What you guys are pointing out is the EXTREME divide between spouting off things like “Power to the People” and “Affordable Health Care for Everyone…”…and its practical implementation in the U.S.
This is a problem that can’t be boiled down to sound bites…or documentaries by an obese and unhealthy Director probably one coronary artery away from being an expensive burden on the very System he loathes.
Mufasa
[quote]Malevolence wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
Moore:
Healthcare should be between the doctor and the patient. And if the doctor says something needs to be done, the government should guarantee it gets paid for.
Zap
The obvious solution is to have people pay the doctors directly for the services and have the government provide assistance to the poorest.
Am I missing something here? Because it sounds like you and Moore agree nearly completely.
He wants socialized medicine. I want the patient to pay the doctor directly and have the power of a consumer.
He wants the government to have the power.
Again, I must be missing something, because of the quotes you used, he doesn’t advocate ‘giving the government the power’. He says the government would become involved when a doctor deems it necessary. That would be placing power in the Doctor’s hands, but where the Doctor’s are paid directly by the people(as moore stated) the ‘power’ ultimately falls in the patients hands.
Do you have some other link/quotes you haven’t shared?[/quote]
Read the link. He wants a single payer system with the government as the payer. That means you pay taxes and the government makes all the decisions.
(Geez…that’s a sad pic of Moore…now I feel bad…!)
I’m curious:
Does Moore speak of the state of Litigation in these Socialized Systems?
Does anyone know about the State of Litigation in these Systems?
Mufasa
I havent seen this movie yet and I do agree that the insurance companies are skewing most people.
But I wonder if Mr. Moore brought up the fact that health care in the states that have the most amount of illegal aliens also have the some of the worst health care because the illegal walk into the ER and get free stuff. In order for the hospitals and insurance companies to offset that they make the people who CAN pay pay MORE. It’s the same way retailers compinsate for shoplifting.
The key two words?
THE GOVERNMENT running things…
Look, guys…we now have an expensive system that needs some serious overall.
But do ANY of you seriously think that we (the U.S.), via creating ANOTHER bloated, inefficient and wasteful governmental bureaucracy, can do it BETTER?
Somehow, I don’t think that deep down Moore even believes that!
Mufasa
Can you say:
“Walter Reed”?
The VA System?
(And before someone says it…War simply REVEALS, in graphic ways, the weaknesses in the Systems…)
The IRS?
“PASSPORT PROCESSING”? (Are you KIDDING me? And they are going to make complex medical decisions “in my behalf”?)
Mufasa
[quote]orion wrote:
When doctors become greedy and order BS exams, what then?[/quote]
Then you must be in Romania. The post-communist country stricken with poverty. You have to pay the doctors an arm and a leg to get a simple operation… well not really. Just a car or a small house or your life savings.
The smart ones walk around in Armani suits, and go on vacation for half a year around the world. I know, I met one of them.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Hey, I have an idea. They could take a little bit of my pay each month, sort of like Social Security…so when we all are in our 80’s and really could use this money, it’ll be all gone, spent elsewhere.
Seriously, Orion, what’s your opinion on all of this? Government involvement? Pay your doctor yourself? 401K option? How do you think this should work?[/quote]
I know that socialising is not the answer.
What it would lead to is medical service that gets worse and worse and finally rationing like in the UK.
Not only is this the logical course for a planned economy but it is allready happening in Germany and, in part, in Austria.
Politicians are making promises that doctors are to keep, even if it means 100 work hours and meagre pay.
The truth is IMO that we do not have the resources to give everyone all the medical attention they need.
…The truth is IMO that we do not have the resources to give everyone all the medical attention they need…
Excellent point, Orion…
But the rub is…WE EXPECT IT!
Not only what we NEED…but everything we WANT…from Boob jobs and Gastric Bypass…to some experimental treatment at the end of Life never proven to be of any value.
Which is one MAJOR reason (among many) that a Socialized system of Medicine simply will not work in the U.S.
There would need to be almost a total cultural “rethink” on our feelings of total and complete entitlement.
And that ain’t gonna’ happen anytime soon.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…The truth is IMO that we do not have the resources to give everyone all the medical attention they need…
Excellent point, Orion…
But the rub is…WE EXPECT IT!
