 8 hours in the e.r. just to get it looked at. even when she kept slumping over. it was very unnerving and frustrating.
with "socialized" medicine, you'll have to wait longer for elective surgery. seriously, i got no qualms with that.
as an added bonus, illegal immigrants with no insurance won't keep bankrupting hospitals.
I think that socializing health care should probably happen at the state lever, like what Massachusetts is doing with its health care policies.
state level could make some sense as anything at the federal level seems like it could just be too big.
and businesses are annoyed with paying for healthcare in america. both of my parents were business owners and they complained about it for as long as i can remember. moreover, i've heard of companies locating manufacturing plants in ontario, canada instead of michigan or ohio and specifically citing the healthcare cost as one of the advantages.
i haven't done any indepth research on but i'm not convinced that americans really pay that much less in taxes than other countries. granted, those of us at the lower end of the wage scale don't pay a great deal but if you're financially successful in america you can easily lose nearly half of your income to income taxes. the difference seems to be that in america we'd rather spend our money on interstate highways and military/defense.
lastly, i think that the real crisis in american healthcare is the architecture of hospitals/clinics/etc. those buildings are almost universally hideous these days.
we do pay less taxes but it is still way to much. We already have socialized medicine. They say its private but the costs are all controled and artificially high. This may sound sick but I think we need to industrialize the bulk eyes, ears nose throat part - the real bleeding of the system. Its not rocket science. Case in point - my brother had a serious heart infection as a toddler - our doctor for a month said it was pnemonia. The ER said likewise. The indian guy at the clinic in the poorside of town diagnosed it correctly for the lowest price. And with technology - its comming were they just freaking scan you anyways. Prevent.
25,000 for knee surgury and 6 month rehab..... took me 2 years to get that taken care of......
then a few months back i had a stomach issue...went to emergency and all i had was acid reflux...hurt like a bitch...they gave me some malox with something else and charged me $800....wtf..... and i waited for 3 hours.....
i refuse to go to the hospital again...unless i'm in a serious accident or something....
Moore certainly made an interesting point, that the difference between paying regularly in your taxes for health care, versus the giant lump that puts you deep in debt, really is a difference in hope. Rather than being swamped and below par, you could be sharing the costs, paying regularly and feeling good about yourself. It makes you wonder why the government doesn't want that, because then they might actually vote, pay attention to the government and read a newspaper now and then?
I have also been struck by the recent reporting about Chrysler having become more of a health insurance company than a car company, thus making it hard to compete with so-called "socialized" countries. But maybe the American elites are more of globalized elites and don't care so much about American companies, assuming such a thing still exists. Sigh.
That movie made me laugh and cry and laugh and cry... I felt lightheaded when I left.
this isnt a new idea for moore. back when he had his show tv nation in the early 90's, he had a segment where he tracked the healthcare received in the us, canada and cuba for a broken arm. cuba won.
My girlfriend has insurance and was diagnosed with chronic illness that she will have for the rest of her life. I can't imagine how our health care system could be worse: her she is a professional WITH insurance, and we are doubley screwed by insurance that delays her treatment (beat that Canada oh no I have to wait two months for my stomach stapling); denies claims as a reflex, tried to drop her retroactively for a pre-existing condition and back bill us $100K for previously approved services.
Fuck you, Blue Cross. Anyhow, it took the State Insurance commissioner, an attorney, and a class action lawsuit to straighten it out. In the meantime, we personally fronted $20K for the insurance company while they were denying claims. Anyone that thinks that the system is working is both:
A) Healthy, and doesn't know anyone who is sick.
B) Oblivious.
this obesity epidemic is really going to help things a lot!
