Sicko
So Michael Moore’s “Sicko”, a film (I won’t use the word “documentary”) about the need for universal healthcare coverage in the U.S., is already available online in DVD quality, rumor has it that Moore leaked it himself (though I seriously doubt that).
I break ranks from fellow libertarians when I say that every American has a right to good healthcare. Libertarians argue that healthcare is so expensive in the states due heavy state restrictions (the same healthcare in one state costs 5x that of another state) to high court settlements (patients sue and win millions so doctors need expensive insurance). These are both true but even with reform, it still wouldn’t guarantee everyone full healthcare coverage. Only the most hardcore libertarians believe that the state should completely stay out of education, so why should the state completely stay out of healthcare?
Most of you probably think that universal healthcare in the states is the obvious solution, but here’s the big problem - Everything the U.S. government touches, turns to shit. The Iraq War, Katrina foreign policy, social security, education, War on Drugs… (I could go on all day). The majority of Americans are smart enough to know that they’d rather take their chances with the crazy private health insurance companies than with the government. Would you really want George Bush taking care of your health?!?
I honestly don’t have an answer to the U.S.’s healthcare crisis, fortunately we’ll learn more as it’ll most likely be the second or third most important issue this Presidential election (Iraq is #1, environment is #2 or #3). Finland has serious healthcare problems of their own, so you know a much larger country like the states will have even more. What do you think should be done with healthcare system in the states?
There’s nothing wrong with universal education. It helps everyone, including you (maybe) one day.
The US government sucks in Iraq War because the US government is under Republican rule. The US government sucked in Katrina because they didn’t even do anything in it. They suck in social security because the US president doesn’t care for it and wants to privatise it. They suck in education because they underfund it. They suck on the war on drugs because US governments don’t have any unique ways to crack down on spiralling crime.
What the US needs is a good bloody government that’s actually motivated. Healthcare wouldn’t suck because the government touches it. It would suck if the government doesn’t care for it. And that’s exactly the reason why everything else you’ve mentioned sucks. What do they care for, except for lowering taxes and kissing corporations asses? Good governance leads to good things! Sadly, the US government has failed in so many ways because of a lack of dedication.
Comment by AndyPandy — Sun, Jun 24th, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
I agree with some of the things AndyPandy says and would go one step further the reason US government sucks is because we the American people allow it to suck and do nothing to stop or ask for people to be held responsible for the fuck up our government makes. Government is the voice of the people so if the government sucks what does that say for the people?
Comment by Kourtney N. Williams — Sun, Jun 24th, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
There is optimum size of democracy, up to about 30 million people. After that it gets really expensive to even be a candidate for parliament. Here it costs about 40 - 50 000 euros, in the US it is probably millions of dollars at least.
How many middle or working class representatives is in the US Congress or Senate? None. They are all richs themselves or/and friends of the really richs. What kind of things they will vote for? Tax cuts for their rich pals, no-bid government contracts to their rich pals etc etc.
USA consists of 50 states. So there is your solution. Destroy imperial Washington, D.C. and give back all political power to the states. Kansas could be Jesusland and California HippieLand. And why the hell you need 140 military bases around the globe? Canada ready to attack you together with Mexicans?
About healthcare, it seems to be in crisis everywhere. New drugs and medical equipment costs more and more. Those are also more complex and require a lot of training. Even modern dental chair with X-ray has more electronics than average car.
Many rare diseases can now be cured but the drugs costs more and more. What is the point of curing people with rare diseases (like 50 cases per one million per year) when one treatment costs millions?
In the 60’s it was penicillin, few other drugs and maybe even X-ray. Everything else was put in the category “take aspirin and hope for the best”. Plus the pharma companies are taking every advantage of their pricing power. Pharma rep is one of the best paid position in the pharma industry.
Comment by tim73 — Sun, Jun 24th, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
First, I hope everyone had a happy midsummer.
I agree, it is very hard to know exactly what is the solution given the situation in the USA.
AndyPandy mentions in the first comment that United States needs a government that is motivated. I agree with him in this. It really needs to get away from electing people based on how much money they can spend on their campaign. It really needs to stop allowing its politicians receiving such incredibly large sums of money as donations from firms that have a vested interest on certain policies being or not being enacted. I think that is one of the main problems facing the USA. Very little policy is conviction based or based on what is the best for the country, all too much is based on pleasing the economic backers of one’s campaigns or party.