Not only what we NEED…but everything we WANT…from Boob jobs and Gastric Bypass…to some experimental treatment at the end of Life never proven to be of any value.
Which is one MAJOR reason (among many) that a Socialized system of Medicine simply will not work in the U.S.
There would need to be almost a total cultural “rethink” on our feelings of total and complete entitlement.
And that ain’t gonna’ happen anytime soon.
Mufasa [/quote]
And we also want the best!
The outcry that in Germany leading surgeons prefer to see private patients
after years and years of working for the same state regulated salary than their less competent co-workers.
Their salary btw is around 1/3 to 1/2 than that in he UK which is why many trained medical professionels rather work in the UK and fly home for the weekend.
Soem people also do not get that if you cap doctors salaries they tend not to see patients at the end of a quarter becuause they do not like to work for free.
The solution to this according to some?
End private insurance, so that no “2-class medicine” can exist.
Does all this work “better” than in the US?
Sure, if you discount massive public debt and exploited doctors than it does…for now.
I just wanted to throw the Litigation issue out there again for those who know:
Does Moore speak of the state of Litigation in these Socialized Systems?
Does anyone know about the State of Litigation in these Systems?
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I just wanted to throw the Litigation issue out there again for those who know:
Does Moore speak of the state of Litigation in these Socialized Systems?
Does anyone know about the State of Litigation in these Systems?
Mufasa [/quote]
There is litigation but your system of punitive damages is unique.
Usually you get damages and what you fail to earn because of the Doctors mistake, that is (allmost) it.
orion:
My understanding is that the cases need to be pretty “clear cut” in most countries?
In the U.S., millions are sometimes rewarded for marginal negligence at best.
And you’re right; “punitive” damages/pain and suffering are where the millions are rewarded.
(Thanks for the insights!)
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
orion:
My understanding is that the cases need to be pretty “clear cut” in most countries?
[/quote]
In Austria, yes.
That means that a Doctor needs to extremly negligent stuff in order to get sued and you still need do prove it.
A disadvanteg of our system is that even if they make outrageous mistakes that would cost them an arm and a leg in the US, costs them peanuts here.
I remember a case where they removed the wrong testicle in the case of testicular cancer and yes, of course they had to remove the right one too for it did not have any less cancer after the healthy one was removed.
Since that in no way reduced his ability to make a living, damages were noexistent by American standards.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
The key two words?
THE GOVERNMENT running things…
Look, guys…we now have an expensive system that needs some serious overall.
But do ANY of you seriously think that we (the U.S.), via creating ANOTHER bloated, inefficient and wasteful governmental bureaucracy, can do it BETTER?[/quote]
Medicare has a reported 3 percent overhead. I think Moore believes that anyone who wants to, should be able to buy into Medicare. You don’t want to do that, you don’t have to.
I’ve seen this discussed already, and here is where somebody says that Medicare is in trouble and is running out of money. Medicare is in trouble because of the rapidly spiraling costs of health care.
Runaway inflation of halth care costs is a system wide problem that has to factor in anybody’s plan (even if we change nothing). Affect the cause here, and you will also affect the symptoms.
Anybody who insists on paying 400 dollars a month for private insurance would still be able to, under this plan. I’m sure a lot of you guys would insist on paying more, rather than buy into Medicare.
And it would be a good way to illustrate the conservative fallacy that “private companies are more efficient and more cost effective than the government” (if Halliburton hasn’t been enough evidence already). Private companies have shareholders who need to make a profit, while the government does not.
Private companies have a reported 15 to 25% overhead, so let them compete head to head with the 3% overheard of the government, and see who the consumer prefers.
By the way, if this seems too drastic, a much more modest approach was suggested years ago, that maintained the same system we have now, only with more price controls and consumer protection. It was called “Hillary Care” and the Republicans absolutely hated the idea of it. So I’ll be laughing my ass off, if that’s the solution the GOP proposes now.
As it stands, I expect the fat and happy GOP leadership will insist that no changes are needed. Everything’s fine!
The Austrian system has overheads of less than 1%.