Well that's just it. We've got it all backwards. If you'll permit me to stray a bit from the topic.....this country has got its priorities all effed up. The obesity epidemic is part of a systemic problem that has to do with how the nation thinks.....bad food is cheaper therefore poor people can afford it. People are so obessed with money that it doesn't occur to them to spend more money to eat more healthy foods. They won't, or they can't. Then entire demographics suffer the consequences as if they are malnourished....because they are eating so poorly. This results in obesity, or increased health problems, or both. Which escalates health care costs....it's a vicious cycle.
You have to approach the problem from the top down, and I think Apu is right, it's going to have to be a problem that the state's tackle because the Feds are too busy wasting our money in other ways.
Do you think that the individual states could vote to suspend paying the Federal government income tax? I mean, what is the Fed going to do, send in the Army? They are kind of busy.....
I'll bite, although admittedly I haven't seen the film yet.
I like to think that I have a better perspective of the "two" systems since my wife is from Canada and has dealt with both. Her quote is that she really sees less difference than everyone makes it out to be.
In the USA the health care is excellent for people that need it really badly. Need brain surgery, heart bypass, transplants, etc. Although it might not be cheap, more medical advances happen in the US than any other country. Most countries don't have a true counterpart to John's Hopkins or the Mayo Clinic. That is a national asset partly available due to the for profit nature of the US system.
"In Canada those that think their health care is great are those that rarely use it." That's a quote from some friends in Alberta. For simple and standard procedures like a case of the flu or a simple broken limb, pregnacy, yeah, it does just fine. However, I've heard people up there scream about Canada's system equally as much as American's do of their insurance companies.
Cost is debatable since it's more than just payroll taxes. Canada has very similar payroll taxes to the US, and in some cases smaller. However, Canada has a GST tax that the US does not, and cost of goods are generally higher...much higher now that their currency is near par with the US dollar. Additionally, on average the wages in the US are higher. One could argue those financial advantages in the US are funneled back into healthcare. Also, the US gov't has several "socialized" health care programs. Medicare and Medicade ring a bell? The elderly, poor, handicapped, etc. all have gov't health care already off the taxpayer.
My take is that no system is perfect. All have faults and weaknesses. Don't believe I'd be any better off in Canada than I am now in the USA. However, it is a nice piece of mind knowing the Mayo Clinic is just a two hour drive down the road.
my girlfriend is in public health and I saw "Sicko" with her, so it was nice being able to talk about it with someone educated about the ideas and she mentioned basically what aqua did, which I think is a valid point... the US does have more top notch hospitals and it does do more research and development in health care than most (if not all) other countries, and the for-profit nature of health care definitely plays into that. But it still doesn't excuse how difficult (or sometimes) impossible it is to get good treatment for the vast majority of (insured and uninsured) Americans. That the wealthiest nation in the world doesn't provide health care for all its people is enough of a shame, but that people need to have bake sales to pay for cancer treatment would be unthinkable if it weren't so prevalent.
If we enact a nationalized health care system, does anyone think all those doctors are going to go to Brazil or whatever the next most industrialized country without a nationalized system is to get away from the "overbearing" government? Will they all quit and become janitors or window washers or some other non-regulated workforce? After the initial flood of people who can't afford procedures now is over (which, if you want to get technical about it, is a wait caused by the current system) why will we have these insurmountable delays where you will have to wait 15 years to get a band-aid or whatever completely anecdotal scare story big pharma is using...
i had a friend break a few vertibrae (neck) when he was on an exchange program....needless to say they fixed him right up and he didnt have to pay a dime.......this was in some other country...denmark/itlay or something......... have that happen in the states..... you'll be lucky to even get attention.....
Well, I have a couple of ideas about it.
1. I'm totally for Sociallizing healthcare. Go for it. I just don't want you dragging me into it. The govt. can socialize healthcare as long as they allow provisions for people like me to use private health care. I don't have health insurance, and sometimes the bills hurt worse than the injury, but I pay them so that I can go to the doctor of my choice and get the best healthcare I can afford. I don't want to loose that right.
