Google Protects Healthcare From Michael Moore

An anonymous reader suggests we stop over to ZDNet for a case where Google may be stepping on the wrong side of that famous Don't Be Evil line. A Google staffer is offering to help the healthcare industry contain the damage that Michael Moore's film is about to do. (Here is the original Google Health Advertisement blog post by Lauren Turner; in case it disappears, it is reproduced in full in the ZDNet post.) Quoting from the Google post: "Many of our clients face these issues; companies come to us hoping we can help them better manage their reputations through 'Get the Facts' or issue management campaigns. Your brand or corporate site may already have these informational assets, but can users easily find them? We can place text ads, video ads, and rich media ads in paid search results or in relevant websites within our ever-expanding content network. Whatever the problem, Google can act as a platform for educating the public and promoting your message. We help you connect your company's assets while helping users find the information they seek."

Comments

Micheal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Michael has been one of the top ten most popular male names for over fifty years. Why is it so hard for some people to spell correctly?

Re:Micheal?

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone named Michael, all I gotta say is screw you.

Re:Micheal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose a lot of folks who would be disappointed or even outraged by this news are also proponents of other progressive social causes such as net neutrality.

If you are in that group, consider that true net neutrality means that the "bad guys" get to get their messages carried, too.

Why indict Google for providing a level playing field?

"But they don't have to run their ads!" you might say. Well, if the ads don't get clicked, they don't often show up, regardless of CPC. And that's where Google is doing no evil.

Re:Micheal?

[genaldar]

The playingfield still isn't level. Health insurance companies have more money than God, they don't need google's help to remind us sheep that "we need them".

Re:Micheal?

[Anonymous Coward]

GP is talking about the "field" which Google is in a position to (prevent) influence.

Re:Micheal?

[Wolfger]

I suppose a lot of folks who would be disappointed or even outraged by this news are also proponents of other progressive social causes such as net neutrality.

I think you're supposing incorrectly. People who support network neutrality are generally smart people, and net neutrality is an important issue that affects our future. People upset that an advertising company (Google) is trying to sell ads are not intelligent, this is not an important issue, and it means squat to anybody's future. Who the hell decided this "news" was Slashdot worthy? Trying to earn money by doing your job is not evil. Google is not censoring anything, and not trying to "contain" the damage to the health care industry. Repair, maybe, but not contain.

Re:Micheal?

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

Michael has been one of the top ten most popular male names for over fifty years. Why is it so hard for some people to spell correctly?

Why do you think the popularity of the name should make it any less likely to be misspelled? People routinely and systematically misspell expressions that occur vastly more frequently in text (e.g., would of).

Re:Micheal?

[joshsnow]

It's Mikel, you insensitive clod!

Re:Micheal?

[jandrese]

Huh? Net Neutrality is all about not prioritizing certain kinds of data over other kinds in a network traffic sense. It has almost nothing to do with this case other than maybe the idea that the drug companies could buy faster net access for their information (propaganda). What are you talking about?

Re:Micheal?

[gregconquest]

Businesses strive to create markets. In this case, the creation would be something no one thinks is good for the society as a whole. Only the pharmaceutical/medical/insurance industry benefits directly. For most of us, the only positive thing about the current medical system cum Randroid anarchy is the advertising and lobbying they do. They look so nice and helpful in the ads. They are All-American industries . . . This is the only reason I can see that would explain why any of us would dare to defend them -- or anything supporting them. Google, though they can make a buck, shouldn't go there. It is not good for us -- Google's ultimate customer base. Google is just pushing us by going through with this. They may not be able to quantify the money lost to our bad will and damage to their image, but both are real. Google doing it anyway just shows that accountants seem to be making in charge -- not people with the foresight to protect Google's (formerly) good name. Greg Conquest

Re:Micheal?

[Wolfger]

Google, though they can make a buck, shouldn't go there. It is not good for us

If Google ever decides that they are in the business of determining what is or is not "good for us", THAT would be evil!
Do no evil. Let people decide for themselves.

Not Evil

[dreamchaser]

This isn't anwhere near as evil as collecting user's browsing data or cooperating with Chinese censorship. They are offering companies a PR service. I hope you're not saying that it's wrong to counter propaganda? That's all Moore's 'documentaries' are really, even when he makes good points (which isn't all that often).

Re:Not Evil

[FooAtWFU]

Indeed. From the title, one could expect something like "Google is censoring search results about Sicko!". But really, Google is saying "hey, healthcare guys, you've got stuff on your website - here's how to get us to index it better and find it" (insert standard non-spammy search engine optimization strategies here) "and you can even advertise with us while you're at it!"

Now, I guess if your friends in the Healthcare industry are pure evil, then Google is being evil, but I don't see how you can construe that as "protection". Apparently the submitter, however, would like to protect "Sicko" from the health care industry's web sites. Meh. Lame.

Re:Not Evil

[SetupWeasel]

Sadly, in modern America, the truth often needs propaganda to be heard. Our health care system is in tatters. Corruption and kickbacks run rampant. Pharmaceutical propaganda runs 24/7 on our televisions. Almost no one is willing to stand up for us.

Re:Not Evil

[Kjella]

When it comes down to it, it's "Do business, but don't do evil". Google is not the Gates foundation, they're not out to do charity and pro bono work. They've just stated they won't be making those profits off doing evil. They're in the business of selling advertising. They see someone getting hammered in the media, and ask "Do you need some advertising services?" Now maybe if they did something like run clearly false and deceptive advertising to the point of becoming a propaganda machine, hushed down opposing critics by refusing to advertise for them then maybe you could start to talk about evil. And even then I think advertisers should be given quite a lot of freedom of speech to advertise through Google, without that being taken as Google's position. If you can't be this "evil", then you can't do business.

Re:Not Evil

[quanticle]

I agree that our health care system could be improved. However, Michael Moore's proposal - go to a single payer system - is not the answer. In Canada, one of the systems highlighted by his film, there are cases where people have an easier time getting hip replacement surgeries for their pet dogs than for themselves. You see, pets are allowed to have private insurance. People are not.

In my opinion, the main reason our health care costs are skyrocketing is because of our unhealthy lifestyles. America is the most obese nation in the world. We are obese because people follow unhealthy dietary and exercise habits. Right now, unhealthy eating habits and poor exercise habits are externalities. People can have these habits, but insurance companies pay the costs. Until we find a way to make people pay for the costs of their poor choices while maintaining coverage for legitimate accidents, health care costs will continue to increase.

Re:Not Evil

[timmarhy]

i agree, unfortunately fatties whinge loudly and vote lots, so it's not going to be mandated unless it reaches a crisis point.

the other issue, is people aren't really fat by choice, it's because we live in a world of abundance that's never been before. we are born to eat, and it's pretty hard to fight it. since we can't fight the desire to eat we should fight the other causes, such as lack of exercise and lack of sleep. at this level i believe companys can help. give your employee's a free sporting membership, give them time off to exercise during the week. here at work we have 40 minute warm up exercises 3 times a week and it's reduced the number of soft tissue injuries, which has made up for the time it take to do the exercises. don't make people work long hours which prevents them getting exercise. hell it'd probably be a good investment and help lower the companys health fund premiums.

Re:Not Evil

[catwh0re]

I'd agree there, there is nothing evil about an advertising company selling it's wares. Plus all the talk about health care will only force change. Google is where it is because they have foresight and will ride each wave as appropriate.

The matters involving China are unfortunate, it's the only way they can get Google. It's a sneaky ploy by google as many services are available which help remove some power from the chinese authority. Such as the now old trick of using google as a proxy via the translate service.

Re:Not Evil

[jorghis]

Dont get me wrong, I have a pretty low opinion of Michael Moore, but his criticisms of the health insurance industry are very accurate. They do routinely find ways to deny life saving operations to people who have been paying their premiums their entire lives. Let me repeat that, people who have been paying for the insurance their entire lives die because the insurance companies want to save a few bucks. This is very evil. Moore cant help but be accurate in his criticisms of the HMOs, its so easy to find outragous stories about what they have done to their clients. Socialism may be a bad idea, but something does need to be done about these insurance companies letting their clients die. Shame on google for trying to help them with their image. If they want to clean up their image they should stop trying to find ways to let their clients die.

Re:Not Evil

[ozmanjusri]

I agree that our health care system could be improved. However, Michael Moore's proposal - go to a single payer system - is not the answer. In Canada, one of the systems highlighted by his film...

The US has the most expensive per capita healthcare in the world, and Canada comes in second. The U.S. ranks only 37th in the world in quality health care - yet nationally America spends 82% more per person on health care than others. Canada also fails to fully benefit from the money spent, so I don't think either is a model for healthcare efficiency.

There are countries which perform better than the US while still spending less than the US government already spends. You'd be better looking at New Zealand, the UK and Australia to see what works.

The U.S. ranks last of six nations overall. As in the earlier editions, the U.S. ranks last on indicators of patient safety, efficiency, and equity. New Zealand, Australia, and the U.K. continue to demonstrate superior performance, with Germany joining their ranks of top performers. The U.S. is first on preventive care, and second only to Germany on waiting times for specialist care and non-emergency surgical care, but weak on access to needed services and ability to obtain prompt attention from physicians.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publi cations_show.htm?doc_id=482678 The real tragedy from Australia's point of view, is that our government has an ideological commitment to drag our healthcare system down to the US's level, instead of bringing it up to match the top performers.

Re:Not Evil

[FooAtWFU]

Not all of the cost. Most people would think that there's significant nontrivial negative value in just being big, fat, and likely to die younger. And, unless your employer is particularly wonderful with its insurance, most people will see a monetary cost sooner or later.

Still, changing to the "single-payer" system would make things even worse in that regard. There's also a significant incentive for the single-payer government solution to cut its own costs by, oh, passing legislation on what people are allowed to eat (and I'm sure there are some people out there who already would like to outlaw Big Macs). Now, I'm not a big fan of such things, but the notion of that kind of legislation scares me... as does the notion of health care as a bureaucracy. (You thought insurance companies were bad? Wait until they're more like the DMV.)

Ultimately, health care is an expensive service since it must be performed by fairly intelligent people with a lot of very hard training and expensive education, and drugs are expensive because researching them takes lot of money paying intelligent people with expensive educations, and which may or may not be successful. The outrage some people seem to express at wealthy people being able to pay other wealthy people for quality healthcare seems a silly to me. Maybe if the doctors were all humble and devout servants of the greater good of humanity, they would be just as willing to treat the poor, and not make a lot of money, and things would be more equitable in the world, yeah. But they're not charities, they're people, and their efforts are their own, to dispose of as they will.

Re:Not Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd agree there, there is nothing evil about an advertising company selling it's wares. Greed and Envy.

Re:Not Evil

[omeomi]

In my opinion, the main reason our health care costs are skyrocketing is because of our unhealthy lifestyles. America is the most obese nation in the world. We are obese because people follow unhealthy dietary and exercise habits.

I'm not obese...I'm not even mildly overweight, and I exercise regularly. Why should I have to pay extra for health care because other people live unhealthy lifestyles?

Re:Not Evil

[Pig Hogger]

The real tragedy from Australia's point of view, is that our government has an ideological commitment to drag our healthcare system down to the US's level, instead of bringing it up to match the top performers.

Fortunately, in Canada, people have made well clear that they will not stand for this, and no politician, not even the frothiest right-wing loonies (who are in power in Ottawa, as it happens) would ever dream of ever suggesting a hint of perhaps maybe eventually moving slightly towards a US style health-care system...

Re:Not Evil

[4e617474]

Now, I guess if your friends in the Healthcare industry are pure evil, then Google is being evil, but I don't see how you can construe that as "protection".

There's a film out that, if you take the point of view that the vast majority of the people who see it do, talks about how people who are sick and dying are not being helped by people who amass large amounts of money (and prestige, public goodwill, etc.) for helping sick people. Google, in the role that I and a lot of people understood them to have for most of the last decade, could reasonably be expected to do nothing about it - only make sure that people found the information on the subject that they chose to try to find. In a more realistic worldview, they sell ads, they advertise that they sell ads, and if people on side of the debate or the other, or both, buy ads that's how it goes - the service is there for anyone who wants to buy. Instead, when:

Many of our clients face these issues; companies come to us hoping we can help them better manage their reputations through "Get the Facts" or issue management campaigns.

they don't say "Fuck off. We don't do propoganda." No, they get involved. If no one's come to them yet, they actively reach out. To one side. The one with the money. The one with the blood money. If you weren't there already, this is the last nail in the coffin of the notion of Google as anything more than any old corporation with its requisite ration of evil.

Re:Not Evil

[jessiej]

Socialism may be a bad idea, but.. This is precisely one of the problems Moore touches on, universal health care != socialism

Re:Not Evil

[Pig Hogger]

Still, changing to the "single-payer" system would make things even worse in that regard.

Not at all. The Canadian "single payer" health-care system has only 3% administrative overhead, as opposed to 35%-40% for the private US one. And since everyone is covered identically, there is no time lost finding out if someone is insured for this or that treatment. Nor are people fired because the employer's insurance is tired of paying for the employee's children expensive cancer treatment.

There's also a significant incentive for the single-payer government solution to cut its own costs by, oh, passing legislation on what people are allowed to eat (and I'm sure there are some people out there who already would like to outlaw Big Macs).

There is no such thing in Canada, and pity the hapless government who would pass such laws...

Now, I'm not a big fan of such things, but the notion of that kind of legislation scares me... as does the notion of health care as a bureaucracy. (You thought insurance companies were bad? Wait until they're more like the DMV.)

FUD. There is no bureaucracy; treatment and/or procedure are covered or not. Every time a medical act is performed, it is clear-cut whether it is covered or not.

... drugs are expensive because researching them takes lot of money paying intelligent people with expensive educations, and which may or may not be successful.

Oxdung. Most drug research is performed in university labs with government money. Drugs are expensive because they have to be marketed to the public because in the US, it's a "free" "market".

In Canada, drug prices are strictly regulated, and for the most part, are not marketed to the public. Not having to market is a tremenduous cost cutter and leaves more money for what little research is done by pharmaceutical labs.

In the US, pharmaceutical companies spent three time as much for marketing than they did for research.

The outrage some people seem to express at wealthy people being able to pay other wealthy people for quality healthcare seems a silly to me.

That's because you believe that one day you will become a zillionnaire. Then, one day, you'll realize that no matter how hard you work, you'll get passed over by people sleazier than you who excel more than you in the art of bullshit and licking arse, so you'll never get a zillionnaire.

Maybe if the doctors were all humble and devout servants of the greater good of humanity, they would be just as willing to treat the poor, and not make a lot of money, and things would be more equitable in the world, yeah. But they're not charities, they're people, and their efforts are their own, to dispose of as they will.

But since this will never happen, you better have an universal system that is paid for everybody and that leaves no one behind. Not even the filthy rich.

Re:Not Evil

[Pig Hogger]

I'm not obese...I'm not even mildly overweight, and I exercise regularly. Why should I have to pay extra for health care because other people live unhealthy lifestyles?

Because you do not want your health insurer to peek into the most intimate details of your private life.

Re:Not Evil

[martin-boundary]

It's wrong if a company wants to be taken as an honest presenter of information. Since when is it the job of a search engine to "educate" people on political issues anyway?

The internet is democratic: all points of view are available. When people on blogs and websites choose to promote some political ideas over others, this simply reflects the state of the internet world as it really is. If people choose to spread the word about global warming, or about Moore's movie, etc, that's a true reflection of the web world and of what those people feel is important.

And that's how it should be. Who is Google anyway to decide that some ideas on the internet are so repugnant that they should be balanced with privileged "education" messages in prominent positions? That's not the job of a search engine.

If some people feel strongly about "educating" others on a subject, they can do like everybody else does: make a website, and convince people to spread the word.

Google the company should stay out of "educating" if they value the trust people put in them. There are plenty of other search engines who can take their place if that trust is sufficiently eroded.

Re:Not Evil

[king-manic]

In Canada the gov pays 1/2 as much on our behalf for a longer life expectancy. There are wait list for surgeries but is more demographic problem then any real problem with the system. Any pay as you go system with a large number of upcoming takes and a smaller pool of givers is going to have some of these problems. But they are ironed out with time and a stable demographic spread. Considering your private system takes twice as much funds from the government per person then our public system, and a non-trivial portion of your population is uninsured or under insured I'd be careful about pointing fingers.

Re:Not Evil

[king-manic]

I'm not obese...I'm not even mildly overweight, and I exercise regularly. Why should I have to pay extra for health care because other people live unhealthy lifestyles?

Because you are a part of that society. If you don't like it move. Just not to Canada, we already have a whole province of sniveling whiners.

Re:Not Evil

[letxa2000]

This isn't anwhere near as evil as collecting user's browsing data or cooperating with Chinese censorship. They are offering companies a PR service. I hope you're not saying that it's wrong to counter propaganda? That's all Moore's 'documentaries' are really, even when he makes good points (which isn't all that often).

Amen! I certainly see nothing wrong with Google looking to exploit the obvious interest of those targeted negatively in propaganda to present their side of the story. I saw the Slashdot headline and was blown away because I thought it was going to be reported that Google was actually manipulating or censoring healthcare-related searches to help minimize damage to the industry. But if they're just offering publicity... uhm, so what? That's their business model!!

I haven't seen Sicko and really don't have much interest in doing so. Even if Sicko has half as many errors as Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit did, it's still a sick piece of propaganda. And people pay money to see it. I'm sure Moore would like to thank the choir he preaches to for making him a multi-millionaire.

Re:Not Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, I can't BELIEVE I'm saying this... but...

That is what insurance companies do. They do it with cars. They do it with homes. They do it with everything. Their business, the one the US healthcare system (and many others) is based on works this way. They aren't evil.. they are doing their job.

The issue is that your average American's capability to receive healthcare is based on private insurance companies who are out to make a buck off the overall healthcare industry. That's business.

He doesn't touch on the issues that really bother those of us with socialized medicine... our systems are not perfect either. We definately have some serious complaints, it's an ongoing battle.

His main point, though, and the one people hopefully take away is this.

In Canada, The UK, France, and many other places less financially well-off than the US, nobody ever has to choose between having one finger reattached, 2 fingers, or going bankrupt.

Re:Not Evil

[FooAtWFU]

If no one's come to them yet, they actively reach out. To one side. The one with the money. The one with the blood money. If you weren't there already, this is the last nail in the coffin of the notion of Google as anything more than any old corporation with its requisite ration of evil. Now, if you do believe that our friends in the health care industry are pure evil, and that they're spending blood money, then yes, Google is, indeed, being evil. And I suppose if you obediently believe every line that Moore has to tell you about the matter is the whole and honest extent of the truth, then there is no possibility that anything could counter it. As such, anything that the companies say to contradict that must, in fact, be evil propaganda utterly devoid of any informative content, with the ultimate design to boost their image (and their profits) - at the expense of all that is well and good in the world, if necessary.

And if that's your world view, you're probably adequately opinionated that no one can hope to convince you that it is otherwise. I'd like to hope that most people can entertain the notion of a middle road which characterizes both Moore and the health care industry as neither impeccable nor pure evil, ascribing to both the property of providing some information which is both true and valid.

Re:Not Evil

[twistedsymphony]

While I'm sure the Canadian healthcare system is all of those things, it requires tremendous Faith in the US government to implement such a system so light on bureaucracy that it can actually be effective. I for one lack that kind of faith and I think the real root of the problem is that most people in the US feel that way as well.

