Sicko (film) and American Healthcare...

[soulslicer]

Has anyone watched this documentary yet? I thought it was pretty neat.

It totally shocked me when I learned about how awesome France's Medical Care was, how they get free "nannies" to help serve working mother's, totally paid for by the government. How even in Cuba, one could get much cheaper and better medical attention compared to America. America on the other hand, is ridden with insurance and bureaucracy driven policies that prevent people from getting the best medical attention, or so the documentary constantly puts forward, and how even AQ Member's in the Guantanamo Bay Prison get better and free Medical attention. How many 9/11 worker's were denied subsidized medical care due to "red-tape" reasons like how they spent too little time and all..

Not that I want to believe every word Micheal Moore said, but if it's really that bad in the US, why aren't people actively protesting about it. Or if they are, I hardly read any news about it, so I want to know from the viewpoint of an American Citizen. Is it really that bad? the status of US Health care that is.

 

[CptStern]

Medical Insurance companies + the medical industry make $$$$$ ..they're not shutting down their gravy train any time soon



and you're asking the wrong demographic ..most of us are healthy and have no need to medical care or what they have is sufficient for their current needs .just wait till they're older ..they'll be lining up to take chartered bus trips to the canadian border to buy cheap meds or eating out of a can of cat food so they can afford their next chemo treatment

 

[Polaris]

Don't belive that crap about great healtcare at Cuba. I've seen documentary where Cuban doctor said that they don't have enoug drugs, even most common drugs, such as Aspirin and antibiotics.

 

[CptStern]

hmmm that wouldnt be because many things are embargoed?

 

[15357]

And that embargo might be because they had missiles pointing at someone?



Anyway, I find the healthcare system in America disgusting. Nationalized health insurance ftw.

 

[CptStern]

And that embargo might be because they had missiles pointing at someone?

who cuba? lol do your history books only go up to October 27, 1962?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis#Ending_the_crisis_of_1962

 

[Mr Stabby]

It's only a US embargo, western Europe doesn't have an embargo on them.

 

[15357]

who cuba? lol do your history books only go up to October 27, 1962?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis#Ending_the_crisis_of_1962

No, it just doesn't concentrate on Cuba, or any other country not big enough, for that matter.

 

[CptStern]

No, it just doesn't concentrate on Cuba, or any other country not big enough, for that matter.

lol cuba is bigger than South korea

http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/world_statistics_by_area.htm



man who wrote your history books? some guy with a grade 5 education it seems

 

[VirusType2]

Healthcare is extremely expensive.

A few x-rays and a blood test cost me $2000, and I don't have insurance


however, they might write the whole thing off, since I don't have the money to pay it. Either that or I could pay $5 a month for eternity. It will be OK. They won't deny you treatment regardless. That's the only good part.

 

[Tyguy]

not an issue for me besides the 15 dollar co-pay

 

[The Monkey]

Well I can tell you from a Swedish perspective that one of the major problems people here have with the US, along with the death penalty and the aggressive foreign policy, is the lack of universal health care.

 

[Leto]

Well, Canada seems to have the universal health care, but right now it seems to have taken a turn for the worse.

Long waitlists, unavaliable hospital beds, lack of funding, etc.

If someone wants to jump me on this and say that I'm wrong, go ahead.
I really want to know what the heck is going on with our health care system.

 

[unozero]

Well I can tell you from a Swedish perspective that one of the major problems people here have with the US, along with the death penalty and the aggressive foreign policy, is the lack of universal health care.

hahahahahahahahaha

 

[repiV]

Well I can tell you from a Swedish perspective that one of the major problems people here have with the US, along with the death penalty and the aggressive foreign policy, is the lack of universal health care.

America's domestic policies are none of your business whatsoever, so you have no right to "have a problem" with the US for these reasons.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

Well, Canada seems to have the universal health care, but right now it seems to have taken a turn for the worse.

Long waitlists, unavaliable hospital beds, lack of funding, etc.

Sounds like our NHS as well. Although it's not the best, when compared to places like the US i am grateful for it. Then again i'm not surprised, it's America they prefer to spend money on killing people then helping them.