I wonder how far the money used to fight the “War on Terror” would go in setting up a universal health system?
Comment by JG — Sun, Jun 24th, 2007 @ 10:02 pm
I certainly agree with tim73 in that the problem with healthcare today derives straight from the costs involved in the research and production of drugs and medical technology. While we love to wonder at the cures and treatments available today for a variety of illnesses, do we stop to consider the costs and risks involved in developing such techniques?
Furthermore, if these marvels are to be made available to the pooer nations of the world providing them with similar chances as in developed countries, this will only further increase the costs to the rest of us and push universal healthcare beyond reach. Perhaps it is only when left primarily in the hands of insurance companies and non governmental clinics that the majority of costs can be managed leaving a basic level of care from the State to the rest of it’s citizens?
Comment by Punter — Sun, Jun 24th, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
I’ve never understood the libertarians mindset about EVERYTHING goverment doing being bad.
Case in point: USPS. Cheap, effective, fast. And operated by goverment.
Comment by Zarr — Sun, Jun 24th, 2007 @ 10:30 pm
“sucked in Katrina”
Huh.. where, when. Did all those folks who eat, had drink, get moved for free to texas, want to go home?
Answer nope. They were to well taken care of.
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Sun, Jun 24th, 2007 @ 10:39 pm
“Government is the voice of the people so if the government sucks what does that say for the people?”
wow , the left wing talking points are well written here. I know the left hates the people they want to rule, but saying so, so loud is kinda funny.
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Sun, Jun 24th, 2007 @ 10:41 pm
“problem with healthcare today” is you all want to fix a open market system, into a closed, run by Gov edict, system.
Lets look at Canada, with waiting list of 2 years or more for simple knee surgery. Or 6 months to get a MRI??
Do you really want the government to chose your next operation? I don’t.
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Sun, Jun 24th, 2007 @ 10:44 pm
try putting it in guys mouth
Comment by murderer — Sun, Jun 24th, 2007 @ 10:46 pm
What the US needs is a good bloody government that’s actually motivated.
It’ll never happen.
Comment by Phil — Sun, Jun 24th, 2007 @ 11:02 pm
Destroy imperial Washington, D.C. and give back all political power to the states. Kansas could be Jesusland and California HippieLand.
Sounds good with me. Ron Paul says the exact same thing.
Comment by Phil — Sun, Jun 24th, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
I’ve never understood the libertarians mindset about EVERYTHING goverment doing being bad.
We don’t believe that everything about the government is bad, we just believe that most is, so it’s best not try and guess, just get rid of it all.
Also, libertarians believe the private sector can do it better…
Case in point: USPS. Cheap, effective, fast. And operated by goverment.
USPS said that nothing could be delivered overnight, and they never allowed anyone else to compete. Competition was liberalized, FedEx (I think they were the first) proved them wrong, shit was delivered overnight.
BTW, how much does USPS receive in subsidies?
Comment by Phil — Sun, Jun 24th, 2007 @ 11:08 pm
Here’s my half ass proposal for the U.S. healthcare…
In Finland there’s very much this “CITIZEN vs. THE MAN” thing. The big hospitals, doctors, insurance, and state are all together as one. Then there’s you. It’s like David and Goliath.
Consumer choice and healthcare competition need to remain in the states, that’s a must. I say let the state be your insurer, and they’ll provide universal coverage for everything and everyone. This way, it’s You/State vs. Doctors/Hospitals. It’s the states money, so they can throw their weight around, keep prices down, make sure their money isn’t pissed away.
Now I know that last sentence is a bit of a pipe dream considering how much money they piss away, and how they keep drug prices up. Actually, there’s a LOT of holes in that last paragraph, but I think health is connected to so many of the US’s problems, especially the US’s lower income people.
The other option is to throw money on the backs of each individual and allow them to choose their own private insurance, and pay more if they want better coverage. But insurance companies are scum, all of them, “If” in Finland is a good example. Every American has had serious trouble with their insurance company, that shit needs to end.
Comment by Phil — Sun, Jun 24th, 2007 @ 11:27 pm
If all things were privatized then where would you draw the line? Safety? Would you pay a fee if you were robbed,assaulted,etc.. Or even better if your house was on fire and the fire company said we can’t put this out or save anyone inside until your pre-approved with your insurance company. Meanwhile say goodbye to grandma burning on the second floor.