It's not that I think Social Healthcare is a bad thing... it's just that I don't even remotely trust our leaders to implement it anywhere near properly.

Re:Not Evil

[jorghis]

Their job is to collect premiums and then if a client needs his medical bills covered, they pay for it. The issue is that they are trying to weasel out of the second part here and people are dieing over it. Their job is to pay when a client has medical bills. Its what they agreed to do. Trying to get out of it when the bills come due shouldnt be just a part of their jobs. Many times they do not do their jobs and honor their agreements. Given how desperately needed that money is by patients their actions are evil.

I am not one to throw the 'evil' label around lightly. I roll my eyes when I see it used to describe closed source, outsourcing jobs, or strong arm business tactics, but I think it is appropriate here.

I understand that there are problems in other countries as well, Im not trying to defend them. But it makes me angry to know that hardworking americans who pay their bills are getting screwed over by the insurance companies and suffering very tragic consequences as a result.

Maybe there is a better solution. Personally, I have always thought that the issue of whether or not the insurance company pays and how much should be handled by a nuetral third party. Its a massive conflict of interest to have the insurance company making these payment decisions.

Re:Not Evil

[Monsuco]

Let me repeat that, people who have been paying for the insurance their entire lives die because the insurance companies want to save a few bucks.

No, actually, most hospitals cannot legally turn someone down because they cannot pay. The reason insurance denys so many claims is because hospitals only will really bother to seek payment from insurance companies. Insurance companies can't afford to pay for both payers and non-payers, so they deny stuff. True, clinics can turn you down and insurance denying clinics can prevent you from seeing your primary care provider. People rarely die due to insurance denials because hospitals have to admit everyone. Actually, socialist systems can be a pretty big threat to your health, I hear far more about socialist systems killing people. True, everyone gets treatment, but many are unable to be treated in time or figure out their paperwork. There are people who die waiting for treatment in Canada. We need reforms on insurance laws to mandate insurance companies simplify, not cover everything. If I buy car insurance, I have the option to forgo collision, I think if you buy medical insurance, you should be able to pick and choose what you are covered for. If you don't want drug coverage, fine, if you don't want clinic visits fine, then you can have surgery and emergency only insurance. We also need tax incentives to help encourage people to pay for their own insurance. Reforming malpractice lawsuits would help a ton too.

Re:Not Evil

[bendodge]

"Universal health care" is a meaningless term. The correct way to identify if it is socialism or not is to see who pays for it. If the government pays for it through taxes, it is communism.

Re:Not Evil

[General Wesc]

They aren't evil.. they are doing their job.

If there job is what you say it is, then doing it is evil. 'I'm just doing my [evil] job' does not equal 'I'm not doing evil'. No, really, it doesn't.

But that's not their job. Sure, there may be employees whose jobs are to do that, but the job of the corporation is not to get out of providing the service their customers have paid for--and despite countless claims on Slashdot--a corporation's job is not 'make profit any way we can'.

Re:Not Evil

[General Wesc]

No, actually, most hospitals cannot legally turn someone down because they cannot pay.

I thought this was only true for emergency admittance. As in 'I'm bleeding! Help!' not 'I have cancer.'

Re:Not Evil

[Ian Alexander]

There are countries which perform better than the US while still spending less than the US government already spends. You'd be better looking at New Zealand, the UK and Australia to see what works.

Just out of curiosity, do those countries spend less in an absolute sense or in a proportional sense? Because the populations of New Zealand, the UK, and Australia combined are barely 18% of the US population. Odds are low they'd be paying more money than the US in an absolute sense to pay for far fewer than 1/5 the citizens of the US.

Re:Not Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

FUD. There is no bureaucracy; treatment and/or procedure are covered or not. Every time a medical act is performed, it is clear-cut whether it is covered or not.

Oh come on. "There is no bureaucracy"???

A few years ago, I read an article about health care in Canada. It seems that routine hip replacement operations were failing far more often in Canada than in the USA, and someone was trying to figure out why.

It turned out that some bureacrat in the government decided it was too expensive to stock so many different sizes of replacement hip joints; so he made the decision that Canadian hospitals must stock fewer sizes. And then it turned out that you actually need the correct size part or the operation fails.

Government bureacrats, who are not doctors, making decisions related to health care? Not a good idea!

Unfortunately I can't find this article with Google because now I just find endless references to Sicko ("dog hip replacement operations" figure prominently in the results...).

Here's the basic problem with health care. If you are dying, you would like to have unlimited care. Unlimited care is not available. How can it be rationed? In a government system, bureaucrats come up with rules, intended to be fair to all, and to make best use of a scarce resource; in a free market system, people get what they can pay for. Neither system is perfect.

I have a preference for systems with negative feedback: when two stores compete for my business, I will go to the better store. This forces both stores to improve. If the stores are run by the government as a monopoly, this feedback does not happen. This is as true for health care as for other things.

If you know a good way to set up a feedback mechanism to keep health care good, while still running it as a government monopoly, I'd be thrilled to hear it. Be sure to give examples of how it keeps unelected bureaucrats from screwing things up.

Re:Not Evil

[jessiej]

How could "Universal health care" be a "meaningless term"?

Universal seems to have meaning
Health seems to have meaning
and even Care seems to have meaning

If you need help getting some sort of meaning out of the phrase using these three words, I'd be happy to help out..

Re:Not Evil

[JollyGoodChase]

... drugs are expensive because researching them takes lot of money paying intelligent people with expensive educations, and which may or may not be successful.

Oxdung. Most drug research is performed in university labs with government money. Drugs are expensive because they have to be marketed to the public because in the US, it's a "free" "market". In Canada, drug prices are strictly regulated, and for the most part, are not marketed to the public. Not having to market is a tremenduous cost cutter and leaves more money for what little research is done by pharmaceutical labs.

All I can tell you is that I work for a pharma company, as we spend millions directly on drug research, so don't think the the govt is picking up the tab for drug research.

Re:Not Evil

[pickyouupatnine]

I can't get dental or eye coverage anymore - and the government isn't passing laws that will and won't cover what kind of health I'll get in Ontario, Canada!?

Re:Not Evil

[afidel]

Actually the HMO's might have it right. As a human you might think that allowing anyone to die when you could save them is evil, but an economist might very well tell you that saving that person might be MORE evil. If performing miracle operations at costs of millions of dollars means that the insurance company doesn't have the funds to pay for preventative drugs for tens of thousands of their other clients then you might be killing hundreds for every one you save with the surgery. A good example of such false economies is the Alar scare of the late 80's, an economist calculated that the drop in apple and general fruit consumption as a result of the scare killed about 100x more people than even the worst case predictions of cancer from Alar would have. My only problem with insurance companies is that they aren't more upfront about what they will and will not cover, sure it would be bad publicity to say "we won't cover you if you get multiorgan cancer and it will cost x millions to have a chance to save you" but it would probably be good for them and the consumer.

Re:Not Evil

[jorghis]

Thats the whole point of insurance. People each contribute on the offchance they need super expensive surgery and if they end up needing it they can get it. If it werent for the chance of one day needing some high dollar surgery then noone would bother with health insurance. If you believe that a persons life isnt worth that much money and expensive surgeries should not be done as a rule then you should also be questioning why insurance companies exist in the first place.

Re:Not Evil

[blincoln]

If performing miracle operations at costs of millions of dollars means that the insurance company doesn't have the funds to pay for preventative drugs for tens of thousands of their other clients then you might be killing hundreds for every one you save with the surgery.

This argument would have more weight if US insurance companies weren't fat with profits. Even in states like mine where they're legally required to operate as non-profit organizations.

Re:Not Evil

[rpbird]

To paraphrase SNL: "You ignorant slut!" Communism is an historically well-defined political philosophy. It involves the wholesale confiscation of the "means of production" and destruction of the ruling classes. They are to be replaced by a "dictatorship of the proletariat." Communism is a complex and dense belief system, some historians have called it a secular religion. A Communist would consider healthcare reform to be puny stuff. In fact, many Communists in the early part of the Twentieth Century opposed reformists, considering them lackeys of capitalists. They considered Progressives to be the enemies of Communism. If Progressives could succeed in their reforms, the Communists felt this would strengthen capitalism. This is the last thing Communists wanted. They wanted capitalism to be destroyed by its own excesses. Judging by the results of the reforms of TR, Wilson, and FDR, they were right. Progressivism strengthens capitalism. Universal healthcare would strengthen our society and our economy. Thus endeth the lesson.

Re:Not Evil

[kir]

I'd like to see the reaction to your argument if you replaced any mention of health care industry with oil industry. It would be quite ugly I'm sure.

Re:Not Evil

[Wicked Zen]

In Canada, one of the systems highlighted by his film, there are cases where people have an easier time getting hip replacement surgeries for their pet dogs than for themselves. And in the U.S. there are cases where people who need hip-replacement surgery can't get it at all.

Re:Not Evil

[ozmanjusri]

Just out of curiosity, do those countries spend less in an absolute sense or in a proportional sense?

The US spends about $6,000 per capita annually on healthcare, of which about $2,500 is contributed by the government. Australia spends about $2,200 per capita in total (both private and government). PPP-adjusted per capita spending in the median OECD country is only 44 percent of the U.S. level.

Cuba is often used as an example (by Moore, amongst others) because it spends less than $200 per capita to provide healthcare which is equivalent to that of the US. The data here http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php appears to be old, but it clearly illustrates the value-for-money aspect of international healthcare.

Re:Not Evil

[Billly Gates]

No, actually, most hospitals cannot legally turn someone down because they cannot pay.

oh?

Re:Not Evil

[Billly Gates]

Your \opinion might change if your mother ends up like this.

They were just doing their job which is the HMO or government told staff to tell the patient her symptoms were caused by X which was not true but was cheaper.

The nazi's were just doing their jobs too and obeying Hitler. So is the mobfia when they burn a business to the ground and beat the owner almost to death because he didn't them their tax. Why do you draw the line?

Re:Not Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not obese...I'm not even mildly overweight, and I exercise regularly. Why should I have to pay extra for health care because other people live unhealthy lifestyles?

You selfish sack of shit.

Re:Not Evil

[Billly Gates]

Yes it does because its not the free market.

I believe in the power of the free market. However there are oligopolies in both the healtchare and pharmacutical companies which hinder it. It would not surprise me if they had profit sharing agreements of promoting a particular drug over another either from what I have seen with Kaiser.

The bean counters and those who are greedy will suck any system both private or public unless there is competitive pressures to rid them.

Re:Not Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Even though I think Google is being evil in general, in this particular case it seems a bit far stretching. In fact, it seems that Google is stressing on ads. More of a profit making opportunity for them. I do not see anything evil here.

Re:Not Evil

[Billly Gates]

milions out of how much billions in revenue you receive?

Drugs are not like appliances that require a large manufactoring cost but little research to be competitive like most products. Your research is your product! Its all research based as manufactoring costs are quite low considering what your employer charges.

If you are only spending millions yet make 90 billion in income then I smell major price gouging.

Re:Not Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Socialism may be a bad idea ...

And Capitalism is?!? Seriously, if Capitalism was so great and awesome, this nation would have no shortage of people trying to erect stone busts of Ken Lay or Bill Gates right next to flag poles of every public school in America in order to compete with the Roy Moore 10 Commandments stone statue crowd. Surprize - we don't! Why? Simple: deep inside, we know Capitalism is so shallow in human rights terms, we can't even find a place for it in public education except for the parking lot (and it's not the portion reserved for faculty).

Re:Not Evil

[BIGELLOW]

So, if someone invented a pill. And this pill, when taken, would cure any ailment or disease with a 100% success rate. And then, upon trying to sell this pill to the people in China, the Chinese government insisted that they would only allow the pill into the country if it were reformulated in a specific manner. However, upon reformulating the pill to abide by the Chinese government's rules, the pill only has a success rate of 80%. Should that person, in protest, decide not to introduce the pill into the Chinese market? Would it be considered "evil" to introduce a potentially life-saving pill with a 80% success rate, but "good" to keep that pill out of the hands of the Chinese people? Furthermore, imagine you now had the original pill and the reformulated one. Then, you introduced BOTH of these pills into the Chinese market. The reformulated one was the official one. The original one, with the 100% success rate, you made available to anyone in China who dared try to seek out this "black market" pill. Does this not eliminate some, if not all, of the supposed "evil-ness"? It boggles my mind that everyone is quick to point out that Google released a Chinese-branded website in China (Google.cn) that automatically removes links that are being blocked by the governmental firewall (in other words, it simply eliminates otherwise broken links)... and they call this "evil"... but they fail to remind anyone that Google.com is still UNCENSORED in China. I fail to see that the way Google needed to be "good" was to only maintain a broken and difficult to use search engine in China, but that by providing BOTH... the broken and difficult to use (but uncensored) search engine... AND the completely working (but censored) search engine... that this somehow places them an evil scale by which Yahoo and Microsoft are barely even mentioned. As for the health-care issue... it's just marketing. Is it evil to try to sell a service, or evil to try to make money? Perhaps the real issue is that "evil" is in the eye of the beholder, sometimes.

Re:Not Evil

[TheoMurpse]

True, everyone gets treatment, but many are unable to be treated in time or figure out their paperwork.

This is one of the things Moore reveals in this film as untrue. I know people in Canada and the UK. I lived in Japan. All have socialized medicine in a sense. I can tell you it is 100% true that health care in Japan is cheap, easy, and effective. From what I've heard from Canadians and Brits, their health care system is vastly better than how it is portrayed in the US.

In the film, Moore interviews people in the hospitals and clinics. In France, it turns out no one in a large table of expatriated Americans had to wait more than an hour. The same was true for Canadians.

There are definitely some over-the-top, sensationalist things in Sicko that I feel Moore should have left out. He has a tendency to make films that are very persuasive, and then fuck it all up by including some inflammatory stuff. In Sicko, he does an extremely good job of exposing how horrible the US health care system really is, and how inferior it is to systems in Canada, France, and the UK. I can definitely say from personal experience that it is inferior to that of Japan. My girlfriend, a med student, has had to do extensive research about health care policy in the US, and she's reported back to me how horribly screwed up our system is because of the health insurance companies.

The entire film, Moore was very on-point and convincing in his criticisms without being so inflammatory that it would turn a typical right-winger such as my uncle off of his film (contrast this with the ludicrously radical 9/11 and Columbine). I believe the first hour to hour-and-a-half could possibly convince some conservatives of the desirability of the French or Canadian system. But then he brings his Canadian relatives on. Guess what? They're afraid to go to the US because the health care system is so bad. That, I believe, is the moment at which he ruins any credibility he could have had with his opponents. If Sicko was a legitimate documentary, those scenes wouldn't have been there. I also think the Cuban scenes were counterproductive because he goes on about how great Cuba is, while at the very beginning of the movie, he reveals a chart that shows Cuba is ranked below the US in health care.

I'm a believer in universal health care from personal experience. The first hour-and-a-half of Sicko is great, and isn't propaganda in the bad sense (lie and doublespeak) so much as honestly-done research which happens to also be persuasive (good propaganda). Then Moore let me down.

The film was still good, and I am still waiting to hear a good argument against this: we have socialized the fire department. Why can't we socialize another facet of society that saves lives?

Whatever, it's 3am and I need to go to bed. I need to get up early to play with my Mac, write for a Crooksandliars.com, hang out with my Hollywood friends, go to a seminar on stopping global warming, and I need to go polish my Honda Insight. /sarcasm

Re:Not Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Moore is a fat sick pervert with an over-large ego who gets off trying to dictate how OTHER people should lead their lives. I have been collecting ashtray contents, and at his funeral, I hope to completely cover his "final resting place" with them. God, what an ass!

Re:Not Evil

[jorghis]

Forget Moore's general idiocy for one moment and concentrate on the health insurance industry. Everything he is saying about the american health insurance industry is true. They do give bonuses to their employees for finding excuses to deny patients operations they desperately need. They do everything they can to weasel out of their obligations when other people's lives are on the line.

The insurance companies deny payments for life saving operations to their clients because they know they can get away with it. This is evil. This is not closed source kind of evil. This is not copyrighting music kind of evil. This is killing honest hardworking americans who are paying them kind of evil. I think the term 'blood money' is totally appropriate.

Re:Not Evil

[Llynix]

Nor are people fired because the employer's insurance is tired of paying for the employee's children expensive cancer treatment.

Nor are people hired part time to get out of benefit packages. Around here that happens a lot. I know several people who work several part time jobs to get by because their company won't hire any more full time employees because of the benefit package involved.

Re:Not Evil

[starrsoft]

It is not evil of Google to help a corp get their message out. In fact, it doesn't matter what you believe about Sicko, the public is helped when both sides effectively present their case to the public. The public will decide.

Re:Not Evil

[arivanov]

Actually yes.

It is the same as the health industry. There are evil and less evil companies.

For example, there is little I can complain about BP as far as oil companies go. It scrubs its products from sulphur way beyond the requirements of the current standards here. It is also one of the largest (if not the largest) producer of industrial and domestic solar panels in the world.

Re:Not Evil

[Bizzeh]

Moore's 'documentaries' put words into peoples mouths, twists facts.. and try to force people to think the way moore thinks.. which is pretty much going right against what he claims to be standing for.

Re:Not Evil

[aralin]

I kind of like Michael Moore, but I have the experience of growing up in a state healthcare system and while I do wish that US would have a state healthcare like UK, for example, there is much to be said about the pitfalls of the state healthcare. None of those things were even hinted at by Michael Moore. He could not get his mind over the fact it is free and everyone has access to it. His propaganda piece was so one sided that I am afraid it will serve as a barrier for any attempt to introduce state guaranteed healthcare in US. All republicans have to do to defeat it, is to ignore the arguments of democrats and instead refute arguments of Michael Moore. And they are good at this subject changing game. This movie was a great troll piece. It will stir the debate, it will bring a lot of money to Michael Moore, but it will be detrimental to the efforts of people with real arguments.

The main argument, why you want to pay for healthcare of your neighbor, who cannot afford it, is that it is really hard to stay healthy around sick people. How can US even hope to contain any wide spread epidemics when quarter of the infected people are not going to seek medical care and will walk around spreading the disease further? This is totally insane and a time bomb waiting to explode. I would go as far as to suggest that in today's terrorism age a national healthcare should be on the top of the list of homeland security department. How else do you want to counter a biological WMD? And tell me, which one do you think is more likely nuclear, chemical or biological attack? I am pretty sure the biological has the lowest barrier to entry for a determined group of people, its far easiest to execute and far hardest to detect.

Re:Not Evil

[timmarhy]

" Everything he is saying about the american health insurance industry is true"

you lost all crediblity right there. moore is a sensationalist idiot. note stupid mind you, he's very clever at getting people to believe his idiotic points of view.

the truth is, health funds payout something in the order of 90%+ of contributions by members. many people who are sick and dieing cling to unproven treatments which aren't covered by the funds for very good reasons, and they take out their fear and desperation on the funds.

one thing i do NOT agree with is funds paying out to bullshit artists like naturopaths, it's a waste of money and gets nil result for a lot of money.

why doesn't moore focus his engery on the real rip off artists, like reflexologists who claim they can cure you by tapping your feet with a piece of wood.

Re:Not Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Well congrats on making a post that has 181 words and manages to say "oh well, who knows!"