 

[soulslicer]

From what I see, most of you people agree that America has a bad health care system. It's a bit confusing as America has one of the highest tax rates as far as I know. Why would they privative health care like that and make lots of people suffer? I guess a good load of money is spent on pension for the people, but I guess it isn't enough to cover their medical costs.

 

[Sulkdodds]

America's domestic policies are none of your business whatsoever, so you have no right to "have a problem" with the US for these reasons.

I'm pretty sure he is talking about his opinion, which he has a right to - and pretty sure his opinion has to do with humanitarian concern for all people, something he also has a right to.

I "have a problem" with the domestic policies not only my own country, but those of the US, the Russian Federation, the PRC, Japan, Belarus, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. Gonna stop me?

Anyway. Healthcare. Everybody should have some.
I should say now that this thread will probably end in me ranting at length about the effect of the Private Finance Initiative on the UK's public services.

 

[The Monkey]

America's domestic policies are none of your business whatsoever, so you have no right to "have a problem" with the US for these reasons.

Then I guess that we should just let the Sudanese government commit genocide on their own people. That too, is "domestic policies".

It's insane to think that one should be indifferent towards the suffering and hardship the people of other nations. If everyone did that it would be a much darker world.

That's not to say that one should the turn a blind eye to your own country's problems and just criticize others', but the more people of other countries are involved in solving a problem, the better.

 

[V-Man339]

My sister had to be jet lifted to a hospital because her heart literally stopped.

She made it, just barely.
Unfortanantley we had to pay an uninsured (as usual) jet bill for the rest of the year or two.
As long as your alive the government tries to squeeze money out of you, and when you can't and you're useless, they basically say piss off (see retirement). Even in death they try to squeeze as much money out of you as they can (see funeral costs and the cost of just burying in your own back yard [hint: taxes]. It's only natural that they try to charge you money for the price of living to see another day. Or at least getting rid of a broken bone, etc.
Quite frankly it just pisses me off that a nation would take such horrible care of its own people.

 

[repiV]

Then I guess that we should just let the Sudanese government commit genocide on their own people. That too, is "domestic policies".

It's insane to think that one should be indifferent towards the suffering and hardship the people of other nations. If everyone did that it would be a much darker world.

That's not to say that one should the turn a blind eye to your own country's problems and just criticize others', but the more people of other countries are involved in solving a problem, the better.

Comparing genocide to the US healthcare system is beyond absurd.

Healthcare is not a right. Rights are things that people have so that they exist as free people, and noone else has to pay out for another's rights and freedoms.

Healthcare, on the other hand, is a service, and an extremely expensive one. By suggesting that it is a right you are burying your head in the sand as to the fact that maintaining a healthcare system as comprehensive as the one you are used to requires that the economic status of your country remains forever healthy, which is unlikely to happen - indeed, high taxation in itself threatens the long-term health of any economy.

You are also saying that it is one person's right to steal from another if they have a medical need, as essentially - whether right or wrong - that's what nationalised healthcare is.

Healthcare is an entitlement (in some countries), not a right - it's a domestic issue and NOT a humanitarian one.

 

[[Matt]]

On a side note how come i live in such a poorly run country as the UK when we live a boat trip over the channel away from one of the best run countries? Seriously if i could be bothered to learn to speak french i would consider moving there...

 

[Sulkdodds]

Comparing genocide to the US healthcare system is beyond absurd.

But in this case, the comparison is valid; the relevant similarity is that he finds both things morally objectionable, but neither thing is taking place in his own country; neither has any apparent material effect on he himself.

I can't agree with your classic-liberal focus on 'rights'. For me, liberty is the most important thing full stop. 'Rights' are not fundamental but are the generally accepted shortcuts to greater liberty. In almost all cases (certainly, in all cases I can imagine), I'd support rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc - because their curtailment means a loss of liberty I find abhorrent.

