Miltownkid, there are plenty of countries with gov’t run UHC. Some are strictly gov’t run, most are a mixed system. Whether you really like the government’s hand in it or not, some of these systems work better than the more free-market US system. Duct-taped together or no… and sometimes cheaper, and more economically efficiently.
What we tend to think, what we like… doesn’t always matter. Black cat, white cat: if it catches mice…
Nice little blog about the movie’s impact on an audience in Texas:
Sicko Spurs Audiences Into Action
[quote]Sicko started; the stereotypical Texas guy sat down behind me and never stopped talking. He talked through the entire movie… and I listened. The first ten to twenty minutes of the film he spent badmouthing Moore to his wife and snorting in disgust whenever MM went into one of his trademark monologues. But as the movie wore on his protestations became quieter, less enthusiastic. Somewhere along the way, maybe at the half way point, right before my ears, Sicko changed this man’s mind. By the forty-five minute mark, he, along with the rest of the audience were breaking into spontaneous applause. He stopped pooh-poohing the movie and started shouting out “hell yeah!” at the screen. It was as if the whole world had been flipped upside down. This is Texas, where people support the president and voting democratic is something only done by the terrorists. Michael Moore should be public enemy number one.
By the time the movie was over, public enemy number one had become George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and John F. Kennedy all rolled together. When the credits rolled the audience filed out and into the bathrooms. At the urinals, my redneck friend couldn’t stop talking about the film, and I kept listening. He struck up a conversation with a random black man in his 40s standing next to him, and soon everyone was peeing and talking about just how fucked everything is.
I kept my distance, as we all finished and exited at the same time. Outside the restroom doors… the theater was in chaos. The entire Sicko audience had somehow formed an impromptu town hall meeting in front of the ladies room. I’ve never seen anything like it. This is Texas goddammit, not France or some liberal college campus. But here these people were, complete strangers from every walk of life talking excitedly about the movie. It was as if they simply couldn’t go home without doing something drastic about what they’d just seen. My redneck compadre and his new friend found their wives at the center of the group, while I lingered in the background waiting for my spouse to emerge.
The talk gradually centered around a core of 10 or 12 strangers in a cluster while the rest of us stood around them listening intently to this thing that seemed to be happening out of nowhere. The black gentleman engaged by my redneck in the restroom shouted for everyone’s attention. The conversation stopped instantly as all eyes in this group of 30 or 40 people were now on him. “If we just see this and do nothing about it,” he said, “then what’s the point? Something has to change.” There was silence, then the redneck’s wife started calling for email addresses. Suddenly everyone was scribbling down everyone else’s email, promising to get together and do something… though no one seemed to know quite what. It was as if I’d just stepped into the world’s most bizarre protest rally, except instead of hippies the group was comprised of men and women of every age, skin color, income, and walk of life coming together on something that had shaken them deeply, and to the core. [/quote]
I’d like to see this documentary before I comment on it. Should be interesting.
I know there are a few posters here who refuse to watch MM films, but think nothing of running them down with lengthy debate. Shame.
I was actually quite skeptical about MM initially, but I think his last couple of films did a reasonable job of letting the facts speak pretty clearly.
[quote=“Jaboney”]Miltownkid, there are plenty of countries with gov’t run UHC. Some are strictly gov’t run, most are a mixed system. Whether you really like the government’s hand in it or not, some of these systems work better than the more free-market US system. Duct-taped together or no… and sometimes cheaper, and more economically efficiently.
What we tend to think, what we like… doesn’t always matter. Black cat, white cat: if it catches mice…[/quote]
I was really looking forward to this economic evidence. 
Tell me which system works better than the US one, and I’ll look into it. The only one I’ve ever come across that seemed cool was the Swiss system (I haven’t read much, but what I have seems cool.)
[quote=“miltownkid”][quote=“Jaboney”]Miltownkid, there are plenty of countries with gov’t run UHC. Some are strictly gov’t run, most are a mixed system. Whether you really like the government’s hand in it or not, some of these systems work better than the more free-market US system. Duct-taped together or no… and sometimes cheaper, and more economically efficiently.
What we tend to think, what we like… doesn’t always matter. Black cat, white cat: if it catches mice…[/quote]
I was really looking forward to this economic evidence.
Tell me which system works better than the US one, and I’ll look into it. The only one I’ve ever come across that seemed cool was the Swiss system (I haven’t read much, but what I have seems cool.)[/quote]
Well…some form of universal health care has existed in most Western democracies since the end of WWII. Do you have economic evidence those health care systems are not sustainable? If not, doesn’t that prove UHC is economically sustainable?
Tell me what measures you’re using, and I’ll see if I can’t find something to tell you which is better.
You haven’t seen any out perform the US? Did you check the link I posted on the previous page? Hans Rosling, very interesting statistician. Watch this presentation, particularly around the 5:00 mark. You’ll see how pretty much every country is moving towards greater health and wealth, but pretty much every country gets better aggregate health results at lower levels of overall economic activity. Is that merely a different set of priorities (everywhere other than the US), or getting more bang for their buck?