Incidentally, if there's anything that corporations will find useful, it's this kind of holier-than-thou complacency so people will just stop thinking too much and go home.

Re:Not Evil

[hughk]

Not at all. The Canadian "single payer" health-care system has only 3% administrative overhead, as opposed to 35%-40% for the private US one. And since everyone is covered identically, there is no time lost finding out if someone is insured for this or that treatment. Nor are people fired because the employer's insurance is tired of paying for the employee's children expensive cancer treatment.

I think you have put your finger on it. When a hospital has to check the billing status for every aspirin, there are bound to be huge inefficiencies. You may also add the legal climate, when an Ob-Gyn has to pay 30% of their salary on malpractice insurance, then the system has a problem. All professionals make mistakes, some of which may require action but the extent to which punitive damages are handed out cannot be helpful.

Re:Not Evil

[sumdumass]

Yea, and any fuels BP sells get worse fuel economy and have less power then if you purchased your fuel somewhere else. At least all the BP stations I have been able to use. And because they remove the sulfur, unless your using additives with your fuel and engine oil, it will wear worse then regular fuels too.

BP might be a great oil company but I wouldn't recommend anyone buy gas there unless they have to.

Re:Not Evil

[sumdumass]

The health industry is in the shape it is in because the governments became involved with them. Having the government control them isn't going to fix anything you or I have a problem with except maybe how much out of pocket expense we have to pay. And then any savings there will likely be offset by increased taxes.

It is going to be a battle on anything other then enforcing the insurance companies in making them give the protect we pay for. Anything outside that will make it worse.

Re:Not Evil

[ultranova]

I'm not obese...I'm not even mildly overweight, and I exercise regularly. Why should I have to pay extra for health care because other people live unhealthy lifestyles?

Why should other people pay more than you just because you happen to be a vain masochistic nut who lives in the gym ?

Re:Not Evil

[lysse]

...Which is all well and even-handed, but still raises the question of why Google appear to only be reaching out to one side of the debate.

Re:Not Evil

[Da Fokka]

And I suppose if you obediently believe every line that Moore has to tell you about the matter is the whole and honest extent of the truth, then there is no possibility that anything could counter it.

The point is, it's hard to dispute Moore's facts. Of course he presents those facts in a biased way. But he's making an argument, you can't blame him for that. The core facts he uses to make his case are true (http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/06/28/sicko.fact.c heck/index.html?eref=rss_topstories).

Re:Not Evil

[Da Fokka]

That's some pretty grotesque McCarthyism right there. GPS, the USS Enterprise and the Interstates are all paid for by the federal government, straight out of your pockets. Are they cases of communism?

Re:Not Evil

[gilroy]

Indeed, the best sign that progressivism is on the right track is the vitriol it suffers from both sides...

Re:Not Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing he might not have mentioned is that socialism != communism, something most people in the US can't get into their heads.

Re:Not Evil

[Yvanhoe]

I would add that Michael Moore's film and website will have a high page rank because of all the buzz and health care insurance will have their message displayed in the "sponsored link" area. The message will be something like "Okay here is the video you searched about bad practices in some big insurance companies and here is also the message big insurance companies wanted to deliver to you but they had to pay money for that because they are not popular enough"

Re:Not Evil

[Weedlekin]

"Communism is an historically well-defined political philosophy. It involves the wholesale confiscation of the "means of production" and destruction of the ruling classes. They are to be replaced by a "dictatorship of the proletariat.""

Indeed. The term "Communist government" or "Communist state" is an oxymoron, because communism by definition has no government (or more correctly, everyone is a member of the government, and therefore gets to vote on every decision that affects the group), and without governments, there no states. This is why the USSR stood for "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" -- the people who formed the system were well aware of the fact that Soviets (ruling committees) and Republics (states) are incompatible with communism, so they referred to themselves as socialists instead.

Re:Not Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

So people are fired, because the employer's insurance is tired of paying?

First of all, it's an insurance. The whole *point* is that they pay. Otherwise, why did the employer get that insurance deal?? The point is that the insurance can't get out of the deal, and that there is no need to fire anybody. Obviously, I don't know how some Americans messed up the system, that it DOES work out that way...

Secondly, why does the employer have insurance, not the person? Sounds like nuts to me. This way, every time you change jobs, you change insurance companies (probably), and that means that whatever disease you have right now won't ever get covered in future insurance deals. Great.

I think this is because the Feds mandated employer-based insurance. Otherwise the employer would simply pay people their wages (sometimes low, but that hasn't really changed through that law, hasn't it, and neither has great medical coverage!), and people could get an insurance for *themselves*, for the next 30 years or so, and would keep their coverage, even if theyre gonna catch some disease 15 years from now.

Just think about it.

Re:Not Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

I also think the Cuban scenes were counterproductive because he goes on about how great Cuba is, while at the very beginning of the movie, he reveals a chart that shows Cuba is ranked below the US in health care.

I noticed that, too, and saw it as one of the points that many right-wingers will cling to from the movie. However, there's something to be said about it. Yes, the US has fallen to 36th or whatever in terms of quality of healthcare, with Cuba being just below it. The important part is that only the people who can afford it in the US can get that 36th-ranked healthcare, whereas everyone in Cuba is entitled to their 37th-ranked healthcare. Basically, Cuba has the same quality of healthcare as the US, but it's open to everyone.

Re:Not Evil

[kklein]

Health care in Japan is definitely cheap, but I don't know where you found easy or effective.

The list:

• No appointments--just schedule the whole day off if you need to go to the doctor, because it just might take that long.
• 5-minute check, a prescription, and a request to come back in a week for another check. Another request that week, too.
• Ridiculously low-grade, old-fashioned, ineffective medicines with more side effects than actual effects. Oh, and you have to take 5 of them at a time. They make sure you come back by giving you only a few days of medicine.
• Bad attitudes. Worse among the older doctors. "How DARE you ask a question about your health?"
• Medieval facilities. I kid you not, I got my stomach scoped in a room with boxes piled up on one side of it with sheets thrown over them. The beds in the hospital my wife stayed at looked like they were from the 50s and the paint was all falling off.
• Ridiculously long hospital stays. My wife was in the hospital FOR THREE MONTHS for pleurisy. I checked with my doctor in the US--that's usually a couple days in the US, and then sent home for rest. She got so depressed I was seriously worried she would kill herself. I ultimately "checked her out" myself.
• Regular insurance only covers a small portion of the hospital stay. The rest is up to you or the "hospital insurance" you buy. Even in the latter case, you have to pay the bill first and wait months to find out how much the insurance will reimburse you.
• Basically no general practitioners. In the US, if you bang your knee in a bike accident, you go to the doctor. If you have the flu, you go to the doctor. If you have a mild case of seasonal eczema, you go to the doctor. Here, you go to the Yellow Pages and hope whoever you find is worth a crap and has a parking lot.
• Expensive and weak over-the-counter meds means you go to the doctor EVERY TIME YOU GET SICK. --That or you sweat bullets as you smuggle DayQuil through customs on your way back from a trip home.
• Very questionable competence. I actually did bang the hell out of my knee in a scooter accident a few months ago. I spent hundreds of dollars and days in waiting rooms trying to find someone who could tell me why my knee felt like it was on fire every time I bent it past 90 degrees. Everybody said it was fine. One guy told me to wear a brace. Finally, I had my officemate send my description of the injury and sensation to her doctor sister. Response one hour later: Deep-tissue bruise; get the brace off; that's making it worse. Took the brace off and it cleared up right away.
• The worst cross-contamination record in the developed world (read that somewhere--but I believe it).
• No recourse for malpractice. My friend's kid has incredibly disfiguring scars down his whole leg, which reduce mobility, because a boiling tea kettle spilled on him when he was a toddler (I think he pulled it down when Mom looked away, if I remember correctly). The doctor they took him to PEELED THE SKIN OFF. It grossly disfigured him, but there was nothing they could do. Very hard to sue in Japan.

Oh, and the medicine here is in no way socialized--health insurance is largely privatized, but your employer is required to put you on it. You only get on the public one if you have no job, and the benefits are lower and the co-pay higher. Price is lower because everyone has insurance, but without the profit motive, there's no reason to provide better service. Right now, getting the person back in the office a million times is incentivized, because it's the only way you could make any money. But in the US, getting someone well ASAP is incentivized for private practitioners, because that wins new patients.

Seriously, if you had some good experiences, I'm happy for you, but you ought to come back and have a sit among people who have seen both ways and hear the horror stories. I am always worried that I'll get really sick here. If you have dece

Re:Not Evil

[OfficeSubmarine]

I hope you're not saying that it's wrong to counter propaganda?

With more propaganda, from a company that more than almost any other is in a place to say "screw em" to both sides and provide actual facts with proper citation? And for a country which more and more is entering into a state where factual issues are up for opinion instead of proper analysis of the available data? Yes, I actually would call that evil.

Re:Not Evil

[Weedlekin]

"Their job is to collect premiums and then if a client needs his medical bills covered, they pay for it."

Their job is to earn a profit if they're a private company, and grow the value of shares if they're a corporation. That's what companies exist for -- providing products or services is simply a means to that end, not an end in itself.

"The issue is that they are trying to weasel out of the second part here and people are dieing over it."

Because keeping all your money is obviously more profitable than spending some of it on you. In the case of a corporation, they are actually legally _required_ to do this, because the company has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to maximise the value of their investment, and with insurance companies of all types, this means doing everything they can to minimise the amount that they pay out to the insured, and they pay CEOs seven figure salaries to come up with new and creative ways of doing it.

Re:Not Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

That's BS. HMOs are pure evil. Moore may be wrong about everything in his film, but he is right about one thing: there should be no profit involved (made by a third party!!!) when it comes to healthcare.

Besides, how come most slashdotters are against digital rights management but have nothing against analog rights (such as healthcare) management. Or is the ability to copy the latest Britney Spears cd a more important right than the right to timely and inexpensive healthcare?

Re:Not Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

They're afraid to go to the US because the health care system is so bad. That, I believe, is the moment at which he ruins any credibility he could have had with his opponents.

I'm from the Netherlands, and believe it or not, this is a very real issue. If you go the US, and you get some critical condition (in like say, a car crash, kidney failure), it's a very real fear that the medical costs would bankrupt you. It's not that that keeps me from coming, but it does make me afraid a little bit. I can imagine that for people that have some conditions, it is actually a limiting factor.

Re:Not Evil

[vertinox]

And I suppose if you obediently believe every line that Moore has to tell you about the matter is the whole and honest extent of the truth, then there is no possibility that anything could counter it.

That's the problem with these things. When the truth gets a bad spokesperson, people discount it.

I for one would had to see Moore do a documentary on the Holocaust or the Sudanese Genocide. People would actually give the genocide deniers a legitimate platform in which to put forth a counter view just because Moore happened to be on the side of those telling the truth.

Re:Not Evil

[fuzzix]

This isn't anwhere near as evil as collecting user's browsing data or cooperating with Chinese censorship. They are offering companies a PR service. I hope you're not saying that it's wrong to counter propaganda? That's all Moore's 'documentaries' are really, even when he makes good points (which isn't all that often).

Propaganda, whether political or corporate, exists to sway people's judgment. When it comes to the various forms of propaganda which surround us I'd much rather see it cut through with a little creative film-making than affirmed by an omnipresent behemoth.

I personally don't like Moore's movies but I'm more than happy to see contrary points of view aired. Corporate propaganda gets too much play.

Re:Not Evil

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

That same goverment already manages Medicare and Medicade which has an overhead of 1-3% (depending where you get your numbers). One thing that is perhaps a bit counter intuitive about social health care is that it actually removes massive amounts of bureaucracy. Insurance companies go over basically every single claim trying to find reasons not to approve it, while with social healthcare as long as a says it is required, but basically automatically aproved (no need to spend all the money trying to find reasons to deny it and pay lawyers to defend that action). There are some sporatic reviews to make sure doctors and over-billing etc but it is trival compared to the private health care system.

Re:Not Evil

[Anspen]

While I'm sure the Canadian healthcare system is all of those things, it requires tremendous Faith in the US government to implement such a system so light on bureaucracy that it can actually be effective. I for one lack that kind of faith and I think the real root of the problem is that most people in the US feel that way as well.

The fun part is that the US government already runs a highly successful single payer health care system: the Veterans Health Administration.

Re:Not Evil

[glesga_kiss]

why doesn't moore focus his engery on the real rip off artists, like reflexologists who claim they can cure you by tapping your feet with a piece of wood.

Because they aren't killing people? I do agree with your sentiment, most alternative treatments are nonsense, but there are bigger fish to fry right now. If reflexologists weren't around, their customers would just be spending their cash on psychics and faith-healers.

Re:Not Evil

[grub]

If you are dying, you would like to have unlimited care. Unlimited care is not available. How can it be rationed?

If you are dying in Canada you aren't rationed to anything. You are treated. They don't throw you out the hospital doors as if an imaginary limit has been met. There are no "portion packs" allocated to the people.

Re:Not Evil

[arivanov]

Sulphur and wear? This is the first time I hear this one. Would you mind posting a couple of references?

Re:Not Evil

[DerWulf]

that's right! Cause Moore isn't worth a million bucks and the whole Showbiz is stinking poor. Go little man, go!

Re:Not Evil

[Pig Hogger]

I have a preference for systems with negative feedback: when two stores compete for my business, I will go to the better store. This forces both stores to improve. If the stores are run by the government as a monopoly, this feedback does not happen. This is as true for health care as for other things.

All the private insurers that compete for your business have to turn out profit. The profit comes from the money YOU pay them, not from the money they pay YOU. So they will find all sorts of ways to not pay you, leaving you high and dry, and if you had the temerity of trying to switch insurers, they will deny your clientele, knowing that you will not be a profit center.

Now where is your free-market liberty to choose your supplier in there?

Free market works when there is a market. In health insurance, there is NONE.

Re:Not Evil

[Pig Hogger]

So people are fired, because the employer's insurance is tired of paying?

First of all, it's an insurance. The whole *point* is that they pay. Otherwise, why did the employer get that insurance deal?? The point is that the insurance can't get out of the deal, and that there is no need to fire anybody. Obviously, I don't know how some Americans messed up the system, that it DOES work out that way...

Secondly, why does the employer have insurance, not the person? Sounds like nuts to me. This way, every time you change jobs, you change insurance companies (probably), and that means that whatever disease you have right now won't ever get covered in future insurance deals. Great.

I think this is because the Feds mandated employer-based insurance. Otherwise the employer would simply pay people their wages (sometimes low, but that hasn't really changed through that law, hasn't it, and neither has great medical coverage!), and people could get an insurance for *themselves*, for the next 30 years or so, and would keep their coverage, even if theyre gonna catch some disease 15 years from now.

Just think about it.

It all started during World War II, where price controls prevented salary hikes. When employers were looking for better employees, they therefore added fringe benefits; health-insurance was such a benefit. And when the war ended, health-insurance was so sought-after that the system eventually became entrenched.

Re:Not Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is offering the highest paying bidder a chance to counter media attention. What about the smaller guys? The non-profits that fight for a different health care system? In Google's world, they would have less chance. Sure, it's the same playing field, but it's uneven, since the advantage lies with the richest competitor.

I am following the tone of Google's message. It specifically says, in other words, that this is a chance to fight, to get _your_ point, your subset of information, to internet surfers. The other guys also have something to say. But this active pursuit by Google of those who can pay isn't at all about organizing the world's information. Perhaps the other guys information is considered far more important by surfers. But the time it takes to build a webpage, get it indexed, and well ranked (mostly by links), is measured in months. An advertiser can counter opinions with ads, almost real time... and here we have Google saying this is a cool thing to do.

Money is Google's overlord, "do no evil" is a lie. Google doesn't care at all about you. It just wants your personal information to refine ads.

Re:Not Evil

[Scrameustache]

Dont get me wrong, I have a pretty low opinion of Michael Moore [...] Socialism may be a bad idea Why, and more importantly, why?
I can imagine that the smear campaign he got when he attacked Saint Bush was what convinced you that the fat obnoxious guy telling you the emperor had no clothes was someone to dislike.
And I imagine that you have spent your entire life submerged in a sea of anti-socialist propaganda, but can you give me a rational idea of why would you assume that pooling resources for the greater good is inherently a bad idea?

Re:Not Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you fuck off back to Serbia, you asylum-seeking piece of shit?

Re:Not Evil

[TheLink]

Remove sulfur = more wear on your engine?

AFAIK, it's usually the other way round. Sulphur = bad for engine (and other car bits too).

Re:Not Evil

[yada21]

In my opinion, the main reason our health care costs are skyrocketing is because of our unhealthy lifestyles. America is the most obese nation in the world. We are obese because people follow unhealthy dietary and exercise habits.

Sounds like you're advocating prevention - where's the profit in that?

Re:Not Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of socialize H/C, you could also commoditize it. I am a Canadian working in US. Both US and Canadian system has flaws. My life was spared because of the US as well as the Canadian system (true story).

In Canada, I feel unsafe, not because of coverage. Because it is a very common knowledge (add some urban myth), but the time it took for something to be diagnosised. I had headache (very specific region and type of headache for 12 months) and my family doctor didn't realize the need to send me for a CAT scane (why should they, it didn't pay for them to do so, general problem of social system).

In US, I feel unsafe, not because response time of medical care. I feel unsafe because the policy is 'you will know your coverage when you need to know'. The insurance policy is a long and difficult to read document (except if you are exceptional laywer working in the medical industry), and I doubt anyone ever finish reading one before they sign one (general problem of capitalism, read before you sign, it is a contract, stipud!)

So, combine both, allow the insurance industry to provide whatever they are providing. But to continue operation, they must provide a set of compulsary plan that is standardized by a committee of government bodies and insurance industries as well as representative of social organization. People are allowed to buy add on (that they must read the contract themselves), and insurance companies are allowed to charge whatever they see fit.

Another alternative is to set a limit on a social system like Canadian's Health Care system. For example, 3 major surgeries for everybody in their life time, 2 doctor office visit free every 6 months. 12 specialized scan per life time (it should be more than enough, because Canadian get free physical check-up and eye exam every year). All infants (or even teens) should be exempt from the limit. Maybe the record get reset when you get 65 (so, get 3 more major surgeries if you pass your 65 birthday). If you need more, you could pay for it (government should charge on the extra service base on income level as a add on tax)

My 2 cents.

Re:Not Evil

[Afecks]

moore is a sensationalist idiot

many people who are sick and dieing cling to unproven treatments which aren't covered by the funds for very good reasons Just watch the movie before being prejudicial. You have no clue what you are talking about. It's not just about the "Rainmaker" cases where they kill someone that needed a bone marrow transplant (not experimental at all) which they do show one case of. It's also not about the millions of Americans that have absolutely no health insurance even though that should be enough to upset anyone. No, what's really wrong with the system is how every single step of the way, the medical companies are fighting with you. From the ambulance ride to the IV drugs to the overpriced prescriptions, they are looking for some way to stick it to you. The fact alone that they make more money by giving less medical care is completely flawed and ultimately a case of "letting the wolves guard the chicken coop".

Re:Not Evil

[Adult film producer]

Luckily for google they employ a small city of young and energetic college graduates, pay them a lot of money and probably offer some of the best health care in the country. But those employees are low-risk, low maintenance, very easy to insure... a health insurers dream. Naturally some of these employees wish to protect the healthcare benefits have privelage to.

