Michael Moore...Sicko (

[vashti]

Michael Moore has a clear-cut agenda, which he admits to openly. Please don't assume because you watch one of his movies, you know all about health care in America.

[Mish]

Michael Moore has a clear-cut agenda, which he admits to openly. Please don't assume because you watch one of his movies, you know all about health care in America.

I don't assume that. I read a lot of stories that support what he presents. I think it's pretty obvious that if you don't have a universal system that gives insurance to all citizents, those without one would have to pay out of their own pocket.

At which point in time does a clear cut agenda supported by facts is considered a reality?

[misombra]

we would have to pay for it in taxes.

[squirrley]

I need to become more informed of this matter. I JUST started looking into this and although its not something I would move my ass to another country for, I do want to see the pro's and con's of Universal Health Care as opposed to our system. My understanding thus far is pretty limited. But Im so curious how this all works for other countries and what their citizens say about it.

Hmmm anyone hear what Hiliary says about her agenda on this yet?

[Mish]

we would have to pay for it in taxes.

As we do here. The fee you pay is based on how much you earn (As a percentage of your salary). If you earn very little, you pay very little as well. But it covers you for a lot of things. Ofcourse, the richer people are not happy with a system like that as it would cost them more in taxes (Due to their high earnings) than as an out of pocket expense. But as an average person, you don't have to worry about going bankrupt if you need to see a doctor, you just make an apointment and see the doctor. You don't have to worry about how much out of your pocket you will need to loose for a visit.

By the way, the longest I've ever waited was half an hour.

[vashti]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan[/url]

There are pros and cons to both systems, squirrley. Not even the medical community is unanimous about which system is better. A universal system would cause a huge tax increase, but the system we have now is bankrupting the hospitals. Whether or not the quality of care would be affected is debateable, but I can say that very few Americans leave the country to have complex work done, while lots of people from other countries come here for complex surgeries.

[Mish]

Whether or not the quality of care would be affected is debateable, but I can say that very few Americans leave the country to have complex work done, while lots of people from other countries come here for complex surgeries.

US is one of the world leaders in complex surgeries. But complex surgeries cost a lot of money, so the people who can afford them come in droves to get them done in US.

It's the average people who can't be covered by either their employer or the "profile centered" insurance establishment that get left behind. Services are availble to them, they just can't afford them so they end up with nothing. Last I've heard there are 50 Million people in US who are not covered by any medical insurance at all.

[vashti]

...who nonetheless show up to Emergency Rooms and get free medical care.

[Mish]

...who nonetheless show up to Emergency Rooms and get free medical care.

Or get placed in a car and driven out to a random location as shown in Moore's movie.

Why should hospitals provide these people with free medical care when they don't have to? Who pays for it?

[vashti]

I already told you on another forum - according to a friend I have who works in the ambulances, the reason the homeless are taken to skid row is because that is where they LIVE. You can't give a bum a permanent room in a hospital.

And honestly, if it comes down to my local hospital closing because they can't afford to continue to give free service to the uninsured, I would rather they turned them away. Let them go to a county facility.

I know, I am evil.

[misombra]

our taxes pay for it. the u.s. has somewhat of a socialized health system. the poor, elderly, disabled, politicians, veterans, government workers, etc. get health coverage.

[vashti]

Also, children from poor households can get affordable health insurance.

Here is a criticism of universal health care from Michael Tanner, director of research at the Georgia Public Policy Foundation in 2001. (For the record, he critiqued the current health care model, too, but I didn't post it in the interest of length and because we already know whatthe flaws are.) At that time, it was estimated that universal health care would cost $339 billion per year in additional taxes. While I don't think the current system is perfect, I am not sure a change would be better.




A single-payer national health care system would come
at enormous cost to American taxpayers. For example, Russo-
Wellstone would require employers and the self-employed to
pay a tax equal to 7.5 percent of wages. The top individual
tax rate would rise from 31 to 38 percent. Corporate income
taxes would increase from 34 to 38 percent. Social Security
benefits would be taxed at 85 percent rather than the cur-
rent 50 percent. And the elderly would be assessed a $55
per month fee for long-term care.(2) Even those levies may
not be enough to pay for national health care. Some econo-
mists put the cost as high as $339 billion per year in addi-
tional taxes.(3)

For all that tax money, we would buy surprisingly lit-
tle health care. The one common characteristic of all na-
tional health care systems is a shortage of services. For
example, in Great Britain, a country with a population of
only 55 million, more than 800,000 patients are waiting for
surgery.(4) In New Zealand, a country with a population of
just 3 million, the surgery waiting list now exceeds
50,000.(5) In Sweden the wait for heart x-rays is more than
11 months. Heart surgery can take an additional 8 months.(6)
In Canada the wait for hip replacement surgery is nearly 10
months; for a mammogram, 2.5 months; for a pap smear, 5
months.(7) Surgeons in Canada report that, for heart
patients, the danger of dying on the waiting list now ex-
ceeds the danger of dying on the operating table.(8) Accord-
ing to Alice Baumgart, president of the Canadian Nurses As-
sociation, emergency rooms are so overcrowded that patients
awaiting treatment frequently line the corridors.(9) Table 1
gives the average wait for various types of physicians' ser-
vices in five Canadian provinces.