2. Do you really want the same organization that runs Walter Reed Army Medical Center, FEMA, the DMV, and the Dept. of Homeland Security running your healthcare? Personally I don't, and quite frankly I don't see a line of citizens breaking down the door to get admitted to the VA or Walter Reed.
I think this issue has turned into the repetition of talking points on both sides. I'm sure I probably heard those points somewhere else, and have just adopted them as my own. They just make more sense to me.
Yeah, nobody would ever use the VA given the choice. Oh wait - they do. Nobody makes you go to the VA, you have the option to use the VA if you've served and been discharged with your benifits. This article - though admittedly from a biased but fact-checked source - shows why govenment health-care can work. Which is if it can bargain independently of restrictions imposed upon it by special interests lobbying congress or the pentagon. Sure, that would never happen in the "free" market system -
Here's one big reason. As Lawrence P. Casalino, a professor of public health at the University of Chicago, puts it, "The U.S. medical market as presently constituted simply does not provide a strong business case for quality."
Casalino writes from his own experience as a solo practitioner, and on the basis of over 800 interviews he has since conducted with health-care leaders and corporate health care purchasers. While practicing medicine on his own in Half Moon Bay, Calif, Casalino had an idealistic commitment to following emerging best practices in medicine. That meant spending lots of time teaching patients about their diseases, arranging for careful monitoring and follow-up care, and trying to keep track of what prescriptions and procedures various specialists might be ordering.
Yet Casalino quickly found out that he couldn't sustain this commitment to quality, given the rules under which he was operating. Nobody paid him for the extra time he spent with his patients. He might have eased his burden by hiring a nurse to help with all the routine patient education and follow-up care that was keeping him at the office too late. Or he might have teamed up with other providers in the area to invest in computer technology that would allow them to offer the same coordinated care available in veterans hospitals and clinics today. Either step would have improved patient safety and added to the quality of care he was providing. But even had he managed to pull them off, he stood virtually no chance of seeing any financial return on his investment. As a private practice physician, he got paid for treating patients, not for keeping them well or helping them recover faster.
The same problem exists across all health-care markets, and its one main reason in explaining why the VHA has a quality performance record that exceeds that of private-sector providers. Suppose a private managed-care plan follows the VHA example and invests in a computer program to identify diabetics and keep track of whether they are getting appropriate follow-up care. The costs are all upfront, but the benefits may take 20 years to materialize. And by then, unlike in the VHA system, the patient will likely have moved on to some new health-care plan. As the chief financial officer of one health plan told Casalino: "Why should I spend our money to save money for our competitors?"
free market koolaid everyone, drink up!
bake sales for cancer -
this is intriguing cause ive been to 3 such events in the last year.
the last one raised $40,000
if paying $150/mo which is close to what people pay each month in insurance anyways - it would take 22 years to earn that much. If I went to a 10-20 dollar event once a month every year to help out a comunity member with cancer, andd they agreed to do like wise for me if I needed it, It would cost me $3,960
wheres the difference?
I think if you promised eveyone would get cupcakes AND a form of communally funded health care, I think more people might be swayed by your arguement.
free crack or a healthy diet......
loose weight both ways
but it's the long term issue.....
clamfan, I don't care how many bake sales you've been to.. your anecdotal "evidence" doesn't account for the thousands of people who die each year waiting for proper health care but cannot afford it themselves and are either uninsured or are not being given the opportunity to utilize that health care by their insurance company. There are plenty of people who cannot afford cancer treatments and who are not being helped by insurance et al, and who live in communities of people in similar situations, so how then are they supposed to raise the money they need? you can cry all you want about the beautiful neocon myth of individualism and perosnal responsibility, but people are dying for chrissake.
Make more hospitals and more public access to health and build less tanks.
http://www.thebudgetgraph.com/poster/
that's depressing...this after hearing on the nightly news how the federal gov blew $32B on bags of ice bought after katrina. those bags were kept frozen in trailers for two years and were finally destroyed [melted] after they decided they were no longer fit for human use
(Again, as a Canadian) I don't see the level of care as all that different between our countries. But the lump sum bill that Americans receive upon discharge from hospital is what bankrupts families. I don't know which system costs more to run (per capita), but as I said earlier, I truly appreciate not getting handed a bill when I leave the hospital.