But give those same employees 25 years of experience, cutbacks, job loss, sudden and unexpected health issues and they won't be singing the same tune. In the meantime they're living the high-life, big paycheques, fast cars. They're immortal! I remember those days too, long time ago.

Re:Not Evil

[dc29A]

Moore's 'documentaries' put words into peoples mouths, twists facts.. and try to force people to think the way moore thinks.. which is pretty much going right against what he claims to be standing for. Maybe some of his earlier work but Sicko too? Not according to some.

Re:Not Evil

[eclectic4]

"Now, if you do believe that our friends in the health care industry are pure evil, and that they're spending blood money, then yes, Google is, indeed, being evil. And I suppose if you obediently believe every line that Moore has to tell you about the matter is the whole and honest extent of the truth, then there is no possibility that anything could counter it."

You don't understand. Moore told us very little in "Sicko". Very little. He spouted facts in the background at times (OMG, facts?), but 90% of this movie were Americans telling their story, insiders telling their story, some historical background, how it is in other countries (told by citizens usually), etc... so I'm not sure where you get your rhetoric. Have you even seen the movie?

One last thing... even if ONE person in this movie is telling the truth, then it's evil. Period. And are you actually suggesting I listen to a PR campaign by people who represent the organization who's sole goal is to maximize profit over the facts and stories of regular people, the insiders, the researchers, etc... ?

Yikes... In fact critical thought would tell you to measure the PR people's words with extremely little weight (consider your source). Now, counter what the insiders tell us, what the guy who had to pick which finger he wanted sewn back on, how much money each of those politicians gained in campaign money, how this isn't how it is in every other industrialized country, the origins of the HMO (that audio with Nixon was brilliant), etc...

I'm sorry, but you are just plain wrong and your logic is based on assumptions. The US's health care is fucked, this is clear and MM simply shoves it in our face. Good for him. At least someone is trying... we don't live as long as most other industrialized countries, our infant mortality is lower, health bills are the #1 reason for bankruptcy, etc... do you actually think that Moore is just as evil as this just for pointing them out?! Holy fuck dude... that's evil.

Re:Not Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

universal health care != socialism

Michael Moore is lying to you. Don't get me wrong, he's doing it with the best intentions. But it's still a complete and utter lie.

Of course universal health care is socialist. But Moore can't outright admit that because the majority of the people in the USA have been brainwashed by deecades of propaganda to believe that socialism is evil and capitalism is the pinnacle of civilisation, dating back to at least the cold war. To admit that universal health care is socialist would be to automatically lose, there's no way he could compete with a lifetime of indoctrination, prejudice, hatred and fear.

His goal is to convince the USA that universal health care is a good idea. That is incompatible with telling the truth about universal health care and socialism, so he just makes up a Big Lie, hoping that the people stupid enough to fall for the brainwashing will also be stupid enough to believe black is white if he just says it earnestly enough.

Re:Not Evil

[nospam007]

I kind of like Michael Moore, but I have the experience of growing up in a state healthcare system and while I do wish that US would have a state healthcare like UK, for example, there is much to be said about the pitfalls of the state healthcare.
--
Yep, if those 47,000,000 had healthcare and 100,000,000 people with insurance would actually _get_ the treatment they need, they would all be in front of you in the hospital queue.
True enough, that sucks in the countries where they have universal care.

Re:Not Evil

[farmer11]

I'm not obese...I'm not even mildly overweight, and I exercise regularly. Why should I have to pay extra for health care because other people live unhealthy lifestyles?

I totally agree. Also, why do I have to pay for the education system? I don't have any kids. Why do I have to pay for the fire department? I have smoke alarms. Why do I pay for a police department? I have locks on my doors. Why do I pay tax to build roads and such? I don't drive a car. Why do I have to pay tax for health care, I'll never get sick or ever run out of money for medical expenses.

Oh wait, it's because of the huge benefits these services provide to society at large.

Re:Not Evil

[Jugalator]

I hope you're not saying that it's wrong to counter propaganda?

I think what's being said is that Google shouldn't take political stances. Propaganda or not. As soon as they support the other camp, it may end up like they're pushing another organization's agenda that is just as much propaganda-rich. You aren't thinking both sides here are neutral, are you? Anyway, of course it's within Google's rights to do this. It's just that some probably think it's "wrong".

Re:Not Evil

[jorghis]

OK, I will bite. What does he say about the american health insurance companies that is untrue? Im not talking about the cuba trip, or his fascination with socialism in general, just want to know what you think is untrue about the health insurance companies. I am not defending him as a filmmaker, I know a lot of what he says is horribly misleading. But he really cant help but be correct when he talks about the health insurance industry because there are serious problems there. So what is he saying about the health insurance companies that is untrue?

Re:Not Evil

[jorghis]

Other publicly traded companies dont try to pull this. If I pay for a computer and have it shipped to me dell doesnt immediately go back and start trying to dream up ways to deny sending the computer to save money. Its possible to make an honest buck as a corporation. The problem isnt the corporation, the problem is the health insurance industry.

Re:Not Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

The grandparent is funny,

Wait until they're more like the DMV.

Why would he/she think that because US DMV is bad, then all governments' services are bad? I got my Canadian passport in 24 hours by paying C$60. Total wait time, less than 2 hour (I actually want to say under an hour, but I am not so sure)

Re:Not Evil

[omeomi]

I totally agree. Also, why do I have to pay for the education system? I don't have any kids.

There is *some* difference between enabling overweight people to continue to be overweight and drive up my medical expenses, and paying for the education of our country's children. One of two clearly has broader societal benefits. This is interesting, though...it's not often I come down to the right of anybody on Slashdot. Usually, I'm being told I'm too liberal...anyway my point is that with car insurance, you get a lower rate for being a "safe driver" (not a lot of tickets, I guess), or not having a lot of accidents, or having good grades, if you're a student. Why shouldn't people be able to ask for deductions for their medical insurance for being healthy or, for instance, not smoking? I pay over $500 a month for medical insurance, and rarely use it. That's nuts. I'm lucky that I can afford it (barely), but there are a lot of people out there who can't afford it, and end having to pay huge medical bills because they don't have insurance.

Re:Not Evil

[jorghis]

I think socialism is a bad idea because its been attempted in many different countries and every time it has failed to prosper. It may be 'just' for everyone to have the same amount of money but at the end of the day everyone is better off under capitalism. Note that I dont consider western Europe socialist, I am mainly talking about those countries where the government controls all or most industry and capital.

My opinion of Michael Moore is based off of the fact that a lot of the things he says in his movies are deliberately misleading. He often ruins good, persuasive movies by adding misleading and inflammatory statements. I am not a fan of the Iraq war or Bush or the healthcare system. But when tries to tell us that Cuba's system is better than the US he loses his credibility. Cuba's economy is so bad that it spills over into the healthcare system and they have serious problems there.

Re:Not Evil

[Thing 1]

[...] can you give me a rational idea of why would you assume that pooling resources for the greater good is inherently a bad idea?

Well, it sounds like you just described the health insurance industry: they pool their customer's payments to them (resources), in order to promote the general well-being of all their customers (greater good).

The only problem is that they want to take in more than they pay out, which means, on a collective level, we're all getting fleeced.

Canada and European countries seem to be doing a better job managing this than the USA. Someone else mentioned that in their state, health insurance companies must operate as non-profits. I would vote for such a proposal on the national level.

Re:Not Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Regarding your blog titled "Does negative press make you Sicko?"

Its amazing, Google has never gone out of their way to promote the other side of that story. Ever proporting to support good and not evil...

But willing to pander to corporate needs just to make a few extra ad dollars, when what is at stake is far greater than open source and patents and desktop operating systems....

I understand their right to generate revenue, but this is as ethically degenerate as a factory polluting the air and rivers...

This issue goes to the heart of what is "good and evil", peoples' health is far more relevant area where I expect Google to take the right side on.

For the first time, I am very disappointed in Google.

Re:Not Evil

[WilliamSChips]

Seriously, go look at Social Security. It is more efficient than just about every private organization. You wanna know why? Because a lot of seniors use the service and a lot of what they do is watch Social Security to make sure the checks come in on time. Replace seniors with sick people and you'll get what would happen with US social healthcare.

Re:Not Evil

[WilliamSChips]

Communism is the workers owning the means of production. Anyone who tells you otherwise should not be trusted.
And if universal healthcare is socialism, then the United States is already socialist.

Re:Not Evil

[Bloke down the pub]

US Population (2007 estimate) ~ 301 million.

UK population (2005 figures) ~ 60 million.

So UK alone is pretty close to 20%. Perhaps we should discuss socialised mathematics education too?

Re:Not Evil

[Cerberus7]

Yeah, but you're citing CNN as a source. They're the evil liberal pinko commies leading the charge against right-thinking conservative Americans. If you could find a source that's more fair and balanced, like Fox News, then you'd have my attention.(end sarcasm here)

Yes, I really have had a conversation that went just like that.

Re:Not Evil

[Scrameustache]

I think socialism is a bad idea because its been attempted in many different countries and every time it has failed to prosper. It may be 'just' for everyone to have the same amount of money but at the end of the day everyone is better off under capitalism. 1- It has been sabotaged at every turn, it's failures are engineered, not due to an inherent flaw.

2- "everyone is better off under capitalism" might just be the most insane thing I've ever read.

But when tries to tell us that Cuba's system is better than the US he loses his credibility. Cuba's economy is so bad that it spills over into the healthcare system and they have serious problems there. Their economy is SO bad that it spills into their healthcare system enough that it ranks 39th in the world, whilst the most prosperous economy in the world, the U.S. of A., has the 37th place.
Compare healtcare quality to GDP per capita, the U.S. is in fourth place, Cuba has the eleventyfirst! And the quality of their medical care is only two ranks apart!
You don't think that means that the system is better? If it manages to stay close to the healty economies despite its tremendous lacks of funds?

Re:Not Evil

[TheRaven64]

Just not to Canada, we already have a whole province of sniveling whiners. I know geography is hard for North Americans, but the USA is not actually a province of Canada...

Re:Not Evil

[sumdumass]

Sulfur in fuel, acts as an upper cylinder lubricant. It also stops seals from deteriorating and causing fuel system leaks. When they first mandated the low sulfur diesel fuels, people not using additives like lucus, redline or whatever saw their engines wear fast and problems galore.

Re:Not Evil

[jorghis]

"1- It has been sabotaged at every turn, it's failures are engineered, not due to an inherent flaw."

OK, some of the socialist leaders may have been thrown out of militarilly but look at how many have stayed in power and yet their countries still do not prosper. Vietnam, every country in eastern europe, china, russia, cuba, the list goes on forever. All of them gave it a serious try that lasted decades. All of them failed to produce any meaningful kind of prosperity for their people. All of them have either abandoned or are in the process of abandoning these failed systems.

The fact that Cuba is right below the US on that list should speak more to the problems with the US healthcare system, not to how wonderful the cuban economy is. You even point out that the Cuban economic system doesnt have much going for it.

Re:Not Evil

[Talla]

That's why I would never go anywhere outside my home country, and especially not to the US, without travel insurance. Make sure it says unlimited medical expenses.

Re:Not Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Dont get me wrong, I have a pretty low opinion of Michael Moore

Really? Based on what, Right-Wing nut job talking points? Tell them to get Limbaugh and Hannity to say one sentence that doesn't contain a lie before they go around impugning other people.

The fact that you have to try to distance yourself from a filmmaker who has championed the rights of the little guy at every turn is enough to make me sick.

Re:Not Evil

[thestreetmeat]

So because municipalities in the US provide fire services that are not 'in the free market', the US is a socialist state as well. As is every other country in the world. I see..

Re:Not Evil

[ppanon]

If you could find a source that's more fair and balanced, like Fox News, then you'd have my attention.(end sarcasm here)

Just remind them that "Fair and Balanced" in the Fox sense, would mean giving equal time to Satan and God in a talk show, even though Satan's business card says "Prince of Lies". In addition, the moderator would present them as equally interested parties, spending time in the introductions lauding Satan for all he's done as a Devil's Advocate and harassing God over the 30 Years War and all the other wars of religion.

Re:Not Evil

[DefenderThree]

Let me repeat that, people who have been paying for the insurance their entire lives die because the insurance companies want to save a few bucks. This is very evil. To be fair, you should take your complaints in this area to capitalism in general. The health care industry is under no legal obligation to be nice. Neither is any company.

Re:Not Evil

[Scrameustache]

"1- It has been sabotaged at every turn, it's failures are engineered, not due to an inherent flaw."

OK, some of the socialist leaders may have been thrown out of militarilly but look at how many have stayed in power and yet their countries still do not prosper. Vietnam, every country in eastern europe, china, russia, cuba [...]
The fact that Cuba is right below the US on that list should speak more to the problems with the US healthcare system, not to how wonderful the cuban economy is(*). You even point out that the Cuban economic system doesnt have much going for it. Right, a 49 year embargo doesn't count as economic sabotage to you.
You know, your grasp of reality seems... slippery.

* I said nothing of the sort. You even point out I pointed that out.

Re:Not Evil

[ppanon]

Woops, I meant:

lauding Satan for all the "pro bono" work he's done as a Devil's Advocate :-)

Re:Not Evil

[Stradivarius]

It's meaningless in the sense that the term states a goal everyone can agree upon (everyone should have health care) without saying a darn thing about how to achieve it. "Universal health care" could mean everyone buying their own health insurance in a free market, or it could mean the federal government buying it for everyone through your taxes, or anything in-between.

Given that the debate is not whether or not everyone should have access to health care, but rather how to fund that health care and how much of it, the term IS meaningless. It does nothing to advance anyone's understanding of the competing proposals.

Re:Not Evil

[jorghis]

There was a point in time when most of the worlds population was living under socialist governments. If socialism was the better economic system then capitalist countries should have been fearing economic embargo from them, not the other way around. And yet, somehow it seems that even with most of the people in the world and a practically endless amount of natural resources they still failed to produce an economy that was even a fraction as prosperous as our own.

Re:Not Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

one thing i do NOT agree with is funds paying out to bullshit artists like naturopaths, it's a waste of money

Well, if I pay for insurance and when I get sick I decide that I want to be treated a specific way then what is the problem? As long as I use no more then the allowed amount. What is your name - Chemical Tim?

Re:Not Evil

[fimbulvetr]

Since when does exercising regularly make someone a vain masochistic nut? I exercise too, but I like to think it's so I can, say, be in shape to play basketball with my kid or have a swim at a lake without tiring in 10 minutes or haul some groceries up 3 flights of stairs without taking a break.

Those are some excellent reasoning skills you have there.

Re:Not Evil

[nEoN nOoDlE]

Does he touch on that before or after the trip to Cuba?

Re:Not Evil

[Zeio]

I'm not saying that Canada's health care is "better," but drug companies in the US sell drugs cheaper to other markets, make questionably effective vaccines and use the government to force them on people, and there is a general sense of the medical industry here using legislation quite often to create a favorable wind. This industry is corrupted and needs a little negative exposure. I'm not saying Sicko is dead on, but Google is Evil to try and make money off this strife, and it is evil when it makes money putting people in Chinese prisons.

Google is bravely bouncing the email from propaganda minister Lauren:

Hi. This is the qmail-send program at yahoo.com.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.

<googlehealthadvertisingblog@google.com>:
64.233.183.25 does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 553 5.5.3 <googlehealthadvertisingblog@google.com>...
Invalid
Giving up on 64.233.183.25.

--- Below this line is a copy of the message.

Return-Path: <zeio@yahoo.com>
Received: (qmail 61447 invoked by uid 60001); 1 Jul 2007 17:20:54 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;

  h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-V ersion:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mess age-ID;

Received: from [71.202.134.178] by web91212.mail.mud.yahoo.com via
HTTP; Sun, 01 Jul 2007 10:20:53 PDT
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 10:20:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: zeio@yahoo.com
Subject: Dont be evil?
To: googlehealthadvertisingblog@google.com
MIME-Versi on: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <786514.55388.qm@web31212.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

E xcept make money off of putting people into Chinese
prisons and help a corrupt industry do damage control.

Re:Not Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, Cuba was 2 notches below the USA. Compare how much they spend and how much they have to spend and you'll see how screwed up the American system is. Cuba is an example of doing more with less while America is an example of doing less with more...

Re:Not Evil

[jessiej]

A play on words:

"Universal health care" could mean... should just be

"Universal health care" could be accomplished... The use of "mean" has nothing to do with "meaning"

I have a hard time seeing how something

everyone can agree upon can be meaningless?

Re:Not Evil

[Rich0]

Ridiculously low-grade, old-fashioned, ineffective medicines with more side effects than actual effects. Oh, and you have to take 5 of them at a time. They make sure you come back by giving you only a few days of medicine.

Some of that might be due to the not-invented-here syndrome that much of Japan seems to suffer. Most nations set basic quality standards for medicines. Japan has a ton of minutia in their regs that stipulate just about everybody regarding how you make and test your drugs. If it wasn't designed for use in Japan, then it is hard to sell in Japan. For a long time they also wouldn't accept clinical trial data from outside of Japan - after all, non-Japanese just aren't quite the same.

Most of the laws seem to be designed to protect local industry. Most pills get made wherever it makes sense (US and Europe early-on, Asia for cheap manufacturing) and are exported to wherever they are needed. In Japan I'm guessing that most of the pills are made domestically. Pills that would be accepted in ANY nation of the world other than Japan stand a good chance of being rejected by the local regulators.

The only reason companies even bother selling medicines there is because everybody takes pills for ANYTHING, EVERYTHING, and NOTHING. It probably started out with snake-oil, but people in Japan take pills by the bushel. I'm surprised they don't have all kinds of problems as a result... I'm actually a fan of direct-to-consumer marketing, but I question the ethics of not better-educating the market in Japan (it is one thing to ask somebody to talk to their doctor about whatever, it is another thing to KNOW that people are taking your pill just for the placebo effect and not educate them).

Re:Not Evil

[LGagnon]

I'd like to hope that most people can entertain the notion of a middle road which characterizes both Moore and the health care industry as neither impeccable nor pure evil, ascribing to both the property of providing some information which is both true and valid.

Equal validity is a logical fallacy.

Re:Not Evil

[jadavis]

Because they aren't killing people?

False cures can be very deadly. If you use "alternative treatments" in place of proven scientific medicine, you can end up dead. That's why the FDA standards require that medicines are proven to be effective treatments in addition to being safe. A placebo is safe, but the FDA won't approve it as a cancer drug because such "safe" medicines can still cost lives.

Haven't you seen that episode of South Park?

Re:Not Evil

[jadavis]

universal health care != socialism

Definition of "Socialism" from m-w.com:

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

I think Universal Health Care fits that definition perfectly, if you replace "goods" with "goods and services".

Re:Not Evil

[ScrewMaster]

It's "fox guarding the henhouse" but I take your point.

The primary problem with any indirect services setup (indeed, any system where people make regular payments into the kitty and expect a payout in time of need) is that you've divorced the cost of said services from the ability of people to pay for them. Like any socialist state, that can work, as long as you can trust your foxes.

Whenever people pay for goods or services directly, out of their own pockets, there's a limit on how much can be charged. At a certain point, either people stop buying from you (if what you're selling isn't a necessity) or someone else comes in, undercuts you, and takes your business: in other words, there's a negative feedback loop established between consumers and providers. Much of modern business practice revolves around finding the sweet spot, the price point where you've balanced off the sales price and the number of customers willing to pay that price to maximize profit. It's a tricky proposition.