Since I believe that freedom is the most important thing, it follows that I support any measures which I believe to increase net freedom. And if a government takes measures which I believe to decreease net freedom, I will find this immoral. I will object. In this way, domestic concerns become one with humanitarian concerns.

This would be my thought process, but I am trying to demonstrate how The Monkey could very reasonably arrive at the conclusion that the US government's conduct in this case is immoral, after which he feels himself obligated to object to it.

I'm not sure why we even got into this discussion, but I don't think it's really a necessary one. Using your freedom of speech to object to him using his freedom of speech...well, it seems remarkable unproductive.

 

[Mr Stabby]

I can't agree with your classic-liberal focus on 'rights'. For me, liberty is the most important thing full stop. 'Rights' are not fundamental but are the generally accepted shortcuts to greater liberty. In almost all cases (certainly, in all cases I can imagine), I'd support rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc - because their curtailment means a loss of liberty I find abhorrent.

Libertarianism/classical-liberalism defines freedom in terms of property rights. People can do what they like to their own property and not to someone else's, your own speech/body is defined as your own property. How do you define liberty, without the concept of individual rights?

Since I believe that freedom is the most important thing, it follows that I support any measures which I believe to increase net freedom. And if a government takes measures which I believe to decreease net freedom, I will find this immoral. I will object. In this way, domestic concerns become one with humanitarian concerns.

Do you consider health care to be an issue of freedom?

 

[repiV]

But in this case, the comparison is valid; the relevant similarity is that he finds both things morally objectionable, but neither thing is taking place in his own country; neither has any apparent material effect on he himself.

I can't agree with your classic-liberal focus on 'rights'. For me, liberty is the most important thing full stop. 'Rights' are not fundamental but are the generally accepted shortcuts to greater liberty. In almost all cases (certainly, in all cases I can imagine), I'd support rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc - because their curtailment means a loss of liberty I find abhorrent.

Since I believe that freedom is the most important thing, it follows that I support any measures which I believe to increase net freedom. And if a government takes measures which I believe to decreease net freedom, I will find this immoral. I will object. In this way, domestic concerns become one with humanitarian concerns.

This would be my thought process, but I am trying to demonstrate how The Monkey could very reasonably arrive at the conclusion that the US government's conduct in this case is immoral, after which he feels himself obligated to object to it.

I'm not sure why we even got into this discussion, but I don't think it's really a necessary one. Using your freedom of speech to object to him using his freedom of speech...well, it seems remarkable unproductive.

It's both necessary and relevant. Liberty not only has nothing to do with state-funded services such as healthcare, these services actually reduce freedom. On the one hand, people are required to hand over a huge percentage of their income in taxes to pay for it (and the people who pay the most will usually get the least value for money and vice versa) - if taxes were not both accepted and necessary to sustain our current system of government, they would be theft by any other name.
On the other, the government taking care of people insulates them from the consequences of their actions. Successful people see far less of their success, while useless people are artificially sustained. Take it far enough and you end up with a situation like we have in this country now where many people are slaves to the system and have no idea how to look after themselves because they've never had to, and their parents never had to. Ironically, socialism actually creates poverty.

"Free" healthcare is not a human rights issue. It's a luxury that rich countries can afford in periods of economic health, at the direct expense of freedom and prosperity.

 

[No Limit]

repiV, you are telling me you would trade the system you have in your country to the US system?

 

[repiV]

repiV, you are telling me you would trade the system you have in your country to the US system?

I never said any such thing. I actually happen to agree with state-funded healthcare, I'm just under no illusion that it has anything to do with freedom or liberty.

A lot of people seem to be under the illusion that things like healthcare or benefits are a right, but they seem to forget that a) somebody has to pay for these things - this "right" is at the expense of every productive member of society and b) we can only afford it as we are rich, and we are only rich because of capitalism.

Over 20% of the UK GDP - half of government expenditure - is spent on welfare ffs. Paid for by our mushrooming national debt and probably a depression, ultimately.

 

[No Limit]

I wanted to clarify what you were saying, I didnt say that's what you wanted.

So in your mind public safety isn't a right either since someone has to pay for it?