Comment by Kourtney N. Williams — Sun, Jun 24th, 2007 @ 11:29 pm
“USPS receive in subsidies?”
didn’t they make money? But only right after a rate increase?
anyway they are PC: “Fortune ranks the Postal Service 11th on its “Best Companies for Minorities†list.”
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Sun, Jun 24th, 2007 @ 11:38 pm
“the fire company said we can’t put this out or save anyone inside until your pre-approved with your insurance company. ”
thats how they all started here in the USA. You paid, got a plaque for the door, and they only put the fire out if you had one.
Its a risk trade off. So why not?
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Sun, Jun 24th, 2007 @ 11:40 pm
The main problem is that you have a bunch of very rich people deciding what is best for majority of people (meaning middle and working class). Do they really care about middle class or somebody outside their elite class? Hell no!
They do not have to struggle with the bills, go to ordinary (shitty) job every weekday, try to save money for retirement or next holiday trip or worse, go to war to risk their fancy asses. They know little about middle class and even less of working class, those guys and girls living with minimum wage or close to it.
One of them, socialite Paris Hilton, knows now probably more about working class life than Hillary Clinton because she was on the TV series The Simple Life! Still, she totally freaked out because of her short jail sentence. Buu-huu, she actually have to tolerate those lower class poor people for a while…
That is the difference compared to here in Finland. Here the representatives of the people are mainly upper middle class but in average not very rich people, basically ORDINARY citizens. It is not so big deal to be a candidate in elections. You guys used to have also quite ORDINARY citizens as representatives but not anymore. So that is why breaking to smaller states could solve the problem.
Comment by tim73 — Sun, Jun 24th, 2007 @ 11:58 pm
“thats how they all started here in the USA. You paid, got a plaque for the door, and they only put the fire out if you had one. Its a risk trade off. So why not?”
Because of waste, every insurance company than would have their own fire department instead of one. You can also get nice massive fire storms because initial fire is not put out. Instead of one house burning, ten houses and a warehouse could go down. 1+1 is not two in fires, more like five.
Comment by tim73 — Mon, Jun 25th, 2007 @ 12:03 am
“Consumer choice and healthcare competition need to remain in the states, that’s a must”
Healthcare is not a choose between candy bars. The demand for treatment in case of serious illness is inelastic; you would pay everything you own and more to save your own or your kids life.
THAT is exactly what greedy insurance companies are using against people. You sue the insurance company while trying to cope with cancer? Fine, the process will take years and you better have tens of thousands of dollars for lawyer’s fees. In the end, you might even win before you die. Or go bankrupt and die.
Comment by tim73 — Mon, Jun 25th, 2007 @ 12:21 am
There is optimum size of democracy, up to about 30 million people. After that it gets really expensive to even be a candidate for parliament. Here it costs about 40 - 50 000 euros, in the US it is probably millions of dollars at least.
…USA consists of 50 states. So there is your solution. Destroy imperial Washington, D.C. and give back all political power to the states.
Wouldn’t this mainly affect Presidential elections? U.S. senators are already chosen on the level of individual states - presumably they need just as much money to campaign regardless of whether their state belongs to a bigger nation or not. Congressional candidates are elected in even smaller constituents.
(I do agree that some things might be more effective if the US was broken up to several nations, but I’m not sure if the cost of campaigning can be traced directly to the size of the nation, considering the current political nation.)
Comment by Kaj Sotala — Mon, Jun 25th, 2007 @ 1:23 am
The current political situation, the last sentence of my comment was meant to read.
Comment by Kaj Sotala — Mon, Jun 25th, 2007 @ 1:24 am
“Here the representatives of the people are mainly upper middle class but in average not very rich people,”
yea, those pesky Billionaires, can’t have any, can we.
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Mon, Jun 25th, 2007 @ 1:36 am
“every insurance company than would have their own fire department instead of one.”
right, and they all probably would have their own repair divisions. Ups, sorry can be pokin holes in your theory.
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Mon, Jun 25th, 2007 @ 1:39 am
“? U.S. senators are already chosen on the level of individual states - presumably they need just as much money to campaign regardless of whether their state belongs to a bigger nation or not.”
They are chosen at state level but candidates get funds from national level too. It would be like Finnish Social-Democratic party receiving money from UK and Germany. The end result is that candidates get massive TV and radio campaigns at state level too.