WIth the health insurance system, there is no direct connection between what the consumer pays for health care, and what the health care providers charge the insurance company. The feedback loop is open, which is great because it means that you get to set your own sweet spot and who cares what the patient can pay! What's even worse, though, is that the same people that sit on the boards of hospitals also sit on the boards of insurance companies and pharmaceutical outfits, so we don't even benefit from an adversarial relationship between those three. How much people can pay (and how much suppliers can charge) have no intrinsic relationship to each other anymore. Whether or not the insurance company even bothers to pay for a given individual's needs has no relationship to how much that person paid into that company. "I've been paying you guys for thirty years! Can't you help me?" "We don't cover that." Tough.

Normal economic incentives and controls simply don't apply in the insurance business, the people running the show don't really care if you live or die, and providing health care is, at best, a secondary objective.

Re:Not Evil

[mrmeval]

Agreed. If mm were honest and truthful rather than using the same tactics as other propagandists there might be a case to howl censorship. But even if it were an honest presentation in the US everyone gets their say whether it's deception and trickery and lies or CYA.

Re:Not Evil

[FLEB]

Besides, how come most slashdotters are against digital rights management but have nothing against analog rights (such as healthcare) management.

Because most Slashdotters have a more intimate knowledge and relationship of the issues involved, can pinpoint the detrimental effects, and can speak to the issue with assured clarity.

Re:Not Evil

[aralin]

The problems are a little different. For example in US the market dictates the distribution of hospitals across country, in state healthcare its the politics that dictates it. Which state or county will get more or less will be determined by the favors each congressman can gain in return for other bribes. The insurance companies still exist, but they have so many restrictions on their operation that often they push far into debt, which leads to shortages of medication in some hospitals. Often there is a point system where a doctor can only treat so many patients during a month or write so many prescriptions, which kind of sucks. As in: "I know I pulled all your teeth, but I don't have points to make you the prosthesis this month, sorry." Often its hard to get above standard care even if you are willing to pay extra for it. You might not get the correct medication, but a sort of close one, which is 10 times cheaper. You cannot pay for the more expensive. You might not even be treated for some ailments, since you are old and will die soon and any the medical malpractice insurance is nicely dealt with. There is no way to sue for medical malpractice. If you get radiation treatment overdose and get a stomach cancer as a result. too bad for you. Of course, your stomach cancer is treated for free, but that is all you get. Well not all, the funeral expenses are sometimes covered from the medical insurance. Depends on the system you are in. Half of the above cases are directly from my family medical history.

Should I choose between the US system and a universal healthcare, I would go for universal healthcare ANYTIME. But did Michael Moore put out a totally onesided view of the universal healthcare? Most definitely! I grew up in universal healthcare system and at 25 I moved to US and now live under the US system and strangely enough Kaiser Permanente in the level of care is actually the closest thing that resembles the universal healthcare we had. Imagine system where everyone is insured under Kaiser, it is the only option, and the only change is they cannot refuse treatment and cannot be sued for malpractice and you have a good picture of how universal healthcare works in most other countries.

Re:Not Evil

[FLEB]

I could see your point if they were selling something like unmarked artificially-high search rankings. As it stands, though, they're pushing their services in a PR context, and selling things like paid ads (which are marked obviously as such). Yes, the people with more money can place more ads, but the sources and intents are known, and discriminating viewers can weight them as they wish. Until Google assists in spreading known falsehoods, artificially driving competitors' information out of the otherwise free discussion (by killing their rankings or inflating unpaid-search rankings of clients), or astroturfing the source of discussions, there's really nothing all that awful going on.

Re:Not Evil

[Bloke down the pub]

All I can tell you is that I work for a pharma company, as we spend millions directly on drug research, so don't think the the govt is picking up the tab for drug research.

There's no faulting that logic. Since the (unpecified) number of millions is the total being spent and (unspecified) millions is the biggest number that exists, it's logically impossible that anyone else is spending anything and preposterous to consider that someone is spending more.

Re:Not Evil

[Trepalium]

Which province is full of sniveling whiners? Quebec? Alberta? Ontario? Newfoundland? BC?

Re:Not Evil

[emaname]

As much as I criticize the perversion of wealth in this capitalist economy, I just can't get behind Moore and his approach. I'm concerned that he does more harm than good to the credibility of any criticism that is directed at healthcare, politicians, or the concentration of wealth in a tiny percentage of our nation's population.

So I guess I'm saying that I don't care what anyone does in response to this wanna-be investigative reporter's offerings.

Re:Not Evil

[Weedlekin]

"Other publicly traded companies dont try to pull this. If I pay for a computer and have it shipped to me dell doesnt immediately go back and start trying to dream up ways to deny sending the computer to save money."

They would be quite happy to take your money and tell you to sod off if (a) fraud wasn't a crime that can land executives in jail, and (b) they believed that doing this was a sustainable business model (it obviously isn't).

"Its possible to make an honest buck as a corporation."

It is indeed possible to do so, but history tends to show that corporations manoeuvre through every legal and financial loophole they can find, and some are willing to step outside the law if they think they can get away with it.

"The problem isnt the corporation, the problem is the health insurance industry."

The problem _is_ the corporation, because corporations are legally obliged to maximise the value of investments, and the only way to do this is by charging the highest price that customers will pay for the worst deal they'll swallow. The current trend towards outsourcing and globalisation is evidence of this: companies are falling over themselves to shift every possible operation to countries where people will work the most hours under the worst possible conditions for the lowest wages in an effort to spend as little as possible while charging their Western customers the same price. Stock markets actively encourages this sort of behaviour by raising the share price of companies who cut costs by moving large segments of their infrastructure to the cheapest locations they can find, especially if doing so avoids pesky labour and environmental protection laws that raise the costs of building, equipping, and staffing such facilities.

Re:Not Evil

[Nephilium]

Selling a fake medical treatment does injure people... people put their belief in these con artists and then don't see a real medical doctor...

Not that the people getting conned aren't responsible as well... but it's pretty evil to tell people you can heal them with a foot massage...

Nephilium

Re:Not Evil

[QuoteMstr]

And what, exactly, is wrong with a touch of socialism? It's not the boogeyman. It works well in Europe and Canada, and it works here, in the form of social security, disability, unemployment insurance and so on. Stop listening to those who have conditioned you to react with a violent, kneejerk response to the word "socialism" and start thinking for yourself. Examine what a concept actually is before denouncing it. We seem to have lost the ability to rationally discuss certain topics because certain words have become taboo.

*sigh*

Re:Not Evil

[QuoteMstr]

A concentration of population is not the same as a concentration of economic might.

Re:Not Evil

[QuoteMstr]

Western Europe is socialist. What you're talking about is communism, which inevitably decays to centralized authoritarianism, much like an atom of uranium will inevitably decay to lead. Don't confuse the proven ideas of socialism with the misguided efforts of communists. You poison the concept of socialism that way.

Re:Not Evil

[Rich0]

Oxdung. Most drug research is performed in university labs with government money.

Not true. Most basic biomedical research is performed in university labs with government money, but that isn't the same as "drug research". Once a drug concept is invented, it often goes through a lot of optimization and then it enters development, where the real costs are incurred. The clinical trials are the largest cost, and I don't think the government really funds these at all.

Saying that the government pays for drug R&D is like saying that Maxwell developed the perpendicular-recording technology in modern hard drives - sure, he did describe electromagnetism, and maybe he actually did do the hardest part of the work, but ultimately his was still just one part of the puzzle.

Even if you stipulate that 99% of the creative effort behind drugs is government-funded, the fact is that those multi-hundred-million-dollar clinical trials have to be paid for by somebody.

Drugs are expensive because they have to be marketed to the public because in the US, it's a "free" "market".

It isn't like you HAVE to advertise drugs to sell them in the US - they'd sell just as well as they do in Canada if you didn't. It just pays to advertise them. If you didn't, fewer people would take them, which means you'd make less money, which means that you're less likely to develop a particular new drug.

When drug companies decide what areas to research a basic question is what the market is. Would you spend $500M on a drug that will only cure 5000 people? You'd have to charge $100k to break even and nobody would pay that. If a drug can be marketed to more people, then it is more likely to get funded. In that sense drug marketing helps to fund more drugs, by increasing the size of the market.

In Canada, drug prices are strictly regulated, and for the most part, are not marketed to the public. Not having to market is a tremenduous cost cutter and leaves more money for what little research is done by pharmaceutical labs.

Uh, virtually all R&D money for Canadian pharmaceutical companies comes from their selling products in the US. They'd lose money if they only sold products in Canada. (That is, including R&D outlay.) The lack of marketing isn't the reason for the lower prices - the price controls are.

I can pass a law saying that cars can't be sold for more than $500 to anybody. And you know what - for the next two weeks EVERYBODY would be buying dirt-cheap cars. That is until every car lot sells out (they would be sold, no sense just throwing them away). After that, nobody would ever make a car again. And that is the problem with price controls. If you force the price from $5/pill to $4/pill you might get away with it. But it would never stop there - in Canada the prices are already FAR lower than that.

The only reason companies even sell pills outside the US is that it is still above marginal cost. It is the same reason that airlines sell tickets for $100 to standby flyers. It only works because the plane is flying anyway. If they charged that much for EVERY passenger then there would be no flight.

In the US, pharmaceutical companies spent three time as much for marketing than they did for research.

That is probably true. Although the figures are usually for marketing and other administrative costs. However, if you banned marketing it wouldn't really change the price - the companies would lose money since fewer people would buy the product, and would be worse off despite the "savings" on advertising. If prices could rise they would to help cover the shortfall, but most likely it would just result in fewer life-saving medicines in favor of more lifestyle medicines. For some reason it is immoral to charge $5/pill to cure cancer, but it is OK to charge $5/pill for erectile dysfunction. I guess the message is to invest less in cancer patients...

Re:Not Evil

[Rich0]

Any pay as you go system with a large number of upcoming takes and a smaller pool of givers is going to have some of these problems. But they are ironed out with time and a stable demographic spread.

I think you hit the nail on the head there. If the US demographically looked a LOT more like Cananda I'd think that a single-payer system would be more likely to work. US Cities have HUGE numbers of non-productive or only marginally-productive citizens that would be a large net-tax on health care.

Under a single-payer system the people paying for health care now would pay just as much for it if not more. But, they'd have to wait in line behind others who pay not nearly as much. The only ones who benefit are the ones who aren't paying for it now.

I think that most people would have sympathy for people who are of the same walk of life but just temporarily out of a job. The problem is the many more people who just aren't of the same walk of life - they live marginally and people resent paying a lot of money to care for them, as they don't feel like it will ever be reciprocated.

Re:Not Evil

[jorghis]

OK, so what is it that these socialist governments needed to succeed that they didnt have? Landmass? Nope, they had that, more than the industrial democracies. Natural resources? Nope, they had that, arguably more than the industrial democracies as well depending which resources we are talking about. So what then? What do socialist governments need to succeed economically?

Re:Not Evil

[Stradivarius]

As an abstract ideal/goal the term has a meaning, i.e. "everyone should have health care". And you're right that there is a distinction between the goal and how it may be accomplished. But I would argue that terms like these take on connotations beyond their strictest meaning, but which nonetheless are part of their meaning in a policy/political context.

It's like freedom of speech. Practically everyone in the US will claim to support "freedom of speech". But that means different things to different people. When you ask them more specifically what they support - whether we should allow or ban flag burning, hate speech, certain organizationally-funded political ads, etc., you discover there's a wide spectrum of what people consider to qualify as "free speech". So knowing that someone supports the ideal of "free speech" doesn't tell you a whole lot.

So it is with "universal health care", "protecting children", "fighting crime", "eliminating waste", or any of a dozen other slogans out there. We all agree on them only because they're so generic that they give us no information about the tradeoffs involved in achieving them. To me, that is a very weak sort of meaning. Maybe not quite "meaningless", but close.

Re:Not Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

As such, anything that the companies say to contradict that must, in fact, be evil propaganda utterly devoid of any informative content, with the ultimate design to boost their image (and their profits) - at the expense of all that is well and good in the world, if necessary.

Well, to be evenhanded (read: non-evil) will Google likewise facilitate finding pro-Moore "messages" when the health organizations try to spread their lying FUD about the issues raised in Sicko?

Hardly fucking likely -- there's no money to be made there, nor any money to be lost, as would happen if they quit kowtowing to the murderous Chinese bastard government. "Engagement", my ass -- it's raw greed. Period.

It's now known that any government, no matter how oppressive, can coerce "cooperation with local laws" to force information out of Google.

There should be one law, and one law only, to be observed -- American law. If some other country doesn't like it, they can install their own goddamned filters, if they can manage it. Instead, the goddamned ragheads will threaten to light the match if we show a cartoon of Mohammedick, the slopes will wet their pants if we show pictures of Tiananmen Square, the krauts will harrumph if we talk about Hitler in any terms they don't endorse, the fundies will curse us for discussing gay rights and on and on.

Fuck all the sons of bitches. Put it all out there (yes, including hate speech, the current politically correct euphemism for "thought crime") and let the one real free market, that of ideas, sort it all out.

Re:Not Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

From the ambulance ride ....

Damned rght there. I was appalled to hear, just two days ago, from a friend, about an ambulance ride for her sister, visiting from Switzerland. When the ambulance arrived, the attendants were told that the woman to be transported was in an upstairs bedroom. They stopped in their tracks, counted the stairs and recorded the number. Turns out it's not just three dollars a mile, it's also three dollars per step that they have to take to an upper floor. Likely they counted the two steps up to the front door as well. That's on top of the enormous base rate for the truck roll itself.

BTW, the price at the hospital came to $8000 per night (that's right -- THREE zeroes) and that's before the first Band-Aid (tm) is issued.

Re:Not Evil

[king-manic]

I think you hit the nail on the head there. If the US demographically looked a LOT more like Cananda I'd think that a single-payer system would be more likely to work. US Cities have HUGE numbers of non-productive or only marginally-productive citizens that would be a large net-tax on health care.

Under a single-payer system the people paying for health care now would pay just as much for it if not more. But, they'd have to wait in line behind others who pay not nearly as much. The only ones who benefit are the ones who aren't paying for it now.

I think that most people would have sympathy for people who are of the same walk of life but just temporarily out of a job. The problem is the many more people who just aren't of the same walk of life - they live marginally and people resent paying a lot of money to care for them, as they don't feel like it will ever be reciprocated.

Statistic information about who gets treatment actually suggest the opposite. The biggest users of the system here are the middle and upper middle class. The proper upper class would have fared the same in either system (the really rich just head south for treatment). Those who have marginal income but still utilize the system still indirectly benefit the main payer (the middle class). Health costs is the leading cause of bankruptcy and main contributer to poverty and crime follows poverty and the largest target of crime is the middle class. A round about argument but if you investigate the number (CA crime rates vs US crime rates) you'll notice there are a great deal less crimes of desperation here.

Re:Not Evil

[Mad_Rain]

The fun part is that the US government already runs a highly successful single payer health care system: the Veterans Health Administration. I'm not sure why this is modded "Funny" when the VA Healthcare System does really well within its budgetary constraints. Why can't the U.S. use that as a model to provide healthcare to the rest of its citizens?

Re:Not Evil

[fudoniten]

Re: his Canadian relatives, they didn't say they were afraid to go to the U.S. because their health-care system was so bad, they said they'd be afraid to go to the U.S. without insurance, because the U.S. system is so expensive.

That's actually not an uncommon sentiment up here. Everybody has heard stories about Canadians in the U.S. forced to decide between going to an American hospital and paying a fortune, or making a dash for the border and free health care.

Re:Not Evil

[miguel]

I also think the Cuban scenes were counterproductive because he goes on about how great Cuba is, while at the very beginning of the movie, he reveals a chart that shows Cuba is ranked below the US in health care.

I noticed that, too, and saw it as one of the points that many right-wingers will cling to from the movie. However, there's something to be said about it. Yes, the US has fallen to 36th or whatever in terms of quality of healthcare, with Cuba being just below it. The important part is that only the people who can afford it in the US can get that 36th-ranked healthcare, whereas everyone in Cuba is entitled to their 37th-ranked healthcare. Basically, Cuba has the same quality of healthcare as the US, but it's open to everyone.

Very interesting observation.

Although the Cuba bit is sensationalist, there was one positive outcome: the rescue workers were treated. Before the movie came out there was a news article reporting on the ongoing care that these people received after Michael Moore's crew left and the cameras stopped rolling.

Re:Not Evil

[TheoMurpse]

Re: his Canadian relatives, they didn't say they were afraid to go to the U.S. because their health-care system was so bad, they said they'd be afraid to go to the U.S. without insurance, because the U.S. system is so expensive.

To me, if the system is (unreasonably) expensive, it is bad. I just assumed that everyone agreed with my belief.

Re:Not Evil

[QuoteMstr]

It's not a matter of what they had in terms of land, population and resources. It's a matter of starting conditions. China was undeveloped and dominated by the West until the middle 20th century. Russia, before World War I, was an agrarian backwater where serfdom had barely ceased 100 years before that. No, the playing field was not fair for these communist nations.

That said, I don't think pure communism can work regardless of starting conditions.

But socialism is NOT communism, and you're doing a disservice to us all by conflating the two concepts. Please, stop it. Western Europe is socialist, and it's doing quite well, thank you. Their personal liberties (outside a few cases involving Nazi relics) are not curtailed in any way, and in some ways, they're more free than we are here. Europeans can start businesses, associate with whom they please, say what they would in public, and they live under socialist governments that also happen to be democracies.

There is nothing wrong with socialism.

Re:Not Evil

[jorghis]

I dont really have a problem with 'socialism' as you define it, which is really just industrial democracy with a few state run programs and some regulations. Under your definition the US isnt really that far away from being socialist either.

I would argue that europe is really not socialist as long as most of its businesses are under private control, capital and decisions on how it should be used are in the hands of private citizens/corporations, etc. Most classical definitions of socialism involve state control of the economy, industry, etc. The state doesnt control most businesses in Europe and there isnt much in the way of centralized planning. But we are just argueing semantics at this point.

Also, I still take issue with your statement that the communist states didnt start out on a level playing field. Russia was not an agrarian backwater before the Bolsheviks seized power. They were very much in the midst of an industrial revolution and had infrastructure such as railroads and whatnot in place, if it was behind Europe at all in 1917 it wasnt by much. The country the reds started out with had a very solid economic foundation. After world war II everyone's economy was devastated with the exception of the US. France was no better off than any of the countries liberated by the red army. Education levels in east germany were just as good if not better than France as well. Many of these eastern block countries were considered to be very advanced before they fell under Stalin's rule.

Re:Not Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Canadian Health Care has its pros and cons but you'll never appreciate it more than when you live in a remote area.

Whitehorse, Yukon (where I live) has the only general hospital in the territory. Everyone else has nursing stations. Obviously, we lack a ton of medical capabilities. The Yukon is practically void of specialists. You get put on a waiting list for when the one you needs comes up for a tour. Also, because our hospital can only do so much, being medivacced to Vancouver or Edmonton, both about two hour flights, is not uncommon. I've had friends medivacced out on the government's Leer jet because that was all that was available. Also, Yukon Health Care pays 100% for most outside treatment. The flight is also covered because you don't have a choice.