Officially…
It is just that state hospitals cost more than 2 times per bed/night than private ones, prestige objects like super-duper high tech equipment has to available in Graz, Salzburg and Klagenfurt if Vienna has one though one of those fuckers could treat 20 million and we only have 8 million potential patients.
Add to that the massive, MASSIVE, GIGANTIC corruption of unheard of proportions building the new AKH (BIG university clinic) and 1 or even 3 per cent sounds BS to me.
So yeah, government run systems have small nominal overheads. The cost of a planned system is not in the overheads though, but in the lack of competition, innovation and constant cost pressure that is missing and of course all the politicians that will have a say then cost money too.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I didn’t like BOwling for Columbine and I didn’t care for F9/11 either, but this piece was actually interesting in the sense that he does a comparative study of five countries. He actually spends a lot more time showing the benefits of a better system than he does showing the evil of the current one. That is what makes this one fundamentally different from the others. It’s constructive!
I have no idea how your health system works, so I can’t really comment on that, but I highly recommend the movie. At one point, he shews a private meeting of Nixon with some of his staff and the revelations are stunning. I don’t wanna spoil it so I won’t say any further.[/quote]
The best part of sicko is that it shows the problems with a socialized private health care system, instead of showing the problems with a private insurance based one, which I’m sure was Moores intention.
From my point of view, it is very interesting that Michael Moore, intentionally or not, in this movie practically preaches an either-or-solution.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
The key two words?
THE GOVERNMENT running things…
Look, guys…we now have an expensive system that needs some serious overall.
But do ANY of you seriously think that we (the U.S.), via creating ANOTHER bloated, inefficient and wasteful governmental bureaucracy, can do it BETTER?
Somehow, I don’t think that deep down Moore even believes that!
Mufasa [/quote]
hmm… Department of Healthcare Security?
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
As screwed up as Moore and his believers may think the Health Care System is…
Just let a HUGE Government Bureaucracy (which would be required) start running it; with the ability to litigate against it greatly lessened.
As Americans, we simply do not have a “culture” that would tolerate a Government-run system.
Mufasa[/quote]
Indeed. I predict this movie will not do nearly as well internationally as his others. It’s one things to get a bunch of smug Brits to laugh at all those “stupid Americans” in Bowling or to capture foreign imaginations with conspiracy pap in Farenheit 9/11. It’s a much different task to convince people waiting in line for rationed health care that they have a great system…
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
The key two words?
THE GOVERNMENT running things…
Look, guys…we now have an expensive system that needs some serious overall.
But do ANY of you seriously think that we (the U.S.), via creating ANOTHER bloated, inefficient and wasteful governmental bureaucracy, can do it BETTER?
Medicare has a reported 3 percent overhead. I think Moore believes that anyone who wants to, should be able to buy into Medicare. You don’t want to do that, you don’t have to.
I’ve seen this discussed already, and here is where somebody says that Medicare is in trouble and is running out of money. Medicare is in trouble because of the rapidly spiraling costs of health care.
Runaway inflation of halth care costs is a system wide problem that has to factor in anybody’s plan (even if we change nothing). Affect the cause here, and you will also affect the symptoms.
Anybody who insists on paying 400 dollars a month for private insurance would still be able to, under this plan. I’m sure a lot of you guys would insist on paying more, rather than buy into Medicare.
And it would be a good way to illustrate the conservative fallacy that “private companies are more efficient and more cost effective than the government” (if Halliburton hasn’t been enough evidence already). Private companies have shareholders who need to make a profit, while the government does not.
Private companies have a reported 15 to 25% overhead, so let them compete head to head with the 3% overheard of the government, and see who the consumer prefers.
By the way, if this seems too drastic, a much more modest approach was suggested years ago, that maintained the same system we have now, only with more price controls and consumer protection. It was called “Hillary Care” and the Republicans absolutely hated the idea of it. So I’ll be laughing my ass off, if that’s the solution the GOP proposes now.
As it stands, I expect the fat and happy GOP leadership will insist that no changes are needed. Everything’s fine!
[/quote]
Give everyone who wants the choice this choice: Get 70s healthcare at 70s prices, or today’s health care at today’s prices. See which one people will choose…