Comment by tim73 — Mon, Jun 25th, 2007 @ 1:48 am
They are chosen at state level but candidates get funds from national level too.
Ah, gotcha. Reforming that system would probably be a lot easier than splitting the US up into individual nations, though.
Comment by Kaj Sotala — Mon, Jun 25th, 2007 @ 2:28 am
“splitting the US up into individual nations,”
sorry we tried that, now back together. But we would like Canada, for the trees.
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Mon, Jun 25th, 2007 @ 2:30 am
“Only the most hardcore libertarians believe that the state should completely stay out of education, so why should the state completely stay out of healthcare?”
Phil, you need to come back to the States. I haven’t met a single libertarian who thinks the state should be involved in either education OR the healthcare–and not all the libertarians I know are 100% hardcore.
Both issues are similar–the systems were good, UNTIL the government got involved in it. Then it all went downhill.
Comment by Rochelle — Mon, Jun 25th, 2007 @ 5:15 am
Yes, in the US, they could lighten up on the Federal government.
It is the federal government that makes a lot of trouble. Many people don’t realize that a lot is up to the states. Some states actually do have reasonably well working socialized medical care for people who are on welfare. For military people, there is miltary health care which is also, in my experience, quite OK. So on some scale, there is government medical care. But the US government should never have a monopoly on it. Ideally, a socialized medical care system side by side and competing with private medical care might work.
Comment by Sirkuspelle — Mon, Jun 25th, 2007 @ 9:51 am
Tim73, look at your posts 18 and 19. You started so positively in post 3 but can you explain to me why you suggest the Fed Govt should be broken up into many smaller states (efficiency I presume?) but then go on in your next post to complain that the fire dept would be broken up into many smaller depts for each insurance company (efficiency I presume?) in a negative sounding way?
Isn’t this a bit of a contradiction? I mean breaking up the nation would have positive consequences yet we seem to be worried that a fire dept might suffer the same fate leading to “massive fire storms” as soon as private insurance companies are mentioned? Come on, no need to be that worried about free and open competition. Can you just try to explain the difference why in one case it would be good and yet in the other case a disaster?
Comment by Punter — Mon, Jun 25th, 2007 @ 10:42 am
haven’t met a single libertarian who thinks the state should be involved in either education OR the healthcare
When it comes to education, I strongly believe in school choice. The state should get out of running the school systems and let the private organizations compete for your child. The state should throw money on the backs of the children, and let each parent decide where their kid goes.
Comment by Phil — Mon, Jun 25th, 2007 @ 11:03 am
In the US, individual states actually regulate private insurances, currently. Here’s the department for Maryland…
http://www.mdinsurance.state.md.us/
In my opinion, states just need to clamp-down on insurers that offer shaky services. Usually the low cost ones, I’m sure.
Insofar as high medical costs, I wonder how much is due to overly-high executive salaries. In that way, it probably reflects the general business climate in corporate America. There’s also the cost of processing, which probably exceeds the cost of care itself.
Otherwise, single payer systems run by individual states would be ok, but only if it is possible to get private insurance supplements. Otherwise, even Michael Moore will need to fly to Switzerland to get proper care.
Another option would be to make health insurance mandatory. But subsidize it for lower income people. I DO think that the individual states should stay in the regulatory business though. Perhaps also as an arbitrator of costs. That’s how Switzerland does it.
Lots of the questions regarding whether government should be involved or not depend on whether we think America is getting smarter or dumber, collectively speaking. If dumber, then less government involvement is better.
Comment by Kristian — Mon, Jun 25th, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
I moved from Estonia to the US in 2004 with a two-month old baby and foreign wife. Obviously the prices were higher, but the real pain in the ass was health care.
My child received health coverage because of her age under a universal healthcare scheme for babies in New York state. But that had an expiration date on it.
Getting care for myself and my wife remained impossible. I took a job for a few months just to generate income, but even in that $1,000 a week job, I made $25 too much to qualify for state health coverage. I was too rich for state insurance, but far too poor to pay the $400 monthly payments on “cheap” health care family plans.
So basically, we were screwed. And yeah, Estonia seemed like a wonderland at that moment. Free health coverage? It seemed like some kind of wet dream. And since doctors here are MORE lazy than they are in Europe (I’ve tried both — in the US your average trip to the doctor’s office will take half of your day because they don’t know how to schedule properly)
It took until I got a “real” job a year later for us to finally become insured. So for 12 months if anything happened it would have fallen on me and my credit card to do the paying. That’s what happens in the US where millions of people just slip through the cracks.