That said, it doesn't pay for your flight home. People have been stranded after being discharged in Vancouver without their wallets.

Re:Not Evil

[Anspen]

Western Europe is socialist. What you're talking about is communism, which inevitably decays to centralized authoritarianism, much like an atom of uranium will inevitably decay to lead. Don't confuse the proven ideas of socialism with the misguided efforts of communists. You poison the concept of socialism that way.

Technically the examples of communism we've seen have come after revolutions which brought down authoritarian dictatorships in mostly rural/non-industrialised nations. So in those cases there was very little change of creating any kind of democratic system. (also technically speaking no country ever achieved communnism, since that would imply a utopian nation without much of a government at all, but as a label to differntiate between the two systems it's quite useful </pendantic observation >).

Re:Not Evil

[Anspen]

The problem _is_ the corporation, because corporations are legally obliged to maximise the value of investments, and the only way to do this is by charging the highest price that customers will pay for the worst deal they'll swallow.

legally? Really? (Honest question, I could see the US or at least some states require it, but it would see..... quite over the top/counterproductive).

Re:Not Evil

[Rich0]

Actually, there is something to be said for increasing general quality of life. Crime dropped significantly when efforts were made to stop petty crimes like graffiti. When your neighborhood doesn't look like a sewer you're less likely to act like a rat. The same might apply to medical care. It isn't like the dregs of society are any dumber than the rest of us on average...

Re:Not Evil

[ravenshrike]

"Compare that to Medicare, which only has an overhead rate of 1 percent. Medicare is an extremely efficient health-care delivery system," says Mark Meaney, a health-care ethicist for the National Institute for Patient Rights. Heh, THAT's funny. Firstly, once you factor in that Medicare being paid for by taxes the overhead spikes to around 30-40% which is approximately the efficiency that the government works at. Not to mention that it's a helluva lot harder to sue the government than an insurance company. Moreover, illegals don't have access to Medicare, whereas they DO have access to emergency room visits, which makes it much more expensive for everyone else.

Re:Not Evil

[Hercules Peanut]

There's a film out that, if you take the point of view that the vast majority of the people who see it do, talks about how people who are sick and dying are not being helped by people who amass large amounts of money That's a big IF. Here's a bit of info. largest carrier in a big state makes 250 million in profit. Sounds like a lot. They have over 6 million customers. Hmm, simple math. ~$40 profit per customer per year. Doesn't sound like a lot any more does it?

If no one's come to them yet, they actively reach out. To one side. The one with the money. The one with the blood money. Would you care to define "Blood Money"?
We aren't a little biased are we?

Look, it's simple. A controversial film has been made. It will make a lot of people ask questions. One side of the story has been told. Google wants to be in a position to answer the questions for the other side because they anticipate the questions being asked. It's not about taking sides, it's about being prepared for what is obviously going to be a hot topic. It's what they do.. they answer questions.

Re:Not Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

This is precisely one of the problems Moore touches on, universal health care != socialism

To coin a new one -- it's the "third-railing" of a word. No matter what name you put on it, every last person in the US, legal or not, should have access to meaningfully affordable health care for the most common health problems.

Among these, I include maxillofacial surgery for kids whose lives can be made permanently miserable by facial disfigurements. I do not include 13 yo girls who think they'll never get knocked up without a couple titloads of silicone.

We waste way the fuck too much time cowering in a corner and refusing to assert our human rights just because some well-to-do son of a bitch dangles the word "socialism" in front of the debate.

Similarly they play the "class warfare" card every time someone brings up the Biblical injunction, "From those to whom more is given, more will be expected", especially the fat cat republican WASPs.

Goddamn it -- THEY ARE waging class warfare, every time they buy a congressrat to shield their non-earnings and lay the tax burden on the working class Joe.

Call it what it is! As any twelve-stepper can tell you, step one, without which the eleven other steps are doomed to fail, is, "Admit there is a problem." The problem flat out IS class warfare. If you don't believe it, you're a sub-human bastard.

By letting the haves frame the issue in two words, we allow the have-nots to sink deeper into the pit the wealthy have prepared for them.

Re:Not Evil

[jessiej]

It sounds like you've seen the film then, and would have seem the trip to Canada, France and the UK as well.

Re:Not Evil

[Ian Alexander]

So UK alone is pretty close to 20%. Perhaps we should discuss socialised mathematics education too?

I bet it was the fact that I was exhausted when I made that estimate. The fact that I can't even remember how I got that number is telling.

I was privately educated, by the way ;).

Re:Not Evil

[jadavis]

Thats the whole point of insurance.

The parent said "HMO," not insurance company. That hits on a very important point: if you buy "insurance" against something that is not financially catastrophic, you are losing big time.

Re:Not Evil

[bendodge]

Healthcare is a personal utility, not public utility.

Re:Not Evil

[ultranova]

Why shouldn't people be able to ask for deductions for their medical insurance for being healthy or, for instance, not smoking?

If you are so confident of your health, simply terminate your insurance.

Besides, smoking decreases your life expectancy, which in turn decreases the chances that you'll spend decades worth of treatment for some chronic illness when old. I'm not at all certain that it's in the best interests of the insurance company to have their clients live long past their career, rather than drop dead of heart attack or lung cancer the day they retire.

Cynical, but this is insurance business we're talking about.

I pay over $500 a month for medical insurance, and rarely use it. That's nuts. I'm lucky that I can afford it (barely), but there are a lot of people out there who can't afford it, and end having to pay huge medical bills because they don't have insurance.

I guess they'd better hope US gets over its childish "paying for something communally is evil because someone else might need it more than me so they might get more bang for their buck than me" attitude and establishes socialized healthcare like a civilized country.

$500 a month ? That's crazy. But of course a private insurance firm would hike the rates as far as they can, to get the most profit.

Re:Not Evil

[Da Fokka]

Healthcare is a personal utility, not public utility.

That is a valid opinion (although I definitely don't agree with it). But the GP stipulated that if something is paid for by taxes, it's communism, which is clearly incorrect.

Re:Not Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess you have never been sick and had to deal with the health care industry. Propaganda's ass.

Re:Not Evil

[AP31R0N]

So google had a choice, a censored google for China, or NO google for China.

Which is better for the Chinese people? No google, or some google?

Which is better for google? To allow China to censor their services and get money and get (limited) information to the people, or to let some other company take that deal?

It sucks that the Chinese gov't wants to control their people this way, but something is better than nothing. China will open up over time because it is the only way China can attain the dominance it wants. It's not fair to the people, but it's better than nothing. The North Koreans have 0 google. Google is not evil for cooperating with the Chinese gov't. Companies are at best amoral anyway. The evil is on the part of the Chinese gov't, not google. Google is doing the best it can.

Collecting browser data isn't evil unless they violate privacy laws. If they do, call up a lawyer, call the ACLU, the EFF. If not, don't whine about it. Google gives a great deal of free services, services that other companies would like to charge. Hotmail (last i heard) charges for large storage, and doesn't provide in window chat, word processing, spreadsheets etc etc etc. Google makes it's money by selling advertising and data. As long as they don't sell you name, address, SSN they aren't hurting you. They are giving companies information that (they think) can give them a competitive edge. How is that evil? Unless all profit/business is evil....

Re:Not Evil

[indifferent children]

So what is he saying about the health insurance companies that is untrue?

I am a Liberal who likes Michael Moore's films. I've SiCKO, and it seemed well done and important (I can't say that I 'enjoyed' it, because it's hard to enjoy having your face rubbed in greed and suffering). His 'stuntiness' makes me uncomfortable, but as long as his claims are true, I can live with his hit-and-miss delivery style.

There is one 'fact' that he mentions in this movie that doesn't seem to be true: he says that Detroit has a higher infant mortality rate than El Salvador. When I went looking, Detroit is high for America (1.55% instead of .7% for the US), but the figures (CIA and WHO, probably both from the same source data) said something like 2.2%. Maybe there's a better source than the WHO, or maybe Moore fell for some 'official' government publicity figure that paints El Salvador in a better light.

When you want to create controversial and adversarial pieces like this, it is really, really important to triple-check your facts.

Re:Not Evil

[jez9999]

Normal economic incentives and controls simply don't apply in the insurance business, the people running the show don't really care if you live or die, and providing health care is, at best, a secondary objective.

Although this problem applies much more if there's an incentive to the insurers not to pay stuff back. With the privatized US system, there's the obvious profit incentive. Bonuses for leaving patients high and dry. With a public system, you can legislate to avoid this and prevent there being a profit motive. A bit of inefficiency may ensure, but you can at least rely on most people's natural sense of goodwill to others to run the system fairly, and it's eleventy-million times better than the clear-cut anti-patient culture that a for-profit insurance scheme causes.

IOW, insurance per se isn't unworkable, but privatized insurance often is, especially with healthcare.

Re:Not Evil

[omeomi]

If you are so confident of your health, simply terminate your insurance.

I should point out that I misspoke somewhat by saying "being healthy"...I meant to say, "living a healthy lifestyle". I certainly don't think people who are sick should pay more in insurance premiums than people who are well, but I do think deductions for doing things that are likely to lead to better health are a good idea. If you provide a monetary incentive for doing healthy things, maybe people will be more generally healthy, bringing down the total cost for everyone.

establishes socialized healthcare like a civilized country.

Have to agree with that...though I don't know how likely it is to actually happen...

Re:Not Evil

[ROU Nuisance Value]

"Propaganda"? Who are you fucking kidding. Cite precisely ONE example of Moore's so-called propaganda. Idiots.

Re:Not Evil

[flitty]

So, the FDA has never approved a drug that's killed anyone? Boy i'm glad they are there.

I'm not saying that faith-healers are a good thing, they aren't, but I wouldn't count the FDA as the be-all end-all.

all i have to say is, give me one reason why any child, regardless of what economic status they come from, shouldn't be able to get medical care.

Re:Not Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

The honest hard working Americans are dying, but the honest, hard working, smart Americans aren't. Choose your non-HMO company insurance option. If your company doesn't have one or doesn't give you healthcare, buy it yourself.

Sure, it's hundreds of dollars a month. I guess that means it's going to cut into your beer budget and maybe you won't be able to afford superbowl tickets or your 50" plasma TV. If you don't want to give those things up, then shut your hole when you start whining that you need surgery.

The median income in this country is plenty large enough to afford health care in this country but the majority of Americans are healthy the majority of the time, so they skimp on health insurance and then whine the day they need it and find they don't have it. It's not the government's, the for-profit health care insurance company's, the for-profit hospital's, the for-profit doctor's, or John Q. Taxpayer's job to pay for your surgery. It's so easy to demonize a health insurance company when the truth is that in 99% of the cases, you're getting exactly what you pay for. If you are paying for an HMO instead of a more expensive insurance with more options and better coverage, you get what you deserve.

Re:Not Evil

[phildo420]

I agree. Working in the insurance industry (actuary) I work with Worker's Comp which is regulated by the states. Each state says what exactly is covered, and how it is covered, and then private insurers provide the actual insurance based on those rules. A similar arrangement for medical insurance for certain tiers: Catastrophe health insurance (car wrecks, muggings, crazy shit) would cover injuries sustained in stuff like that, as specified by the government. Preventative health insurance would cover office visits, MRI/CT/other scans for detecting and preventing serious problems. Necessary-Life Reactive insurance could cover things that were not caught/prevented such as cancer, aids, drug costs etc. Quality-Of-Life Reactive insurance would cover things that aren't directly life-threatening like arthritis. ... The point is, rather than having a purely private healthcare, or a purely public, the government could specify required levels of care for healthcare like they do for worker's comp, and then companies could evaluate and provide those costs. You'd have your card that says I have these levels of care, and you would know exactly what is covered. We already have this system for worker's comp! Why not just expand it for health insurance to make it CLEAR what is covered, and what is not - since the heaviest costs go toward figuring that out anyhow, this would create a level playing field and allow people to get the coverage they want and need. This would also allow employers to provide clearly marked levels of healthcare to make comparing benefits easier.

Re:Not Evil

[jadavis]

So, the FDA has never approved a drug that's killed anyone? Boy i'm glad they are there.

Not what I said at all. I was saying that the FDA recognizes that false cures can be deadly. Real cures can be deadly too, of course. But I was responding to the claim that "homeopathic" cures don't kill people (and they do kill people).

all i have to say is, give me one reason why any child, regardless of what economic status they come from, shouldn't be able to get medical care.

We don't have unlimited medical resources, so we can't promise unlimited medical resources to anyone.

The definition of a doctor in the US is a very highly educated individual that society has poured amazing amounts of resources into. It's illegal to provide many types of medical care if you're not one of these people.

So, as a country, the resource of doctors' time (according to our definition of doctor) is quite scarce.

It's not like there are a bunch of doctors just sitting around doing nothing; they're busy. So if we are to allocate more medical resources to a child, we have to deallocate those resources from someone else.

If you have some solution that involves freeing up doctors' time, great, I want to hear it. Or if you have something that reduces the real cost of healthcare (for instance allowing a lower tier of doctors to provide some types of care), I'm listening. Or if you want to increase the output of medical resources somehow, wonderful. But if you just want to provide the care by fiat, you sound crazy, because it's just not going to happen. There are only so many resources, and they're already in use. And a magical government declaration is unlikely to bring any of these costs down or encourage new people to become doctors.

Re:Not Evil

[moderatorrater]

Actually, as an advertiser, it is google's job to "educate" people about products or services. They're doing this through their known advertising channels which are separate from their search. They're helping the health care industry which, while definitely not perfect, isn't evil, although it's definitely broken. Where's the evil in this?

Re:Not Evil

[Xabraxas]

one thing i do NOT agree with is funds paying out to bullshit artists like naturopaths, it's a waste of money and gets nil result for a lot of money.

Oh fuck off. I have a family member that practices Chinese medicine, acupuncture, and acupressure. He didn't go to school for 8 years to be called a bullshit artist.

Re:Not Evil

[elrous0]

Because that's the side with the MONEY, of course.

It's not like "poor working mother with no insurance" is going to be buying Google ads, after all.

Re:Not Evil

[pasha2891]

Since more is trying to change public opinion in the US he has to face that there are way more people that get affected by an emotional argument than by a logical one.

Re:Not Evil

[lubricated]

it's not a free market right now. If it was and you needed a procedure(e.g. appendectomy) you could call a few hospitals and get a quote, but you can't. In fact getting a price before anything is done is next to impossible.

Re:Not Evil

[AK Marc]

No, actually, most hospitals cannot legally turn someone down because they cannot pay.

Sure they can. If I walked up to a hospital that performs rhinoplasty, told them I couldn't pay but would like a free nose job, they'd kick me out on my ass. Of course, if one with an ER had me rolled in on a cart with my arm on a separate cart, they couldn't turn me away. However, there are many things between those two. What about the choice between treatment for the rest of your life (and likely a complication taking your life early) or a transplant? If you can't pay, they can block your transplant. It may extend your life and improve your quality of life, but it isn't "necessary." The ability to pay does dictate treatment options. Hospitals can and do turn away patients all the time for ability to pay.

There are people who die waiting for treatment in Canada.

Who dies waiting for what? I have heard many "horror stories" about people with torn ACLs that have to wait a year or more for an operation, but the stories about people dying while waiting for treatment that would save their lives are mostly "I heard about a guy that said he read something about someone that died in Canada once." What are the numbers of people who die in Canada waiting on treatment? What is the treatment they are waiting for? Waiting on a lung transplant when there are no lungs to give them isn't the failure of the Canadian medical system. I would love to find a place that gave the detailed numbers of such deaths.

Re:Not Evil

[Dragonlord_Warlock]

So lets face it, we have two kinds of evil... you have mistakes and opinions that not shared by Moore, and then you have that evil which is Moore. Google is a business and they make decisions, sometimes we may not like it, business sometime (even Google) cannot please everyone at all times. Healthcare is horrid in most parts of the world, that is a fact. I cannot say all but most. It is poor condition and there many flaws in the system that seem they cannot get rid of or they lack the management skills to get rid of. But a mudslinger moron like Moore stitches propaganda composed of half truths and lies, and we believe him as gospel. Wake up people, lets realize that this guy is shoving crap into the populations mouths.

Re:Not Evil

[Ben Hutchings]

BP also cuts corners on maintenance, leading to spillage and fatal explosions.

Re:Not Evil

[fimbulvetr]

"He didn't go to school for 8 years to be called a bullshit artist."

As if any amount of schooling guarantees any sort of credibility. What sort of reasoning is that?

Re:Not Evil

[fimbulvetr]

I suspect it's because generally your employer provides you with your health insurance, and while the insurance agent would love to charge you more because they know you smoke, your employer cannot ask _you_ those types of questions, so the insurance company compensates by charging everyone a rate commensurate with the statistical average of smokers, etc.

Re:Not Evil

[fimbulvetr]

Freakenomics discusses this, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixing_Broken_Window s), in addition to other things, like how, say, the adoption (no pun intended) of abortion in the early 70s dropped crime rates 20 years later.

Re:Not Evil

[Xabraxas]

BS artists don't get degrees from qualified institutions in their respective fields. That's why they are BS artists. Otherwise they are the real thing.

Re:Not Evil

[bendodge]

Ok, you're right. I should have said socialism, not communism.

Re:Not Evil

[Magius_AR]

I know a lot of what he says is horribly misleading. But he really cant help but be correct when he talks about the health insurance industry because there are serious problems there. So what is he saying about the health insurance companies that is untrue?

I haven't seen the movie myself, but that's the whole point. The Falwells, the O'Reillys, the Cindy Sheehans, the Fred Thompsons of the world...once you exhibit enough ignorance, looniness, or bias, people are simply going to stop listening. You could say the most inspirational, poignant, groundbreaking thing, backed with facts and everything, and people won't give a damn because they know you to be nothing but a scummy liar. That's where Moore is now. He dug his own "integrity grave" with his previous tripe and now the only people that will listen to him are the extreme lefties and conspiracy nuts that have eaten up every word he said from the beginning.

I know the state of health care in this country sucks. Most people do. It's been fairly common knowledge for awhile now. However, Moore uses this movie to push some socialist agenda that would only shove our healthcare further into the crapper. People preach "universal healthcare" like it's some miracle cure that will magically just make everything work. Well, there's no such thing as a free lunch. You can't simply generate money anymore than you can spawn thousands more doctors. The problems that exist in the system exist _because_ of the government, _because_ of regulation. Think of all the social programs out there that are failing spectacularly...Welfare, Medicare, Medicare, Social Security...none of them are doing effectively what they claim they're put in place for, yet they eat up well over 50% of our taxes (and people complain about defense spending?!?). And people want to give MORE money to the government? Show me one federal program that has succeeded cheaply.

The free market, on the other hand, has time and time again proven it's effectiveness. Why not simply take the barriers out of place that keep the medical environment from being governed by the free market? Concentrate on generating competition by making prices and costs a visible component of service. Largely remove the middle men "insurers" from the picture to prevent the bullshit backdoor deals between doctors and insurers. Eliminate the insane amount of waste and overhead in the system. Cut costs by having pharma market to doctors as they should instead of people. Hell, do away with the concept of "insurance"...actually have people save and invest their youthful money in a health savings account so they actually have money to spend when they're old and actually need it instead of blowing it all on "insurance" with a sleazy promise of maybe being treated if costs aren't too high. Eliminate wasteful federal spending to put some actual dollars in the hands of people who need it. Hell, how about spending more money on educating Americans on proper diet and exercise habits. Did you ever think that perhaps the poor health in America is due to poor diet/exercise habits moreso than ineffective doctors/hospitals?