 

[repiV]

I wanted to clarify what you were saying, I didnt say that's what you wanted.

So in your mind public safety isn't a right either since someone has to pay for it?

"Public safety" is such a vague term that it's meaningless.

Nothing is your right, if you have to take from somebody else in order to get it. To believe otherwise is the height of arrogance.

 

[No Limit]

I don't think its that vague.

You are trying to argue semantics. When we live in a society we all deserve some basic services. Clean water, public safety (police/military protection), transportation, etc. And I think the point many here are trying to get across here is that health care belongs on that list.

When government can't provide you with clean drinking water people will die, just like they will die when the government can't provide basic health care. Therefore these services, in addition to health care, should be provided for all citizens. If you don't want to call it a right you don't have to, but that's bascially what it is.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Why does society owe you anything?

 

[No Limit]

Why does society owe you anything?

I think that question was answered thousands of years ago when we started migrating to cities so we could all work as a group to improve everyones lives. It's probably why we climbed to the top of the food chain.

But hell, if you don't agree then by all means do something about it. Sudan would probably be a good place for you to migrate to. Or if you don't want to go that kind of extreme you can be disconnected from society pretty damn good by moving to the mountains.

 

[Mr Stabby]

I think that question was answered thousands of years ago when we started migrating to cities so we could all work as a group to improve everyones lives. It's probably why we climbed to the top of the food chain.

People moved to cities to make money to improve their own lives not other peoples. Early agriculture was not socialized, it was based on trade, that's why we are so successful as a species.

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages.

But hell, if you don't agree then by all means do something about it. Sudan would probably be a good place for you to migrate to. Or if you don't want to go that kind of extreme you can be disconnected from society pretty damn good by moving to the mountains.

I'm not against limited social welfare, but I'm not under the illusion that it's a right or a tenant of freedom. Unfortunately moving to the mountains wouldn't solve all the problems of government interference there is still taxes on trade.

 

[No Limit]

That's my point, the concept of a city or society imporves lives, even if you move there for your own selfish reasons. Our species realized that working together for a common goal was benefitial to everyone, even if we have lost the sense of this.

Like I said, if you want to argue semantics and say this isn't a right you can. But the point is society must, and does, provide its citizens with some basic needs. From clean water to public safety. This is for the good of everyone, even if they aren't in the top 1% tax bracket. Without these basic services society could not exist.

You can go off to some remote island somewhere. There are plenty of places on this planet that have no government control. But there is a good reason most people choose not to do that.

 

[Mr Stabby]

That's my point, the concept of a city or society imporves lives, even if you move there for your own selfish reasons. Our species realized that working together for a common goal was benefitial to everyone, even if we have lost the sense of this.

There is no common goal, only self interest, but most self interest has positive repercussions for others. Most people do not actively intend to improve society for others, when trading.

Like I said, if you want to argue semantics and say this isn't a right you can. But the point is society must, and does, provide its citizens with some basic needs. From clean water to public safety. This is for the good of everyone, even if they aren't in the top 1% tax bracket.

It's not semantics unless you are twisting the definition of what rights are. Give a reason why a society must provide everyone cleaning drinking water, what about housing? These are all privileges of living in wealthy countries. Is it a right if the society can't afford it?

I define a right as, things that the government nor society has any business in interfering in. Life, liberty, property. Everything else is a privilege generally at the expense of someone else.

You can go off to some remote island somewhere. There are plenty of places on this planet that have no government control. But there is a good reason most people choose not to do that.

Well there is Monaco but I don't speak French. Most people like the idea of someone else paying their bills.

 

[No Limit]

There is no common goal, only self interest, but most self interest has positive repercussions for others. Most people do not actively intend to improve society for others, when trading.

Most people might not but many still do (im not clear what you mean by the "when trading" condition).

It's not semantics unless you are twisting the definition of what rights are. Give a reason why a society must provide everyone cleaning drinking water, what about housing? These are all privileges of living in wealthy countries. Is it a right if the society can't afford it?