When I finally had health care (like I assume most libertarian thought leaders do) I also didn’t care that much about the issue. But when I didn’t have it, I was scratching my head trying to figure out how this was supposed to be “the greatest country on Earth” (TM). It seemed more like a disorganized generic American country. You know, like Mexico, Brazil — the kind of places with elections controlled by a very wealthy elite and where shantytowns (ghettos in our case) are accepted as a way of life.
Comment by giustino — Mon, Jun 25th, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
Sorry, it was $1,000 every *TWO* weeks, or $500 (slightly less after taxes) per week.
Comment by giustino — Mon, Jun 25th, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
“About healthcare, it seems to be in crisis everywhere. New drugs and medical equipment costs more and more. Those are also more complex and require a lot of training. Even modern dental chair with X-ray has more electronics than average car.
Many rare diseases can now be cured but the drugs costs more and more. What is the point of curing people with rare diseases (like 50 cases per one million per year) when one treatment costs millions?
In the 60’s it was penicillin, few other drugs and maybe even X-ray. Everything else was put in the category “take aspirin and hope for the bestâ€Â.”
This first time Timmy has said anything that makes sense. Congratulations Tim. You are spot on with this one.
Kristian
“In the US, individual states actually regulate private insurances, currently.”
It’s shocking that you have to post this on here because it is such a “DUH” statement. But people who live Finland understand so little of American private insurance it is smart you posted that statement. Mr. Moores movie is only going to further the misunderstanding.
Comment by Anonymous — Mon, Jun 25th, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
Mandate health coverage and leave it as much alone as you possibly can.
Oh, and shuttle Ted Kennedy off to a senile old alcoholics home and make Micheal Moore be his nurse.
Comment by Clark — Mon, Jun 25th, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
Has anyone considered that the majority of the 45 million Americans not covered by insurance, have the means but don’t want to? For a hundred bucks a month, a decent policy can be had, and let’s face it, most people spend more than that amount a month, just by eating out.
Comment by Jupiter — Mon, Jun 25th, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
Has anyone considered the almost 260 million Americans that ARE COVERED BY HEALTH INSURANCE? All we hear are the 45 million uncovered which, in a country of 5 million people, sounds awful but we never seem to remember the VAST MAJORITY ARE COVERED.
Comment by Punter — Mon, Jun 25th, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
“All we hear are the 45 million uncovered which, in a country of 5 million people, sounds awful but we never seem to remember the VAST MAJORITY ARE COVERED”
That would be about 800 000 Finns without coverage out of 5,3 million. You call that kind of system success?
Comment by tim73 — Mon, Jun 25th, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
Yep, in modern terms and after watching my wifes grandfather for the past year here I would call that a success. How many Finns are privately covered or can afford to use the system here? Finally what is the public system like for those unable to go private here?
Basically the 2 countries are so different that to compare them in many areas (especially in healthcare/welfare) is like doing so to apples and oranges.
My point was that all focus is on a minority of people and the typical Finn really has little idea of reality there, just a generalisation that “people are dying on the streets because of the system.” Wrong………..
Comment by Punter — Mon, Jun 25th, 2007 @ 10:36 pm
Punter, people aren’t “dying on the streets’ but they are putting off treatment because they can’t afford it, which results in higher health care costs due to uninsured with chronic diseases that are common in the morbidly obese United States, like diabetes.
It would be better if they could just go to the doctor when they feel bad, rather than wait “until they can afford it” or go to the emergency room because they don’t have insurance. That raises health care costs for all of us.
I am not saying that universal coverage is THE answer, but I am saying that there is a problem and I would like to see that problem fixed if we are indeed a country that strives to be “the best”.
Comment by giustino — Tue, Jun 26th, 2007 @ 2:25 am
#38 “All we hear are the 45 million uncovered which, in a country of 5 million people, sounds awful but we never seem to remember the VAST MAJORITY ARE COVERED.”
Somehow that comment reminds me of Donald Rumsfeld complaining about media coverage on Iraw focusing on all of the violence, ignoring (or perhaps even covering up?) the fact that there are actually many places in that country where no bombs are exploding.