For what it's worth, my income tax is 22%. We also have a nation-wide tax of 6% (Goods and Services Tax) and a 8% Provincial Sales Tax. So yes, we are taxed, no doubt about that.
However, I'm moving to a province that is trying to attract young professionals. The major incentive is that they'll pay your income tax over the course of 6+ years, to an amount equivalent to 60% of your tuition costs. That'll save me about $25,000 by the time I'm finished school.
I think what clams was trying to suggest frank if i may be so bold is that health care happens more efficiency on a community level than a national level, hence my original observation about providing health care on the state-to-state level and letting them decide what is best for their citizens. The smaller an organization is, the more easily it can adapt and there's less bureaucracy.
I damn near applauded reading rfuller's no. 2 point. If you want to compare the 2, look at your average HMO (Aetna) and the U.S. Federal Gov. I don't care how evil the HMO's are, when you compare their track record with our government's track record (Philippines, Katrina, Iraq, El Salvador, MKULTRA, Columbia, Panama, Nicaragua, pretty much everything the CIA has ever done, SUPERFUND, Medicare/Medicaid, FEMA, Iran, Japanese concentration camps, the marginalization of blacks, the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, Project Echelon....) the HMOs look like the March of Dimes in comparison. Trust my health care to the U.S. government? Not on your life. I know i sound crazy, but seriously, getting the U.S. government to handle your health care is like asking John Wayne Gacy to take care of your kids.
All you liberals feel free to flame me for saying that.
"Do you really want the same organization that runs Walter Reed Army Medical Center, FEMA, the DMV, and the Dept. of Homeland Security running your healthcare? Personally I don't, and quite frankly I don't see a line of citizens breaking down the door to get admitted to the VA or Walter Reed."
Alas, in the privatized system this is already the case. Damn near all of the examples you cite above AND health care in the United States are all run by the same thing: unaccountable corporate contractors driven by their responsibility to their shareholders and not the public good.
Before you accuse me of being a communist, I think I should point out that a free market solution is possible, but does not currently exist. In order for the free market to work in this sort of situation what is good for the patient and what is profitable have to coincide - currently they are mutually exclusive.
cryz, no offense, but why go to a hospital for stomach pain? why not just go to a walk-in clinic? there lies some of the problem, many people that go to the emergency room for flu's, colds, and low grade problems that walk-in's could take care of. leave emergency rooms for gun shots, accidents, broken bones, skull fractures, brain, heart, and other internal maladies. i, believe it or not, am also in favor of limiting malpractice claims, that is also part of the problem.
america should have a standard of care that says we will care for all of these things - pick from column 'a' - and you will not be billed. items from column 'b' you'll pay a little, and hollywood plastic surgery you'll pay this....
that being said i do plan to go to India in the near future for some elective surgery that would cost me 3 times as much here in the states.
To add fuel to the fire a friend in Winnipeg emailed this to me last night.
Brett Skinner is a doctoral candidate at the University of Western Ontario and the director of health, pharmaceutical and insurance policy research at the Fraser Institute in Toronto, Canada.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
At a pivotal scene in "Sicko," filmmaker Michael Moore marvels at Canada's single-payer health system, suggesting that it is a medical utopia. "It's really a fabulous system," explains one healthy Canadian, "for making sure that the least of us and the best of us are taken care of."
But healthy people don't use much health care. If Moore had interviewed ill Canadians, he would have gotten a whole different story.
In reality, Canada's health care system is not the paradise Moore presents. I should know - I live there.
Consider Canada's notorious waiting lists. In 1993, Canadians referred by their doctors to specialists waited an average of 9.3 weeks for treatment. By 2006, that time had nearly doubled to 17.8 weeks -almost twice what's considered clinically reasonable.