Finally, accept reality. There's a finite supply of doctors. You can't simply "give everyone healthcare" atm without either taking it away from or greatly reducing the quality of someone who can actually afford it. For all you liberals out there, since when is it morally OK to damage the health of the rich to better the health of the poor? Is it morally more "correct" for Poor Joe to get that heart surgery while Jim Millionaire dies because he's still waiting in line for a machine? If you don't think this will occur, show me the logic that allows _everyone_ access to a doctor when they need it, given finite technology, beds, and doctors? It's happened in practically every country out there that Americans praise for their "great universal healthcare".

In conclusion, you don't solve an expensive problem generated by a clusterfuck of regul

Seriously...

[Azuma Hazuki]

Does anyone actually trust any organization with more than 5 people or so when it says its motto is "don't be evil?" Even if Google doesn't actually have a cackling greybeard maniac surrounded by test tubes dreaming up evil plots, it has too many interests in too many areas to avoid hurting people when it moves to protect those interests.

Re:Seriously...

[Anonymous Coward]

Evil... Don't Be Evil... oh, btw this week we are defining evil as as synonymous with... purple! Yeah... that's the ticket! Oh and, as if you hadn't guessed, there are no rules about facilitating evil or fronting for evil. So, go forth and sin no more!

Seriously... did anyone think that once Google went to a business model based on advertising and pay-for-rank results for their clients, that they would retain the capacity NOT to be evil?! Come on already...

Re:Seriously...

[heinousjay]

I don't trust any single person to not be evil. Morality is far too subjective.

Of course

[Xonstantine]

because, as we all know, Michael Moore is always about the greater good.

Cuba has a great medical system...as long as you are one of the elites.

The United States has an even better medical system...as long as you can pay for it. And your changes of being able to pay for it in the United States are better than your chances of being one of the elite in Cuba.

Re:Of course

[WilliamSChips]

Do you realize that healthcare is the largest cause of debt in the United States? That's fucked up.

That fact alone is more persuasive than the entire Michael Moore film. Michael Moore's real talent lies not in persuasion but in playing with the people in power as if they were kitty toys. The reactions they cause would be hilarious were it not for the fact that these were the guys running the nation--example, during the 2000 elections when MM got Alan Keyes to mosh in a pit with his friends from Rage Against the Machine Gary Bauer's quote pretty much outdoes anything I could actually say about it:

Alan, a couple of weeks ago, you criticized my good friend John McCain because he expressed some support of or interest in a controversial music group [McCain had claimed to be a fan of Nine Inch Nails]. In view of that I was a little surprised this week to see you fall in to a mosh pit while a band called "The Machine Rages On," or "Rage Against the Machine" played [Bauer is either genuinely ignorant or trying to distance himself from actually knowing the name of such an evil bandboth seem plausible]. That band is anti-family. It's pro-cop killer, and it's pro-terrorist. He then goes on to falsely claim it's what the kids at Columbine listened to.

Re:Of course

[uolamer]

The US medical system is great if you can pay for it. I really do not know much about Cuba besides what i would consider a 'one sided view' presented in SiCKO. But I have been to many EU countries and Canada. Medication sure is cheaper, on top of general universal health care. Downside from what I have seen is waiting lists depending on the country. In New Zealand I knew someone on a waiting list for a few years to get their tonsils removed, but if it would have ever became a serious issue they would have done it right then and just like in the US they could have just paid to have it done then. From what I saw New Zealand was struggling a bit economically. Canada seemed better, as well did Britain, I have never been to France, Germany, or the other EU countries.

The Medicare Part D plan here in the US seemed not help, possibly made things worse. My grandmother has to spend $500 to $1000 a month on medication, that is quite hard on most people of her age. One of my dads good friends went bankrupt paying his late wifes medical bills, then later committed suicide. Talk about 'if you can afford it' if you ever get diagnosed with something expensive enough to ruin most people.

Google seems to slowly get more creepy and evil. They are no there yet, but I personally do not like Yahoo/Google/etc catering to the Chinese government, screwing with search results, etc.

Re:Of course

[asuffield]

The United States has an even better medical system...as long as you can pay for it. And your changes of being able to pay for it in the United States are better than your chances of being one of the elite in Cuba.

Amusingly enough, that's not entirely true. One of Moore's major points was that in the US, even if you have health insurance, they still won't pay for anything if they can find any excuse not to - and they put a lot of effort into finding excuses not to.

You know all those pages and pages of terms and conditions that came with your policy, that you didn't really study carefully? As soon as you want any money, they're going to go over every line with a fine-tooth comb, and if you forgot to dot an 'i' or cross a 't', they won't pay.

The only way to get reliable access to the medical system in the US is if you are so wealthy that you can pay your own medical bills, without relying on an insurance company. That's something in the region of the top 1% of the population. The rest are screwed (this means YOU).

Re:Of course

[blibbler]

It is interesting to note that while the GDP per capita of Cuba is estimated at less than $4000, and the USA is well over 10 times that (at $44000) the life expectancy in Cuba is only one year less than the US (at 77 compared to 78)

Re:Of course

[The One and Only]

The reactions they cause would be hilarious were it not for the fact that these were the guys running the nation--example, during the 2000 elections when MM got Alan Keyes to mosh in a pit with his friends from Rage Against the Machine

Something tells me this was a bad example.

Re:Of course

[arthurpaliden]

Except of course for the 45 Million Americans who cannot afford it and have no insurance.

What Cuba has is an excellent 'low tech proactive health care system for every one' as opposed to the United States which does not. It has high tech medicine availible for those who can pay. In Cuba I can go to a doctor as soon as I feel unwell. I will then be treated usually preventing my illness, say pneumonia, from getting worse. I know the visit to the doctor is 'free' as opposed to in the United States where I only go to the Emergency room when I am nearly dead because I cannot afford to go to a doctor at the beginning of the illness and then the state has to pick up the entire cost on my hospital stay.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 (more) insightful.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Cuba has a great medical system...as long as you are one of the elites.

The United States has an even better medical system...as long as you can pay for it.

It amounts to the same.

Re:Of course

[mangastudent]

And you believe the Cuban statistics???

Don't you remember the Soviet census guy who was sent to the Gulag (or executed) when Stalin's various purges (plus the Ukraine terror famine) started to make a big dent in the total Soviet population?

Nothing they published after that could be believed. The nomenklatura in Cuba have no need of published honest statistics, and it is the nature of such regimes that internal supposedly honest statistics are often faked by underlings who don't want to get the chop for not making something impossible happen when ordered from on high.

Re:Of course

[the_womble]

Cuba has a great medical system...as long as you are one of the elites.

You do realise that the point of comparing the US with Cuba is that Cuba is a poor country with free medical services for everyone and the US is a rich country with limited access?

I have no doubt healthcare in the US is much better than in Cuba, if you have insurance, or if you can afford to pay for it.

The lack of free healthcare in the US is unusual for a developed country. The provision of a high standard of free healthcare in Cuba is unusual for a poor country.

Re:Of course

[poopdeville]

Yes. I worked for a medical bill auditing company that was trying to expand into automated Medicare PD bill review. It is a huge cluster fuck. For one thing, billing codes (as in codes referring to procedures and medications) have only recently started becoming standardized. The governmet sets limits as to how much they're willing to spend on a procedure -- they vary by market. Granted, this is more-or-less fair. There's no reason to screw New York city hospitals with Kansas City rates. But this complicates things too, as a hospital system might own a monopoly on hospital services in a city, and drive prices up in that market.

Fraud is very common, as is double billing or "unbundling" -- some procedures medically require others to be performed, so when the cost of the first is calculated, it includes the cost of the others. Unbundling is basically a sophisticated form of double billing where the the requisite procedures are billed on top of the procedure that required them. Most people don't fight this, thinking that the "big" procedure was just really expensive.

Re:Of course

[Twiceblessedman]

and Norway, Sweden and Canada and other socialist countries have even better ones where it's a right other than the US where you have to put yourself in severe debt to get the health care you need.

Re:Of course

[Lemmy Caution]

My Peruvian relatives go to Cuba for many kinds of treatment (they're not quite the elite, but they're doing well enough that, um, half of the family has been able to move to the US. The rest are struggling a bit, but can save enough to go to Cuba if needed.) They have to pay for their care, because they aren't citizens of Cuba, but it is still reasonable, particularly for some otherwise expensive techniques (heart surgery for one relative, some serious orthopedics for another.)

However, for emergency care, I actually was quite well taken care of in Peru, last time I went there and needed it. And I received that care from an ambulance, without anyone checking either my passport or whether I had the means to pay for something fancy. Latin America is, I'll admit, kind of "2 and 1/2" World rather than 3rd World proper, but still, I've had worse medical experiences in the US - both without and with insurance - than I did in Peru.

If I could live in Peru and commute to the US for my career, I would. Sadly, the mileage is a little extreme.

Re:Of course

[Xonstantine]

Amusingly enough, that's not entirely true. One of Moore's major points was that in the US, even if you have health insurance, they still won't pay for anything if they can find any excuse not to - and they put a lot of effort into finding excuses not to.

Sorry, I must've not been clear. If you are rich, you don't need insurance, or can afford good insurance. At which point you can afford top flight medical care from top flight doctors. I realize that most Americans (and yes, I'm one of them) fall into the "whatever my employer provides" bucket for insurance. Insurance companies, of course, have a built in incentive to deny claims...it increases their bottom line.

There are lots of problems with the US medical system. Lack of government involvment, however, really isn't one of them. There are a couple of no-brainers that would greatly improve things, however like: 1) let individuals buy insurance from out of state companies and 2) let individuals deduct insurance and other medical expenses from their end of year taxes (rather than, at best, the not-very-good Medical Savings Plan).

Re:Of course

[Xonstantine]

Except of course for the 45 Million Americans who cannot afford it and have no insurance.

Here's a little not-so-secret secret. Many of the 45 million uninsured Americans voluntarily choose not to have insurance even though they could afford it (for example, 20-somethings who choose to have $150 a month extra partying money).

The poor in America actually have insurance via medicaid. It's the largely the lower middle class that is screwed during any major medical event.

Re:Of course

[Hal_Porter]

I notice he usually seems to humiliate African American conservatives like Alan Keyes and Clarence Thomas far more than white ones. Guess us black people are ok only so long as we support the Democrats, otherwise it's a lynchin', right. Still I guess the Republican party freed the slaves back when most southern Democrats were KKK sympathizers and some things never change.

Actually, there seems to be a strong strand of racism and sexism running through the rabid left. Look at the sort of comments Michelle Malkin has to put up with on her blog. I think the Republicans should nominate Condoleeza Rice as their Presidential candidate actually. A gay black woman should be able to beat Hilary or that puppet Obama.

Re:Of course

[pudge]

There are lots of problems with the US medical system. Lack of government involvment, however, really isn't one of them. There are a couple of no-brainers that would greatly improve things, however like: 1) let individuals buy insurance from out of state companies and 2) let individuals deduct insurance and other medical expenses from their end of year taxes (rather than, at best, the not-very-good Medical Savings Plan). And while we're at it, let's reform the patent system for drugs. Maybe if the taxpayers pay for it, don't give a patent, or give it for shorter terms, and certainly don't EXTEND the patent beyond the original terms (even if the taxpayers didn't pay for it, because then the taxpayers pay for it).

Re:Of course

[sunwukong]

I think the Republicans should nominate Condoleeza Rice as their Presidential candidate actually. A gay black woman should be able to beat Hilary or that puppet Obama. Do you have a source? Or I have been mesmerized too long by that gap in the teeth to notice the rumours/signs.

Re:Of course

[damiam]

To be fair, Alan Keyes and Clarence Thomas are pretty easy targets.

Re:Of course

[Pig Hogger]

Cuba has a great medical system...as long as you are one of the elites.

Actually not. Everyone is guaranteed by law the best care possible. Just like Canada.

However, the US **HAS** a great medical system... As long as you are one of the élites.

Re:Of course

[FooAtWFU]

Do you realize that healthcare is the largest cause of debt in the United States? That's fucked up. Health care is expensive. Doctors, nurses, pharma companies who want a return on the billions they poured into drug research. It's really a fantastic luxury of the modern world. A century ago, how much of it even existed?

There are millions of people living in poverty without clean water, dying of AIDS or malaria, crippled or diseased. Meanwhile, in the United States, bright young people are expending their youth, working their rear end off for years while going deep into debt for medical school... investors are throwing billions of dollars of perfectly good money at drug research (in the hope of a return).... and people have such a sense of entitlement to all this work, and they're outraged that they can't have it on the cheap. Fancy that.

Yeah, there's adequate room to complain about the system taking advantage of people unfairly. Health care isn't exactly a perfectly competitive industry, so the hospitals do get to play price-fixing games and such. But it will never be cheap, just subsidized. Which basically means that someone else (in fact, every single taxpayer in the country) is paying thousands of dollars so you don't have to. I wish I could get that sort of a deal for everything I did...

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

because, as we all know, Michael Moore is always about the greater good.

OK, somebody has got to say it. I've followed most of MM's career and I would have to say that, yeah, he is. He's made some bloopers and done a couple of real asshole things (Heston Interview?) but far fewer than his opponents would have you believe. Unlike most television "reporters" he doesn't just read official statements. He does his research, checks his facts and generally makes an effort to tell the truth. When he does exaggerate or portray things in a slanted light I believe that he does so with the greater good in mind. I don't think this is wrong. For example, a dry factual explanation of the function of the House Rules Committee does not inspire nearly the outrage that, with any reason, one could consider appropriate "for the greater good". America is at war and the weapons are TV stations, websites and videophones. I believe MM to be on our side.

Re:Of course

[esrobinson]

[...] and then the state has to pick up the entire cost on my hospital stay.

That, of course, is what everyone who is for universial health care (myself included) thinks should happen every time.

Re:Of course

[Prof.Phreak]

20-somethings who choose to have $150 a month extra partying money

That's assuming you're employed with insurance. Ever priced self-employed insurance? It's -way- more than $150 a month. A friend of mine pays $1500 a month. It just about approaches his mortgage, and in a few years (due to inflation), it will surpass it. Isn't that a bit ridiculous?

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

This is insightful? "These statistics aren't that favourable to me, so they must be lies. Yeah, that's it. There from a filthy commie country, so it must all be lies. There, point refuted."

How can you believe the US statistics in that case then? There's gain for them to lie to, so I guess they must be lying.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

i actually have insurance as a self-employed contract worker. . . i forget exactly how much i pay per month (not at home right now to check the bill stubs) but if i remember correctly it's about $300/month. . . maybe $350/month. . . and that's after it went up recently 'cuz i hit a higher age bracket. . .

i mean, i'm assuming you're telling the truth and that your friend really does pay $1,500/month, but i'm guessing maybe he's old (relative to a 20-something) and has a wife and kids to cover or something?. . . 'cuz if he's a single, relatively healthy 20-something you might wanna tell your friend to shop around a bit 'cuz he'd probably get a better deal elsewhere. . .

again, i forget how much i used to pay as a self-employed dude in my late 20s but i'm pretty sure it was around $200/month. . .

Re:Of course

[Phoobarnvaz]

Except of course for the 45 Million Americans who cannot afford it and have no insurance.

You forgot to mention the situation that even when you can afford the insurance...there are people who can not get insurance...except for that from the job. For instance...if you're 1 pound over the limit in their weight chart or have a pre-existing condition...no amount of money will buy a policy.

Re:Of course

[jay2003]

Cuba has a great medical system...as long as you are one of the elites.

US has per capita GDP 10x of Cuba ( 43,500 vs 4,000 That any comparison can be made between the health care system in Cuba and the US says there is something seriously wrong with the health care system in US, especially because the US spends highest percentage of GDP of any nation in the world

A huge per capita GDP coupled with spending with the highest percentage of the GDP ought to produce the best health care system in the world by an indisputable margin but it doesn't.

Re:Of course

[HiThere]

When I was in my twenties, I'm fairly certain that my health insurance would have been less than $200/month. Of course that was quite awhile ago. The HMOs were just getting started. Fortunately I was covered independently, first as a military dependent (I believe that coverage has been dropped, but I'm not certain), then under my father's job coverage through my years in college. Then I was employed. I've never had any trouble.

But I know a few doctors, and Michael Moore is essentially right. He overstates his case at times, and I'm reasonably convinced that everyone in the film knew they were being filmed, and why, so it's definitely a propaganda piece. (He doesn't hide that. When I watched it I noted his expressive use of a cynical expression, when he clearly means the opposite.) But he's essentially correct.

I'm sure that a single payer system that's worse than our current system could be devised, and we may see that happen. This doesn't mean that it couldn't be done well, or that many countries haven't done it well. From what I've heard, they generally have. And were I a Canadian, I wouldn't want to visit the US without a prepaid insurance that was guaranteed by a company that was subject to Canadian laws. Still, I suspect that as being one of the staged conversations...as in "everybody had a script and knew their lines". In other cases I suspect that he just shot a lot of footage and was selective about what ended up on the cutting room floor. And he's still correct.

Think of it as a docudrama. It's partially a documentary, and partially a drama. But the basic facts behind it are true. I know a 9-11 worker, and he has been sick since then. In his case I don't believe that his insurance has been cut off, and he works (or worked?) at Kaiser. I don't see him much anymore for totally unrelated reasons...so I don't know his exact status. I don't believe that he was as sick as anyone that was depicted in the movie. But he's still sick, and it's not clear that he will ever be well again. And he's not getting a whole lot of support. He's not complaining, but I'm not sure he would if he knew he were dying. He's rather close-mouthed.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

pharma companies who want a return on the billions they poured into marketing

FTFY

Re:Of course

[Cocoshimmy]

I beg to differ. Healthcare CAN be much cheaper and is cheaper in every other country on earth. It is cheaper for every single country that provides universal healthcare (see WHO report and here). There are several measures that confirm this: the percentage of GDP spent on healthcare in the US is higher than everywhere else, the total amount spent per capita is higher than anywhere else, government expenditure per capita in the US is higher than anywhere else with the exception of one Iceland and Norway. Despite this, only 85% of the US population (at best) are covered by some form of healthcare (for many this is some crappy HMO or other crappy insurance which doesn't cover much).

So I don't think you can make the argument that in other countries its simply cheaper because it's subsidized by everybody. It's cheaper because its run under a more efficient and more effective system. The total amount of money going into the system (from individuals, corporations and government) is less, and you are getting significantly more (healthcare coverage for everyone). In fact, if the US could implement a system similar to that of Germany's, Canada's or the UK's, it would probably SAVE you money and provide you with better care.

Re:Of course

[Cocoshimmy]

The healthcare coverage that my company provides (which is a large company with 10,000+ employees listed on the NYSE), costs my company $1100 a month. I know this because a colleague of mine recently quit and under the COBRA program that is how much he is paying. (FYI, COBRA is a federal program that allows individuals to pay group rates for their company's insurance up 6 months after they quit or are laid off).

Anyways, $1100/month which is the negotiated group rate for 10,000+ employees that a company pays on behalf of its employees so it's quite possible that private healthcare, assuming it's quality is somewhat reasonable and you don't have a pre-existing condition, could likely cost about $1,500/month.