Comment by Kimmo W. — Tue, Jun 26th, 2007 @ 11:55 am
Ah…….? No, not really. It is a simple fact, thrown about by welfare state supporters constantly that The US has all of these people (45 million) without insurance while never mentioning in any way the almost 260 million with it. Just seems to me like they are perhaps ignoring (or perhaps even covering up?) the fact that there are many places in the country where people are being well cared for and rather content with their situation?
Comment by Punter — Tue, Jun 26th, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
So the 45 million don’t matter because they’re a statistical miniroty. Does the expression “let them eat cake” ring any bells?
Comment by Kimmo W. — Tue, Jun 26th, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
Actually you’re somewhat close. I would be interested to know the social situation of these people. Homeless, prisoners, drug addicts, alcoholics, religious/cult followers….. Who knows what groups are incuded in the 45 million but when you look at people outside of the mainstream of society then add people making a free decision to go uninsured the figure continues to shrink to such an extent that yes, I would almost ask “who cares?”
But I guess that just means I’m a terrible human being, satisfied about the 260+ million covered and not worrying as much about the above mentioned people whether those out of the mainstream or those freely deciding against insurance.
Comment by Punter — Tue, Jun 26th, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
And tell me, those of you who are more familiar than I am about the workings of the US health care “system”, how comprehensive is insurance “coverage” anyway?
How many of the uninsured (45 million is a hell of alot, no matter how you slice the cake and cook the percentages) are in their predicament because of laziness or lack of initiative, and how many are denied it, because of a perceived likelihood that the person might actually get sick sometime?
And when someone who is covered requires a really expensive procedure, how likely is it that some insurance company lawyer will get out the fine-print microscope to find a loophole that leaves the company off the hook, and the patient in the lurch?
It’s interesting, by the way, that some of the fans of the American status quo seem to think of universal health coverage as a nefarious European-Canadian plot being imposed on the United States from abroad. The pressure, my friends, seems to be coming from within the USA!
Comment by Kimmo W. — Tue, Jun 26th, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
Punty:
I would be interested to know the social situation of these people. Homeless, prisoners, drug addicts, alcoholics, religious/cult followers?
Justin gave us an example in #33, which you chose to ignore, the blustering, gloating liar and fool that you are. Much like you continue to ignore the case of Grange you owe pi and yours truly.
“I don’t care” should indeed be the slogan of libertarian parties everywhere.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Tue, Jun 26th, 2007 @ 8:31 pm
Kimmo W:
the fact that there are actually many places in that country where no bombs are exploding.
Not to mention that there are several skyscrapers in the US that have never been hit by an aeroplane.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Tue, Jun 26th, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
Here is a small tip that 12 million uninsured illegal aliens in the US already know:
- Non-Profit Hospitals in the US cannot deny you treatment.
As a bonus, they do not even pay a co-pay for their Federally-insured children, since they won’t bring their children in to see the doctor if they have to pay $10 for the privilege of free service. That in itself is part of the problem. The Mayor of NY is considering paying parents to bring their children in for checkups.
Oh, the movie is good. Completely distorted and omitting all sorts of problems with medical care outside the US. The Canadian Press went ape over his omission of their system’s failings. It would have been nice for Mike to attempt house calls in France, in August. The France segment is classic too. All the home visits were for trivial BS matters. No clue what happens with a real problem.
Comment by Fred Fry — Tue, Jun 26th, 2007 @ 9:20 pm
But Fred this doesn’t fit the model given here in Europe. Don’t you get it? We here know everything, even about places we’ve never seen. Imagine house calls in Finland from your family GP for your sick kid. NEVER.
As for a previous post, post 33 hardly gives an insight into the groups mentioned by me. One case of a foreigner is an example to listen to but what about the illegals? The others mentioned for whatever reason outside of the system be it social status (read bum), poverty, religion etc etc etc? We forget that did we?
Typical of people on this site too often. Selective reading combined with offensive BS from behind a screen. PP
Comment by Punter — Tue, Jun 26th, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
“Many rare diseases can now be cured but the drugs costs more and more. What is the point of curing people with rare diseases (like 50 cases per one million per year) when one treatment costs millions?”
But it also costs something if a twenty- or thirty-something becomes unable to work and then lives for many decades on disability.
And if *you* had some rare disease, what would be the point of curing you
Comment by i.s. — Tue, Jun 26th, 2007 @ 10:55 pm
“I would be interested to know the social situation of these people. Homeless, prisoners, drug addicts, alcoholics, religious/cult followers….. ”
I once knew (through a discussion board) one of those uninsured persons: a 30 years old middle-class woman, who didn’t smoke or do drugs and was almost teetotalling. But she just hadn’t a job and her one-woman firm apparently wasn’t successful.