I define a right as, things that the government nor society has any business in interfering in. Life, liberty, property. Everything else is a privilege generally at the expense of someone else.

If a society can not provide clean drinking water that society can not exist. By defenition you are probably correct, it is not a right. But what word would you use to describe this service that society MUST provide?

What about housing? Are you suggesting that there is a line as to what society needs to provide? Well certainly, but where do you draw that line? People can live without housing, as millions do. But you can not live without healthcare just like you can not live without clean drinking water.

Well there is Monaco but I don't speak French. Most people like the idea of someone else paying their bills.

Most people like the idea of having roads to drive on, bridges to cross, airports to take off from, an ambulance to come pick them up when they have an emergency, a military to protect them, etc, etc, etc. It has nothing to do with paying other peoples bills. It has to do with society providing services an individual can not provide.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Most people might not but many still do (im not clear what you mean by the "when trading" condition).

What is the common goal, communism? I mean the practice of commerce that occurs in society, capitalism. The free market is not altruistic, it's the exact opposite, yet trade is what has driven human society and has led to many unintentional benefits.

If a society can not provide clean drinking water that society can not exist. By defenition you are probably correct, it is not a right. But what word would you use to describe this service that society MUST provide?

It was around 1860 that it was discovered that dirty drinking water killed people, so a society can exist without the government ensuring all water supplies are clean. Society/ Government doesn't have to provide it. If there is a demand for it a supply will occur. The issue arises for people who can't afford the free market solutions to such problems. I do personally believe that it's justifiable to tax the rich to help the poor but I don't think a society has to do it.

What about housing? Are you suggesting that there is a line as to what society needs to provide? Well certainly, but where do you draw that line? People can live without housing, as millions do. But you can not live without healthcare just like you can not live without clean drinking water.

Yes, I'm asking if access to commodities like water are consider rights where do you draw the line as to what commodities people have rights too. You can live without health care, not having health care won't kill you. It may prolong your life to have it, but not having it won't kill you.

Most people like the idea of having roads to drive on, bridges to cross, airports to take off from, an ambulance to come pick them up when they have an emergency, a military to protect them, etc, etc, etc. It has nothing to do with paying other peoples bills. It has to do with society providing services an individual can not provide.

Whatever the reason people support public roads, hospital etc. I still don't consider any of them rights. In regards to how they are funded I don't think people who don't drive should be paying for roads they don't use.

 

[No Limit]

What is the common goal, communism? I mean the practice of commerce that occurs in society, capitalism. The free market is not altruistic, it's the exact opposite, yet trade is what has driven human society and has led to many unintentional benefits.
....
It was around 1860 that it was discovered that dirty drinking water killed people, so a society can exist without the government ensuring all water supplies are clean. Society/ Government doesn't have to provide it. If there is a demand for it a supply will occur. The issue arises for people who can't afford the free market solutions to such problems. I do personally believe that it's justifiable to tax the rich to help the poor but I don't think a society has to do it.

It's a balance of socialism and captialism, not everything in economics is black and white. Any society that treats it as black and white never comes out very well. It's not only an issue of not being able to afford something. For example an individual or corporation can not provide roads efficiently, that needs to be done by the government. So there are services that a government must provide, nothing will change that. The question is what those services should be.

Yes, dirty drinking water didn't always kill you. But go back and see what the life expectancy in 1860 was. If you are only surviving until 30 years old I wouldn't really call that surviving.

Yes, I'm asking if access to commodities like water are consider rights where do you draw the line as to what commodities people have rights too. You can live without health care, not having health care won't kill you. It may prolong your life to have it, but not having it won't kill you.

Cancer certainly does kill you if you don't get it treated. Many times so does the flu for that matter.

Whatever the reason people support public roads, hospital etc. I still don't consider any of them rights. In regards to how they are funded I don't think people who don't drive should be paying for roads they don't use.