Table 1

Canadian Survey of Physicians: Average Weeks Waited by
Patients (by Specialty)
__________________________________________________ ________________
B.C. N.B. Nfl. Man. N.S.
__________________________________________________ ____

Plastic surgery 13.2 36.2 37.0 11.0 26.3
Gynecology 8.4 10.9 5.3 9.0 9.6
Ophthalmology 11.6 5.2 2.9 12.8 10.7
Otolaryngology 12.2 7.2 N/A 7.0 14.7
General surgery 4.0 2.5 8.0 8.2 4.0
Neurosurgery 4.2 8.3 9.0 10.5 5.8
Orthopedic 15.8 14.6 18.5 20.6 19.7
Cardiology 14.0 10.0 42.6 14.7 26.0
Urology 8.3 13.2 5.0 6.7 7.1
Internal medicine 5.5 4.5 2.2 3.3 2.0

__________________________________________________ _____________

Source: Fraser Institute, cited in Reason, March 1992.


Sometimes the rationing of care is even more explicit:
care is denied the elderly or patients whose prognosis is
poor. In Britain kidney dialysis is generally denied pa-
tients over the age of 55. At least 1,500 Britons die each
year because of lack of dialysis.(10)

Countries with national health care systems also lag
far behind the United States in the availability of modern
medical technology. It is well documented that in Canada,
high-technology medicine is so rare as to be virtually un-
available.(11) That comparison holds for other countries as
well. Advanced medical technology is far more available in
the United States than in any other nation.(12) In addition
to being biased against new medical technologies, national
health care systems generally discriminate against nontradi-
tional practitioners, such as naturopaths and chiroprac-
tors.(13) Figure 1 shows the availability of some high-tech
medical technologies in the United States, Canada, and Ger-
many.

Furthermore, national health care systems do not con-
trol the rising cost of health care. Proponents of national
health care make much of reported differences in the propor-
tion of gross domestic product spent on health care by Cana-
da and the United States. It is true that Canada spends
only about 9 percent of its GDP on health care, while U.S.
costs have skyrocketed to more than 14 percent of GDP.(14)
However, such comparisons are seriously misleading.

Between 1967 and 1987 the Canadian GDP grew at nearly
twice the rate of the U.S. GDP. Therefore, any comparison
of health spending should be adjusted to compensate for the
different rates of economic growth. Additional adjustments
should be made for such factors as population growth; gener-
al inflation; currency exchange rates; the larger U.S. el-
derly population (the elderly require more, more expensive,
health care); higher U.S. rates of violent crime, poverty,
AIDS, and teen pregnancy; and greater U.S. investment in
research and development. When all such factors are taken
into account, Canadian health spending is virtually identi-
cal to that of the United States and has actually been ris-
ing faster over the last several years.(15) Indeed, Canadian
public policy experts warn that health care costs are rising
so rapidly that "they are crowding out every other public
spending priority--social services, the environment, educa-
tion. All are being shortchanged to feed an inefficiently
organized health care system."(16)

[Mish]

I already told you on another forum - according to a friend I have who works in the ambulances, the reason the homeless are taken to skid row is because that is where they LIVE. You can't give a bum a permanent room in a hospital.

Not all of the 50 million uninsured people are bums who live on the street. Some are just average people who come for treatment. But I've heard some of them get taken to skid row as well.

And honestly, if it comes down to my local hospital closing because they can't afford to continue to give free service to the uninsured, I would rather they turned them away. Let them go to a county facility.

I know, I am evil.

I've heard many stories of some already doing that. Once again, this would not happen if everyone was insured to begin with. Why should the few altruistic hospitals close down providing a pay-for service for free? Why shouldn't they be paid for?

[Mish]

our taxes pay for it. the u.s. has somewhat of a socialized health system. the poor, elderly, disabled, politicians, veterans, government workers, etc. get health coverage.

But 50 million are still uninsured. This socialized health system obviously doesn't go far enough.

[vashti]

But 50 million are still uninsured. This socialized health system obviously doesn't go far enough.

True, I suppose we could actually seek out the people who are too lazy to apply for these benefits and force it on them.