Comment by i.s. — Tue, Jun 26th, 2007 @ 11:03 pm
Yep, I’m sure there are plenty of people in that boat. I am just interested to know how many are really unable to find the money to pay for health insurance when we subtract those people I mentioned. Anyone have any figures?
Comment by Punter — Tue, Jun 26th, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
Punter: I don’t understand why “those people” should be “subtracted” in the first place. Your division into those who should be considered too poor to pay for health care and those who, in your view, have brought their destitution upon themselves, all seems rather arbitrary to me – not to mention the striking resemblance of this notion to the policies of the Third Reich… “These people”, like you (?), are human, and ought thus to be entitled to basic human rights, one of which is a healthcare system that doesn’t allow people to die just because they can’t afford to pay for life-saving treatment. Long live the NHS!
Comment by DavidH — Wed, Jun 27th, 2007 @ 1:29 am
“US has all of these people (45 million) without insurance ”
so what/ They then get coveral, every one of them, in the Gov run system.
Or did you miss the point that the USA has a Gov back up system, that takes in all these folks.
Non one has zero healthcare here, and its not a right, its a benefit, that the Gov gives and then can take away.
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Wed, Jun 27th, 2007 @ 2:23 am
“healthcare system that doesn’t allow people to die just because they can’t afford to pay for life-saving treatment. ”
talking about Canada and the UK again? I had a Aunt in England needing a new knee, but she was to old.. DENIED by the Gov.
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Wed, Jun 27th, 2007 @ 2:24 am
Imagine house calls in Finland from your family GP for your sick kid. NEVER.
Funny, I once had a doctor coming in for a house call when I was a kid and had a fever. But it can’t be - Punter the blustering, gloating liar and fool (who still owes me a case of Grange) tells us otherwise. It must have been a hallucination.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Wed, Jun 27th, 2007 @ 9:29 am
One simply has to compare the healthcare costs per person in the US and metrics such as infant mortality and life expectancy to realise just how terrible the US healthcare system is in comparison to that of any first world country with universal healthcare. People making issues about flaws in universal healthcare ignore the fact that practically any socialised system out there is an improvement to the US system. Claiming that the system isn’t perfect and therefore shouldn’t be used is negligence when you consider that infants are *dying* as a result of any lack of change in the system.
Comment by The Jester — Wed, Jun 27th, 2007 @ 9:45 am
And when exactly was that Frankie? Would it or does it happen today? I mean, it takes hours to see a GP at the health centre due to shortages and a flood of patients so what are the chances of a house call? I only wonder as when I have mentioned this service to friends and colleagues here, they looked at me strangely.
Comment by Punter — Wed, Jun 27th, 2007 @ 9:57 am
“Imagine house calls in Finland from your family GP for your sick kid. NEVER.” - Punter
My back went out a few years ago and was stuck in bed. A doctor came and gave me an injection of muscle relaxants and I was good to go. Yes, it was public. It cost me the usual 22 euros that normal doctor visits cost in Helsinki.
True.
Comment by Dave the Slave — Wed, Jun 27th, 2007 @ 11:17 am
“I only wonder as when I have mentioned this service to friends and colleagues here, they looked at me strangely.” - Punter
I can only tell you about the reaction a doctor in the US gave me - when I recalled the house call I recounted above - she said a “ A HOUSE CALL???!!! What doctor gave you a house call??”
I told her, “in Finland.”
Comment by Dave the Slave — Wed, Jun 27th, 2007 @ 11:20 am
RE: 60 ….
I was in the emergency room at the time with a less debilitating version of the back problem, incidentally.
Comment by Dave the Slave — Wed, Jun 27th, 2007 @ 11:21 am
Great to hear they do still happen then Dave. I remember them fondly from home and having the prospect of the family GP come over to check me ALWAYS cured the mystery illness otherwise preventing me from going to school on test day. (Bugger it) Still works on my nephews today I hear too. Some things never change………
Comment by Punter — Wed, Jun 27th, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
“Great to hear they do still happen then Dave.” - Punter
“Still” do? Just a couple posts ago you wrote “NEVER.”