In the words of Canada's Supreme Court, "access to a waiting list is not the same thing as access to health care." The court used that phrase when it struck down the single-payer system in one Canadian province in 2005. Yet somehow Moore missed this, the biggest story in Canadian health policy in the last 40 years.
Canada's long waits are partially caused by a shortage of doctors. Whereas the United States had 2.4 practicing physicians per 1000 residents in 2004, Canada had only 2.1. That's a difference of 300 fewer doctors in a city of 1 million residents.
New York's population exceeds 8 million. Imagine what health care would be like in the Big Apple with 2,400 fewer physicians and you have some idea what it's like in Canada.
Over the last 10 years, around 10 percent of the doctors trained in Canada decided to practice medicine in the United States. This is the result of low physician salaries, which are paid by the state.
The average Canadian physician earns only 42 percent of what the average U.S. doctor takes home each year. Simply put, single-payer systems exploit medical labor. Any U.S. state that adopts a single-payer approach is going to lose doctors to other states.
Canada's single-payer system is also letting its hospitals rot on the vine. While the average U.S. hospital is only nine years old, the average hospital in Ontario, Canada's largest province, has been around for 40 years.
And Canada's system limits the adoption of new technology. Among the 24 Western nations that guarantee access to health care, Canada ranks 13th in access to MRIs and 17th in access to CT scanners. The lack of access to medical technology contributes to longer waiting times for diagnostic tests.
The rationing of medical procedures and drugs is another harmful result of Canada's system. In 2003, twice as many in-patient surgical procedures were performed in the United States per 1,000 residents than in Canada.
And Canada's "universal" health care system doesn't offer universal drug coverage. Only about one-third of the population is eligible for government drug programs in Canada. The rest pay cash or has private insurance.
Canada's cost advantage is also an illusion. True, Canada spends less per Gross Domestic Product on medical care than America - but so does Ethiopia. Such comparisons are meaningless without considering value for money.
Compared with Americans, Canadians get relatively little in return for the money they spend. Canada's single-payer system does not cover many of the advanced medical treatments and technologies that are commonplace in America, and Canadians have access to fewer doctors, fewer treatments and fewer new drugs. Yet in Canada, public spending on health care is still growing faster than the ability of the government to pay for it. As of 2006, public health spending in six out of 10 Canadian provinces was on pace to consume more than half of total revenue from all sources by the year 2020 - without even taking into account the added pressures from an aging population.
As of 2003, the growing unfunded liabilities for health care reached 46 percent of Canada's total economic output.
These are the hidden costs of Canada's health system, and they're far worse than the monetary price of U.S. medical care. But Michael Moore is not interested in such facts. He makes fictional films.
That article, to me, holds about as much sway as the film does. If Michael Moore can make "fictional" films than why couldn't some random guy I've never heard of write a fictional article with made-up facts? I certainly don't see any references there....
Like I said earlier, I think it will be the states that need to step up and handle health care because the Feds are too incompetent/overwhelmed. But I think HMOs should be highly regulated, because I think they are criminal.
whenever you try to make a business out of life, it's gonna get nasty.
this is key when considering the letter above....
the director of health, pharmaceutical and insurance policy
Having just reviewed my options for health insurance as I transfer from the working world back to grad school, I must say that I am angry once again. If I go with a Cobra plan, I will end up paying roughly $2130 a year for health insurance. And I am a healthy person....no conditions or chronic illnesses. (knock on wood) Now that's a lot of money and if I thought that my money was going to help out some one who needed it when the time came for them to draw on their insurance, I may not be so upset, but that's not happening....
Grrrr. Fortunately I can go with cheaper University health insurance. Of course it is still managed by an HMO, and I actually found the clause that says you have to call a special phone number and get administrative clearance within 24 hours of an emergency room visit. What if you have to go to the emergency room on a Friday night? D'oh, probably screwed.....
