Have you seen Michael Moore's "SiCKO?"

Post Reply New Topic

People can slam Michael Moore all they want, but the fact remains, the average life expectancy of men and women in the United States is about 76.6 years and it's about 75.4 years in URUGUAY! The U.S. spends several zillion dollars per year on health care and Uruguay probably spends about 372 pesos per year. It is obvious that something is very wrong with a system that inefficient.

That's a pretty simplistic view of health care and its role in life expectancy. Obviously lifestyle plays an enormous role in how long people live. Self-destructive behaviors such as obesity, smoking, drug & alcohol abuse all shorten lives of Americans, and moreso than inhabitants of other countries. While preventive health care education is certainly the purview of government and the health care profession, they're powerless to limit folks' freedom in how to live their own lives. These are conscious choices people make for themselves, and it often amounts to 'slow suicide'. Like it or not, that's their good right.

Also: humorous that you use "Michael Moore" and "fact" in the same sentence.

I doubt that Uruguay is a hot bed of preventative medicine and healthy lifestyles.

I just got home from seeing Sicko and it is really a good movie. It is really a shame that a rich country like ours can't supply health care to all of it's citizens regardless of income.

But I don't doubt that a higher percentage of Americans are obese than in any other country. In fact I know this to be true.


The majority of countries Moore lionizes don't give their citizens a choice; health care is mandatory. Many Americans simply prefer freedom of choice.

I already knew they didn't . It's because they don't believe Autism or Asperger's is a curable disease.

If we were born deaf that wouldn't be covered by health insurance either, you know.

Merle

What is mandatory about it? If someone gets a cold are they forced to go to the clinic? Will armed police arrest someone for not getting a check-up?

In the vast majority of Europe (for instance...) you can't go to a job interview without proof of health insurance. You can't get a mortgage without proof of health insurance. You can't get many government services without proof of health insurance. It's not these institutions merely being difficult; it's the law.

I don't really see what is so bad about that. Just get the state health insurance.
The laws requires all kinds of things for doing those. I don't see why this would be a big deal to anyone.

While essentially socialist in nature, some of the European governments have recently privatized health insurance. You're still required to have it, but at whatever price the market will bear.

Welcome to the Utopia of universal health coverage.

I will say that there seems to be no existing ideal model of healthcare delivery. I like ours (US) the best at this time. I base my opinion on the existence of the standards of medical technology and the amount of choice we do have when we can afford healthcare.
I wish the affordibility were better, HMO's are crap and many disabled people get trapped in welfare situations just to obtain health insurance which will pay for assistive technology or adaptive equipment.

But I will say that I have read about and heard some horrendous stories out of Canada and the UK about their healthcare and how it governs their standards of living. I would not want to be autistic in the UK (or Ireland) or a parent of an autistic there. They just don't seem to have a balance of power, which is what fiscal conservatives are so afraid of here if we were to socialize healthcare. Meaning, "if we're gonna pay for your healthcare, then you can't smoke, drink, have disabled kids, have cosmetic surgeries, and we're gonna decide for you why your kids are disabled and if you can have them at home".

Like I said, I don't even think our system is ideal. But I have priorities. I still think we can salvage our healthcare delivery via our Labor movement. Not extending the Welfare State.

Even the so called "working poor" can't often afford private health insurance so I think there should be state subsidised health care. In Australia, we pay a medicare levy if our taxable income is above a certain amount and this helps pay for various medical treatments.

Trouble is, the amount collected is not really enough to properly pay for the health system and it is gradually breaking down. Private Health Funds are forever putting up their prices and I think they are a rip-off because they don't generally supply "gap insurance" so even when you go private, you are still left way out of pocket after being in hospital.

I downloaded it and figured it might provide a bit of entertainment even though its content wasn't of much value, but I stopped watching when he started glorifying the Clintons, it was just too obvious it was a biased propaganda film.

I think I'll find the Simpsons movie more intellectually sophisticated, going to watch that instead.

Now, now. It's a documentary.

My solution for America is to flood the market with doctors, nurses, medical technologists from India. Drive the labor cost down and have more technological based health care replaced with the extra low cost labour intensive solutions.

We do have subsidized health insurance for the "working poor". It's the middle class that is under-insured against their will.

That's also not accurate. Of the oft-publicized 44 million underinsured in the US, quite a few could afford health insurance, but consciously chose not to purchase it. Don't ask me why, but that's what the stats say.

I can sorta see it: paying insurance every month is like betting against yourself: "I'm betting I will have a calamitous sickness this month".