Comment by Dave the Slave — Wed, Jun 27th, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
House calls. I did see a news report that they were coming back in the US. At least in the countryside. There is value in it if you are willing to pay the price. After all, he is a highly trained professional. You are wasting a valuable resource having this guy/girl sitting in traffic all because you have a cough or it burns when you pee. That time he wastes getting to you is not free. It is paid for. You just aren’t seeing the bill. So how about reserving that luxury for those who can use it, like the elderly.
Comment by Fred Fry — Wed, Jun 27th, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
“So how about reserving that luxury for those who can use it, like the elderly.” - ff
I used it once. Four years ago. I couldn’t move. At all.
How about reserving your insights for those who can use them, like the mentally challenged.
This site has become a real circle jerk.
Comment by Dave the Slave — Wed, Jun 27th, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
#63- No I said great to hear they still do happen THEN……. I mentioned earlier that I would think the likelihood of getting such a service today would be a simple answer of NEVER
I had never heard of them here and neither had people I’d spoken to about it, that’s all. I also imagined that in todays State service that the situation would be one of never however I am positively shocked by your revelation. Thank you for sharing your experience with me. Hope that sorts everything out.
Comment by Punter — Wed, Jun 27th, 2007 @ 7:31 pm
Dave,
If you need it you need it. But come on, you know it will be abused all to hell. Just think of all the drunks needing medical attention, and with mobile phones they can request service most everywhere, including the bustop bench.
Anyway, such a nice service did not prevent all those thousands of elderly dying in France during the summer.
House calls are a gimic and they can be a dangerous one at that, if you delay going to the hospital.
Comment by Fred Fry — Wed, Jun 27th, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
62. Punter blustering gloating liar and fool
“I remember them fondly from home and having the prospect of the family GP come over to check me ALWAYS cured the mystery illness otherwise preventing me from going to school on test day. (Bugger it)”
So you’ve been dishonest from an early age - take some time off and see a psychologist.
Comment by pi — Thu, Jun 28th, 2007 @ 3:52 am
House calls are a gimic and they can be a dangerous one at that, if you delay going to the hospital.
Medicine is a “gimic” altogether. We should trust Jesus to do the healing.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Thu, Jun 28th, 2007 @ 9:05 am
For those interested in this subject, there is a must-read in today’s Opinion Journal:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010266
“In Canada, dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week. Humans can wait two to three years.”
Comment by Fred Fry — Thu, Jun 28th, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
Saw the film. Was great. Finland may have problems in their healthcare system, but then you can always go to private and pay if you don’t want to wait in a queue, in the U.S, it’s the only option. No it’s not perfect but it’s still free and if you lose a finger you get to bypass the queue. And public healthcare also has the best experts and doctors. No one gets turned around and thrown into a homeless shelter.
Comment by Keksi — Fri, Jun 29th, 2007 @ 2:01 am
Everything the US Government turns to s***.
Phil, tell me something I don’t know! After all, Al Gore “invented” the Internet.
Comment by Jason — Fri, Jun 29th, 2007 @ 3:05 am
I forgot the word touches, (but you know what I mean
Comment by Jason — Fri, Jun 29th, 2007 @ 3:06 am
Everything the US Government turns to s***.
Phil, tell me something I don’t know! After all, Al Gore “invented†the Internet.
Yet you want the government to teach “intelligent design”.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sat, Jun 30th, 2007 @ 2:25 am
Yet you want the government to teach “intelligent design.”
Well, yes and no. Yes, because education is supposed to be the free exchange of ideas — contrary to Horace Mann’s and John Dewey’s beliefs. No, because I don’t want the State to put their own spin on things (which they are heavily prone to do).
That being said, I’d rather send my kids to either a Christian school or homeschool them myself and pass on to them a Scripturally-based education.
FF, FWIW, I like you. You keep me on my toes. It’s good that you encourage me to find a way to 1) defend my argument (even if you won’t listen) and 2) inform me of certain terms and theories that I’d never heard of before. This is good, really good.
Comment by Jason — Thu, Jul 5th, 2007 @ 2:24 am
“defend my argument”
You haven’t defended any of your arguments. BTW I am still waiting for the evidencce for Creationism.
“That being said, I’d rather send my kids to either a Christian school or homeschool them myself and pass on to them a Scripturally-based education.”
Brainwashing never goes out of style.
Comment by Kronos — Thu, Jul 5th, 2007 @ 5:45 pm