Health care in this country is f*#$ed up, period. It's broken. How do we fix such a mess?
we BURN the fucker down and start fresh...
A message of discord brought to you by BTAG
where no ones dirty hands would be involved to create the new monster.
let each state deal with it and let the feds match funds...and stop funding the damn military industrial complex...a few crappy overpriced ospreys would have helped us for years.
...Or at least force an insurance industry that is not for profit. Oh, and stop corn subsidies, they more than anything have underwritten the growing waist-lines of america.
at least some folks enjoy "socialized health care":
San Francisco Chronicle
Taxpayers pick up Bush's bill
David Lazarus
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Democratic lawmakers in Washington say they're drafting a health care reform bill that would expand coverage for low-income kids. President Bush says he'll veto any such legislation, warning that it would lead the nation "down the path to government-run health care for every American."
Like that would be a bad thing.
What's particularly galling about Bush's position is that it's coming from a man who just underwent a colonoscopy performed at the taxpayer-funded, state-of-the-art medical facility at Camp David by an elite team of doctors from the taxpayer-funded National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md.
If anyone understands the benefits of government-run health care, it's the president.
But let's not get sidetracked. Bush wasn't being entirely accurate when he derided the notion of government-run health care for every American. That might make for a fine little sound bite, especially among those who fear the specter of "socialized medicine," but it's not really what's at stake.
Rather, advocates of health care reform are seeking government-run insurance for every American, leaving the health care part to those who know best - doctors and nurses.
This is a crucial distinction at a time when 47 million Americans lack medical coverage and, according to researchers at Harvard University, about a third of the $2 trillion spent annually on health care in this country is squandered on bureaucratic overhead.
"Cuba is socialized medicine," observed Dr. Kevin Grumbach, who heads the Department of Family and Community Medicine at UCSF. "The government employs all the physicians and owns all the hospitals. That's not what anyone is talking about for this country."
Rather, the focus here is on two indisputable facts: that the United States spends about twice as much per person on health care as most other industrialized democracies, and that Americans on average do not live as long as people in countries that guarantee medical coverage to their citizens.
"Why have all other countries figured out a way to do this?" Grumbach asked. "Why are we the only ones that are so uncivilized?"
The United States spent an average of $6,102 per person on health care in 2004 (the latest year for which figures are available), according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Canada spent $3,165 per person, France $3,159, Australia $3,120 and Britain a mere $2,508. Life expectancy in the United States was lower than in each of these other countries and infant mortality was higher.
Looking at the numbers another way, the Kaiser Family Foundation determined earlier this year that health care spending accounts for 15.2 percent of the U.S. economy.
By contrast, health care spending represents 9.9 percent of Canada's gross domestic product, 10.4 percent of France's, 9.2 percent of Australia's and just 7.8 percent of Britain's.
And again, the citizens of these countries on average live longer than we do.
In Washington, Democratic lawmakers are crafting legislation to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which subsidizes insurance for low-income kids.
The Senate Finance Committee last week approved a five-year plan to increase funding for the program through a 61-cents-per-pack increase in the federal cigarette tax. This would maintain coverage for 6.6 million recipients while adding 3.2 million uninsured kids to the system.
Bush told an audience in Nashville last week that the Senate bill is "the beginning salvo of the encroachment of the federal government on the health care system." He said he'd veto any such legislation making its way to his desk.
That's a fine how-do-you-do for a guy who had five growths removed from his colon on Saturday largely at the government's expense and had them promptly examined by government experts at the government-run National Naval Medical Center.
Happily, the tests showed no sign of cancer. So Bush can rest easy for another few years, thanks to all that government health care.
No one at the White House could be reached to discuss how much the president paid out of his own pocket for the colonoscopy and subsequent testing.