I think I explained myself in that I don’t believe 100% government controlled UHC would last. If there’s a country on earth that is currently 100%, time will be the proof.
I’m not sure what you’re asking me. But here I’ll say why I lean more toward “free market” health care compared to UHC. Basically, I’d like to see medicine go the route of… computers, or TVs, or phones.
I think where I’m different from most is that I look at health care through mostly economical eyes. I can’t see how the government could do a better job in determining who gets a new heart, that cream of the crop cancer treatment, or any of these things better than a healthy functioning market.
I don’t think the “first come first served” method is a good idea for dealing with these situations and I also don’t think a board of advisers is a good one either. I’d rather see a healthy functioning market drive down the price of all things related to health and put the decision of what procedures will be purchased in the hands of the people.
If the market was functioning correctly. These now high priced procedures, I believe, should draw the attention of more potential doctors in the field, thus reducing the price. But I believe there are restrictions in place preventing this from happening.
OK, enough rambling. Just know that I’m with you in thinking the US health care system is all jacked up. I’m here now without health insurance, and I’m against UHC. As an individual, I stand to benefit from UHC greatly, but I don’t think that is true for the city, state, US or world.
[quote=“Jaboney”]You haven’t seen any out perform the US? Did you check the link I posted on the previous page? Hans Rosling, very interesting statistician. Watch this presentation, particularly around the 5:00 mark. You’ll see how pretty much every country is moving towards greater health and wealth, but pretty much every country gets better aggregate health results at lower levels of overall economic activity. Is that merely a different set of priorities (everywhere other than the US), or getting more bang for their buck?
[/quote]
I think you missed the point of that portion of his presentation. He was comparing countries from 200X to a US from 50 years ago. The quality of medicine 50 years ago compared to today is… pretty different. Developing countries benefit from the effects of breakthroughs in medicine that happen in the more developed world.
No, no. I got that. You also noticed, no doubt, that he was graphing all nations? It wasn’t merely the US vs. Venezula, it also showed the relative health & wealth of the US vs. other first world countries.
I can’t see why you think the market would be able to determine who ought to receive medical care. Availability of funds has what to do with need for services? An example, inspired by another thread: two women want to acquire the services as a plastic surgeon. Each wants a boob job. The first is a porn actress, looking to get a career boost, and she’s got money to burn. The second is a 50-year old house wife who just lost a breast to cancer, doesn’t have a lot of money, and reconstructive surgery isn’t covered by her health insurance. Who should have priority in getting access to services? Economically speaking, I suppose the porn actress. After all, she’ll be able to make more money, an economic plus, whereas the housewife’s economic situation will not be significantly impacted. Does that strike you as the right way to go?
Why should I have the obligation to pay for the medical treatment of strangers? Do I have to feed them as well? And where did all this responsibility come from? Better to live in a minimal state in which such arrangements are left to the individual, and whatever charities and insurance schemes these might organize voluntarily.
I’m betting you’ll be happy to contribute a few bucks, along with everyone else, pay to have them cared for when they’ve got infectious tb, can’t afford treatment, and their kids are sitting next to yours in kindergarten.
Or maybe it’s your neighbour with just a touch of fever… nothing to worry about, really, and they’ve got better things to spend that money on. After all, it’s probably not SARS. Probably. Well… hmmm… nah, wait and see. Go to the doctor if it gets worse. For now, maybe the guy next door has some aspirin…
Sound like a plan?
It would be cheaper to eliminate public schools as well, then make sure the private one I patronized wouldn’t let that other kid in.
Anyway, other than infectious diseases with public health implications, what makes me responsible for my fellow man? If a stray dog follows me in the street, do I have the obligation to care for it? If so, why? And what about human beggars? What claim do they have on me and my money?
(Does it make any difference how many dogs/beggars there are? Does it matter how close in proximity they are to me?)
[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]It would be cheaper to eliminate public schools as well, then make sure the private one I patronized wouldn’t let that other kid in.
Anyway, other than infectious diseases with public health implications, what makes me responsible for my fellow man? If a stray dog follows me in the street, do I have the obligation to care for it? If so, why? And what about human beggars? What claim do they have on me and my money?
(Does it make any difference how many dogs/beggars there are? Does it matter how close in proximity they are to me?)[/quote]
I don’t think we’re objectively “responsible” for our fellow man, but some of us live in societies that have made certain social agreements. For example, the first example of state-sponsored welfare in the modern world came from…the United States after the American Civil War. Union soldiers who were wounded to the point of losing part or all employment capacity were issued lifelong stipends. We continue this agreement with our soldiers today.
I think another good social agreement to make is universal health care. I don’t think this necessarily means government run hospitals, with medical practioners all being paid by the government. Whether it’s all government run, or most places stay private but everyone get national health insurance (the system I favor), I think that ultimately some form of national health care is good for society. I don’t think it’s “evil” for a nation to lack NHC, but I do think it’s a social agreement with more benefits than downsides.
What a fucked up movie.