Why? This type of thinking really doesn't make much sense to me. What is the alternative to not having everyone pay for all the roads? Set up toll booths on every road out there? You don't think that in the end your cost will be more for driving on those roads as a result? In fact there is already a great example of this in Manhattan, you need to pay about $15 each day just to drive in. And that's the ideal system in your eyes? I'm sure you would agree there is no free ride in this world. If you stop taxing something you will have to pay for it some other way, and I bet you that you will end up paying more as a result.

 

[Mr Stabby]

It's a balance of socialism and captialism, not everything in economics is black and white. Any society that treats it as black and white never comes out very well.

Many societies have done well from free market capitalism. Communism is total nonsense.
A social market economy may be the best option for rich developed countries but poor countries can't afford it. The idea that civilization has been working towards any altruistic goal is nonsense.

It's not only an issue of not being able to afford something. For example an individual or corporation can not provide roads efficiently, that needs to be done by the government. So there are services that a government must provide, nothing will change that. The question is what those services should be.

I would disagree that roads and railways require the government. Neither are always built by the government they are built by contractors, the free market is always more efficient than the government. The question isn't what services the government should provide, it's what is the role of the government, the services provided should reflect such a role.

Yes, dirty drinking water didn't always kill you. But go back and see what the life expectancy in 1860 was. If you are only surviving until 30 years old I wouldn't really call that surviving.

Cancer certainly does kill you if you don't get it treated. Many times so does the flu for that matter.

The lack of government health care doesn't kill people, it is not killing people by not existing. Health care and a government regulated water supply are not an absolute necessity of society. Is it better for wealthy countries to have those things, probably, are they necessary for a free and prosperous society, no. They are still optional luxuries rather than basic rights.

Why? This type of thinking really doesn't make much sense to me. What is the alternative to not having everyone pay for all the roads? Set up toll booths on every road out there? You don't think that in the end your cost will be more for driving on those roads as a result? In fact there is already a great example of this in Manhattan, you need to pay about $15 each day just to drive in. And that's the ideal system in your eyes? I'm sure you would agree there is no free ride in this world. If you stop taxing something you will have to pay for it some other way, and I bet you that you will end up paying more as a result.

Well the cost will go up because the people who don't use them will not be paying for them anymore, I really don't see why people should pay for things they don't use. It's almost an economic fact that the free market can do something cheaper than the government. Is the system in Manhattan a congestion charge or a road service charge? Unless you mean the toll booth tunnel, that is a sensible way of paying for the tunnel.

What justification is there for taking someones money to pay for something they won't use, so it will be cheaper for other people? Is it really any different from government funding modern art, a road is as useless to a non driver as modern art is to everyone.

 

[repiV]

I don't think its that vague.

You are trying to argue semantics. When we live in a society we all deserve some basic services. Clean water, public safety (police/military protection), transportation, etc. And I think the point many here are trying to get across here is that health care belongs on that list.

When government can't provide you with clean drinking water people will die, just like they will die when the government can't provide basic health care. Therefore these services, in addition to health care, should be provided for all citizens. If you don't want to call it a right you don't have to, but that's bascially what it is.

People will also die if the government doesn't spy on you 24/7 and intervene any time you do anything that may put your safety at risk. Does that mean we must all have our own personal Big Brothers?

Life is tough. Shit happens. You can't accept that fact because you live an affluent lifestyle in a wealthy country which shields you from the reality of things. It's not your right to be insulated from the bad things in life, it's just a luxury afforded to you partly from the lottery of your birth and partly from the opportunities you have seized. This luxury, however, would never have been possible without a "brutal", as you might call it, powerhouse economy to fund it.

I think you'll find life is a lot more rewarding if you just get on with it instead of complaining about how unfair everything is. I can barely walk anymore but I don't let it stop me enjoying my life...

What justification is there for taking someones money to pay for something they won't use, so it will be cheaper for other people? Is it really any different from government funding modern art, a road is as useless to a non driver as modern art is to everyone.

For the record, that's completely untrue. Roads are the lifeblood of any developed country. Without them, the entire country would implode in a matter of days. Nobody would be able to get to work, cargo would never reach its destination, medical emergencies could not be attended to. People would starve, the economy would fall apart and civilisation would almost immediately start to collapse.