Presidents typically have their own health insurance, although the first-class treatment they receive is largely defrayed by taxpayer funds. In other words, they're prime beneficiaries of government-run health care - just like in Cuba.
In a paper found on the Web site of the Defense Department's Armed Forces Institute of Pathology ( www.afip.org ), former White House physician George Fuller outlines the mission of the taxpayer-funded White House Medical Unit.
He writes that a primary purpose of the group is to provide "confidential, immediate and private access to preventive, routine and urgent care for the principals." This, Fuller adds, "is a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week commitment with no exceptions."
The quality of health care is so exacting, he observes, "that the president cannot even ride an elevator in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building without a physician escort."
According to Fuller, the president enjoys the benefits of medical and dental clinics in the White House, as well as "a fully equipped and supplied outpatient clinic" at Camp David, where Bush's colon was explored.
He says the White House Medical Unit also "keeps a unique and extensive library of medical facilities throughout the world" to provide for the president's health care needs during overseas travel.
All in all, Bush is the last person with a right to complain about government-run health care for every American. We should all be so lucky.
David Lazarus' column appears Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. He also can be heard Saturdays, 4 to 7 p.m., on KGO Radio. Send tips or feedback to [email protected]
I feel that this part bears repeating:
Rather, the focus here is on two indisputable facts: that the United States spends about twice as much per person on health care as most other industrialized democracies, and that Americans on average do not live as long as people in countries that guarantee medical coverage to their citizens.
"Why have all other countries figured out a way to do this?" Grumbach asked. "Why are we the only ones that are so uncivilized?"
The United States spent an average of $6,102 per person on health care in 2004 (the latest year for which figures are available), according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Canada spent $3,165 per person, France $3,159, Australia $3,120 and Britain a mere $2,508. Life expectancy in the United States was lower than in each of these other countries and infant mortality was higher.
DubK, i think there are many more reasons than health insurance as to why americans cost so much to take care of.
Reason 1: Population. On that list (Britian, France, Aussie, Canada) the U.S. has a far bigger population and large disparities in income, which i think contributes to health issues. Three times the population=three times the bullshit.
Reason 2: Lifestyle. We are extremely sedentary and consume more food, especially high fat, processed foods than probably any other country in the world. Not to mention we have higher crime rates (more crime related injuries), more drivers (more auto related injuries), more litigation (more malpractice insurance) and alot more bullshit to shovel than those other countries.
Reason 3: Quality of care. The U.S. has largely unrivaled medical expertise at work here. This is because we pay doctors very high salaries compared to other countries, and other reasons like top-notch medical schools. The technology available in the U.S. is also very advanced and very expensive.
Reason 4: Corruption. Doctors, Lawyers, Insurers, and Government officials all exist in a huge racket that pulls more money out of pockets than other nations may have to deal with. Doctors are know to farm patients out to other doctors until all the benefits under a particular policy have expired, this is very prevalent in auto insurance. Ever heard of an MRI for an ankle sprain? I have.
There are other reasons im sure, but i'm done ranting right now.
None of this will be fixed by making a federal health insurance plan for all americans. Two trillion lost to bureaucratic overhead sounds bad now, imagine how bad it would be if all Americans were being covered by an inept, overly-bureaucratic government. Healthcare reform has to happen from the smallest community up, that's why I advocate reform largely at the state level.
system
You don't need to imagine it: it's happening now, it's just that the inept, overly-bureaucratic private corporations. at the very least, if the government was running it it would be not-for-profit. my only point is that it's easy to think (and a lot of people do) that the government will be inherently less efficient than a private corporation, but i don't think this is so. if there was one, single system, that alone would drastically reduce the bureaucratic red tape and make health care more readily available. i think you're point about bottom-up, state-run programs is interesting and i tend to think that the states do a much better job of domestic policy and programs than the federal government, but i also think the benefit of a national system, aside from the fact that many people have to go out-of-state for certain procedures, is that it would mean everyone was insured by the same system, greatly simplifying the situation.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.