Re:Of course

[bryan1945]

And how long does it take someone to get a procedure done? My dad had to have gall bladder surgery (funny, I think someone already mentioned this above), and he had it 2 days later. When my wife had a toothache (later to be discovered as a cavity), she saw the dentist the same day. Is laser corrective eye surgery covered (true, only partially covered here)? How long does it take to see a doctor if you have an earache?

Sure, everyone elsewhere gets to see a doctor for free or reduced rates or however the individual country does it for normal and routine stuff, and for really bad emergency stuff, where does the middle things fall? Sure a toothache or an earache is not an emergency, but at least in the US if you are not covered by insurance you can go to a local clinic and pay upfront to see someone right away to make the problem and pain go away now.

Everyone keeps targeting how cheap it is. Yes, I'm lucky to have insurance through my wife's company. Before we were married my wife didn't have insurance so she had to rely on a clinic, and though expensive at least she could go quickly when she needed to (diabetic with some complications).

Re:Of course

[mangastudent]

Errr, we have a sustained example of Communist countries falsifying their statistics, and in some cases with Cuba, they are internally contradictory.

And what makes you think I entirely believe the US Government produced ones?

E.g. the changes in how "unemployment" is scored alone make it useless to compare over long periods of time. One source I haven't followed up on said that if we counted it like we did in the Great Depression (e.g. included "discouraged" workers who have given up on trying to find a job), the current rate would be closer to about 12.5%, half of the peak in the Depression. Which would explain why this recovery doesn't feel so healthy....

And while I haven't investigated this myself, the CPI is very unlikely to be entirely honest, too much of the government's tax income and benefits output is tied to it. Buying CPI indexed bonds, when the government defines the CPI, seems like a particularly foolish thing to do.

Re:Of course

[Cocoshimmy]

It of course depends on the procedure.

My mom was diagnosed with Breast cancer in Vancouver, Canada and the doctors started chemotherapy within a few days.

As for routine stuff, it too gets taken care of immediately. You can schedule an appointment with your own doctor or go to a walk in clinic at any time. There are plenty of walk in clinics in Canada where one can see a doctor fairly quickly. If you need to see a specialist (neurologist, ear nose and throat, etc), all you need to do is go to a doctor (or walk in clinic) and get a referral. If the doctor can fix you're ailment he will and if not, he'll give you a referral. Of course getting an appointment with the specialist could take several weeks but this is no different from the US where the wait time is just a function of how many specialists are in the area relative to the population. Things like earaches and your wife's diabetes related conditions are probably things that can be dealt with relatively quickly.

I will admit that optional surgeries requiring a hospital do take longer in Canada as there are waiting lists created for these things. This stems the from the fact that there are limited resources such as hospital beds. Usually this means things like non-post-traumatic cosmetic surgeries, non-essential knee surgery, deviated septum surgery, sex changes, etc. However, seeing as 90% of the population is within 90 miles of the US border anyways, one always have the option of going to the US for surgery.

As for toothaches and other dental issues, this is an irrelevant discussion since Dental Care is not covered with universal healthcare in Canada.

Re:Of course

[Cocoshimmy]

I also forgot to mention, that as far as I know, laser surgery isn't covered in Canada except in extreme cases.

Also, one point which is not mentioned often is that you have the option to purchase whats called extended health insurance or dental insurance in Canada which most employers provide basically for free. It covers all the stuff not covered under MSP (medical services plan - the name of the universal system) such as massages, laser eye surgery, eye glasses/contacts and dental care.

Re:Of course

[bigbigbison]

No one is forcing these people to go into medicine. I don't know but maybe it is just me but it would seem that if you go into an industry that is about helping people and saving lives maybe you shouldn't be making money. It may be just me but it seems wrong to expect to make a profit off of sick people.

Re:Of course

[Snaller]

"Do you realize that healthcare is the largest cause of debt in the United States? "

Proof or its just a lie.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's why I kept paying Canadian tax when I was working as contract in NYC. Like my mom said, be grateful, the surgery that I had cost more than all the tax I paid up to that point (3 doctors and 4 nurse, one of the doctor is brain specilaist and radiologist), stay in hospial for a few days, and numerous pre-op, post-op CAT scan and contrast MRI.

From my perspective, if I had the same surgery in US, the outcome will probably be the same except I will be in debt ... probably still paying the bank, my parents probably had to mortgage their only asset, the house. (US tax isn't that much better)

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, he's an idiot then. He should pay for catastrophic insurance (covers high cost medical), and sock away the rest of the money for minor medical stuff. Most likely, he'll end up way ahead in the end.

Re:Of course

[WilliamSChips]

Michael Moore put the Presidential Mosh Pit challenge to every single candidate. Keyes was the only one who agreed to it.

Re:Of course

[FooAtWFU]

You're right. No one is forcing them to go into medicine. And if the only reason to go into medicine was for charity, then you'd see a whole lot fewer doctors, you can guarantee it.

At the minimum, they'd all need someone else to pay for med school.

Re:Of course

[Rich0]

And while we're at it, let's reform the patent system for drugs. Maybe if the taxpayers pay for it, don't give a patent, or give it for shorter terms, and certainly don't EXTEND the patent beyond the original terms (even if the taxpayers didn't pay for it, because then the taxpayers pay for it).

The problem is that the taxpayers don't generally pay for drug R&D. They certainly pay for very early blue-sky research, but most of the costs come in at a much later stage.

It is kind of like saying that a state-of-the-art hard drive technology should be unpatented because Maxwell figured out magnetism a long time ago. While there is no question that without Maxwell's laws that nobody would be building hard drives, it isn't the whole picture.

I'm actually in favor of the NIH doing some beginning-to-end drug development as an experiment. They could even subcontract to big pharma if it made sense economically, while retaining all patent rights. The resulting products would be licensed royalty-free to any US manufacturer (only fair since the US taxpayers funded it, not that it would stop others from copying it anyway). The resulting pills would be very cheap - as cheap as anything available over-the-counter. Of course, you would pay for it in your taxes. People could see firsthand whether it made sense economically. However, I don't think it would significantly reduce the costs of medicines - just how they are paid for. You could probably get the same effect by just making all drugs free and having government pay the $5/pill to some big pharma company. But, if the publicly-funded system works out really well then it will take off as people will want to fund it further. And if it bombs you haven't put the whole pharma industry out of business.

Of course, this model still doesn't deal with the fact that US citizens fund drug R&D for the entire world. But US citizens already pay for the defense costs of half the world as well - at least they'd get to pick what drugs get researched under this model...

Re:Of course

[Rich0]

You know all those pages and pages of terms and conditions that came with your policy, that you didn't really study carefully? As soon as you want any money, they're going to go over every line with a fine-tooth comb, and if you forgot to dot an 'i' or cross a 't', they won't pay.

That actually isn't equally true for all insurers, and the same thing happens in other industries as well. Usually the cheapest companies tend to be the stingiest. When you hear an ad about saving a heap on your car insurance make sure you look into whether they actually settle claims - it is really easy to offer cheap insurance if you don't actually insure anything.

One solution to this problem might be to require insurers to publicize some kind of metrics on how often they pay out for various conditions, and what percentage of premiums get paid back out.

I've had my health insurance pay out tens of thousands of dollars for major surgery (the unnegotiated rate was in the hundreds of thousands), and while I've had a billing mistake or two along the way I've gotten them fixed by sending them a note on their website the few times that it has happened. The difference is that my insurance probably costs quite a bit more than some of the plans featured in Moore's film.

I'm all for nailing insurance companies that don't pay out on claims to the wall, but that doesn't fundamentally make the concept a bad one.

Moore has some valid points in his film, but many of his points aren't valid. For example he spends quite a bit of time complaining about denials for pre-existing conditions. That is only true if you go from no insurance to buying insurance. If you just switch jobs/plans/etc you're fully covered. The reason this policy exists is because of what would happen if it didn't - people would just not buy insurance AT ALL and insurance brokers would sell it to you while you were waiting in the ER waiting room. Why pay for insurance before you actually need it if you don't have to? People shouldn't wait until they are diagnosed with a serious disease before buying insurance. Now, the quibbling over technicalities and yeast infections is a whole different matter.

Don't get me wrong - the system needs reform. But, unsurprisingly Moore is offering sound bites and ignoring the serious issues. It works good as an attention-getter, and we should be paying more attention to the problem. But, the solution isn't a dreamland where you work 35 hours/week with 10 weeks of vacation, have unlimited sick time, and if you just aren't feeling up to work you can take off three months to visit the south of France with pay. Sounds great - but it doesn't really work that way (just ask an unemployed Frenchman - they make up 8.7% of the population).

Re:Of course

[pudge]

And while we're at it, let's reform the patent system for drugs. Maybe if the taxpayers pay for it, don't give a patent, or give it for shorter terms, and certainly don't EXTEND the patent beyond the original terms (even if the taxpayers didn't pay for it, because then the taxpayers pay for it). The problem is that the taxpayers don't generally pay for drug R&D. They certainly pay for very early blue-sky research, but most of the costs come in at a much later stage. It depends on the drug. And yes, I didn't get into this in-depth, but my basic idea is that patent terms should be decreased proportionate to how much the taxpayers paid for it (which, yes, means the government retains the right to audit you if you accept any money). And there should NEVER be ANY extensions of patent terms (whether or not the taxpayers picked up part of the bill).

Re:Of course

[Rich0]

The 9-11 workers were an interesting case. Those who provided aid in the first week or two after the attack should be treated to good care at government expense - whether they were called to the scene or not - as long as they complied with general safety directions at the scene and wore any provided protective equipment.

That might sound a bit over-qualified to some. One person interviewed in Sicko mentioned working as a rescue worker (unsolicited) for several months on the scene. The fact is that NOBODY needed to be rescued after about a week or two - it was just hopeful thinking at that point. The problem is that politically the police couldn't go arrest volunteers for trespassing. Volunteers just weren't needed after the first week or two. The problem is that volunteers feel like it is their right to pitch in, and don't necessarily comply with safety requirements (respirators among other things), and nobody is necessarily funding equipment for people who don't really need to be there.

Don't get me wrong - when there was the possibility of saving lives I'm all for good samaritians stepping in, and if they hurt themselves in the process of saving others in a large-scale disaster then there is cause for some government funding. My issue is that many who worked at ground zero after the initial rescue effort weren't really there to save others - they were there to meet some need in themselves. They themselves needed care of a different sort. It would have been much cheaper to fund psychologists for everyone rather than fund lung operations five years later. But, you can't walk around NYC asking heros to go home without ending up hung on a girder.

Morally there are really only two options - one is for government to pay for care, but then government gets to make sure you take care of yourself (ie tough luck if you want to help out with the rubble pile). The other is that you get to do whatever you want to your own body, but now I get to question whether I should pay for it.

Don't get me wrong - my heart goes out to those suffering from the 9-11 related injuries. I think full funding of care for emergency responders is appropriate, as well as volunteers during the first week or two as long as they complied with any orders being given by those overseeing efforts. And I think those in charge of the scene should have taken more responsibility to safeguard the lives of people who did show up after they were no longer needed - they should have had the courage to turn people away when the project was just a demolition exercise. Perhaps that error means that we should pay for the resulting health care costs - I don't know that I know the answer to that question for sure. However, it isn't an unfair question to ask...

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

You're talking about a caddilac plan. A 20-something guy who is healthy needs a $10,000 deductable plan, which should be far, far less than that.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize that healthcare is the largest cause of debt in the United States? That's fucked up.

Well something has to be. I'm not sure why spending money on maintaining your own health is a bad thing. Would you prefer that the largest cause of debt be buying Brittany Spears albums?

Re:Of course

[TooMuchToDo]

I've just recently become self-employed, and had health insurance priced through State Farm (who also handles my car and home insurance). I'm a 24 year old healthy male, non-smoker. Assurant quoted my insurance out at $133/month (which would include dental and term life insurance on the order of $6 million). Me thinks your friend needs to look around more for insurance.

Re:Of course

[HiThere]

The person to whom I was referring was called to the scene from the SF Bay area. He went as a volunteer, but he was given time-off to do it by Kaiser. He was called in as a communications coordinator. I wouldn't have exptected him to be closely exposed to fumes, asbestos, etc., but he said that he was.

I'm sure that the people that you are describing also existed. I'm not certain into which category the volunteers in the film fell. OTOH, even those who were there officially (i.e., not as volunteers) have not received adequate follow-up coverage once the publicity died down. (To the extent that I know, better that those depicted in the film, but not adequate.)

Re:Of course

[Rich0]

Your proposal seems fine enough, although the exact terms should be decided upon up-front. Ie, companies shouldn't have to do a full R&D project before they find out what the patent life will be. It can't just be a matter of cost though - otherwise companies will just waste money like Bell Telephone used to (why do you think they had so many Nobel laureates - they got paid for every dollar they spent on anything remotely phone-related).

Most patent extensions are usually a good thing - that is the actual intentional extensions awarded by the FDA for pediatric and orphan drug testing. Now, the patent games that companies play on their own is a different matter - that needs to be punished harshly. However, if it weren't for the pediatric extensions most companies wouldn't bother testing their drugs on children. The drug companies are usually in the best place to actually perform this testing, so the 6 month extension seems sensible. Now, there might be other ways to fund it other than patent extensions. And that might actually be more equitable (using taxes and paying companies in cash rather than patent life puts the cost on taxpayers rather than the sick).

Patent games were in fashion a number of years ago, but I don't think it happens as often now. Only a few companies played the game - some stayed out of it. It was just so obviously unethical that it was a massive PR problem. Patents are a deal between society and a company - we do this for you, and you do this for us. That is fair. Playing games to avoid the intent of the law is not.

Re:Of course

[Srikant]

Actually, those pages are only the start. I actually tried to find out precisely what treatments are covered (i.e. considered "medically necessary", the language used in the contract) and that is tens or even hundreds of thousands of pages long, since there are several pages for each diagnosis code. Try reading that during the term of the contract! (Even your lifetime is probably not going to be enough.) Anyway, after about $5,000 in medical bills which did not even cover the initial diagnostic tests (my copay was about $2000), I ended up going to India to get the treatment.

To parent post, yes, the waiting time was really long in the socialist national health care system. I had to wait four HOURS in the queue for my specialist appointments at the grand cost of 22c each, five DAYS for my EMG (free), would have had to wait for about six DAYS for the MRI which isn't subsidised as it is considered premium which is reasonable for one of the world's poorest countries but considering this interminable wait, I got it done privately where the queue was two HOURS and the cost about $120.

This compares to the really short waiting times in the US. In the fancy university hospital here, it took one MONTH to see a specialist, another MONTH to get the EMG (was not even completely done as it turned out but was really cheap at only $1700), the doctor wouldn't get the necessary MRI unless other results were in since he wasn't sure whether the insurance would cover it.

Oh yeah, you might be very interested in this very nice bridge in New York that I have to sell. :)

Re:Of course

[p'g,fr4g.r]

""There are lots of problems with the US medical system. Lack of government involvment, however, really isn't one of them. There are a couple of no-brainers that would greatly improve things, however like: 1) let individuals buy insurance from out of state companies and ""

the supreme court would probably find that violates interstate commerce blah blah.

""2) let individuals deduct insurance and other medical expenses from their end of year taxes (rather than, at best, the not-very-good Medical Savings Plan).""

ugh, no. get rid of all the stupid deductions. tax in relation to cost (and then ability to pay). so eg, the feds need to (reduce income tax, and) begin collecting property tax, since much of fed govt activity relates to property.

"And while we're at it, let's reform the patent system for drugs. Maybe if the taxpayers pay for it, don't give a patent, or give it for shorter terms, and certainly don't EXTEND the patent beyond the original terms (even if the taxpayers didn't pay for it, because then the taxpayers pay for it)."

yep.

Re:Of course

[pudge]

""There are lots of problems with the US medical system. Lack of government involvment, however, really isn't one of them. There are a couple of no-brainers that would greatly improve things, however like: 1) let individuals buy insurance from out of state companies and "" the supreme court would probably find that violates interstate commerce blah blah. I can't see any potential Constitutional violations here. (That wasn't my idea, for the record.)

""2) let individuals deduct insurance and other medical expenses from their end of year taxes (rather than, at best, the not-very-good Medical Savings Plan)."" ugh, no. get rid of all the stupid deductions. Well, it's a good idea, given the income tax system we have, which isn't going away. Sure, we can say income tax is a bad thing, but that's not going to happen any time soon, so we need to work within the system we have, and deductions are a good way to do that. (That wasn't my idea, either, but I think it's probably a good thing.)

the feds need to ... begin collecting property tax, since much of fed govt activity relates to property. I think that's a terrible idea. The last thing we need is the feds getting involved in the determining the valuation of our property. And what happens if you don't pay? They take your property? But what if you paid the state tax and not the federal tax? Then the feds take it (even though by rights it belongs to the state), so they start paying taxes to the state, and get nothing out of it in return unless the can sell it ... talk about "ugh"!

I am all for getting rid of federal income tax, but no way should the feds collect property tax. If we're going to talk about the unlikely anyway, let's just say that we can force the federal government to cut spending, and then we can cut the income tax without replacing it with anything. But if we must replace it, it should be with a sales tax.

Re:Of course

[bryan1945]

Thanks for the reply- I really didn't know except for what is sloshed around here on /. Sounds like a decent system. Of course, I have no hope that the US government could implement such a system without totally screwing it up, and essentially end up just like we are now. They would probably have "tiered services" where one could purchase "upgraded coverage", or something like that.

I know that the US system is totally off-kilter, but I have no idea how to fix it, sadly.

Hope your mom is ok.

Re:Of course

[AK Marc]

Yes, if you get worthless insurance, you'll not pay much for it. But what about someone that wants the "caddilac plan" that is no better than what the average large company provides? I would think that should be the Chevy plan, and you are suggesting the "broken-down Yugo" plan. To get the same as the average large company provides, you'll pay $1500 per month or more, and your company would be paying about $1100 per month for it, like stated above. I know my company's insurance costs, and that's about right.

Incredible!

[Anonymous Coward]

BILL FRIST POST.

google doesn't do evil by protecting evil

[Leontes]

Oh come on. They aren't in the humanity protecting business; they aren't some sort of superhero company. I hate bloodthirsty health professionals as much as the next rabid liberal, but seriously, google needs to protect their clients over doing what amounts to activism. This doesn't mean that smart company folk won't laugh or smile or be joyous when these clients eventually go under: but you have to play your part if someone is giving you money, it's kinda the way things work.

Re:google doesn't do evil by protecting evil

[asuffield]

They aren't in the humanity protecting business; they aren't some sort of superhero company.

And with the words "it's not our problem", the dissenters were shot, the unwanted were burned in their homes, and the world descended into war, again.

The only thing required for all this to happen is for all the people with an opportunity to stop it to do nothing. Nobody is in the business of "protecting humanity" and there aren't any superhero companies, so if those are the only ones who do anything about it, we're all dead.

That is not a good excuse for doing nothing.

Re:google doesn't do evil by protecting evil

[casings]

So by your logic all of those tobacco, alcohol, firearm lobbies are just doing their part and not actually evil. Trying to spin coverage of a practices pretty universal unethical practices is unethical. If you believe the healthcare companies practice is ethical and you feel like you need to defend it, thats great and you are entitled to your opinion, but the majority of the western world disagrees with you, more importantly the majority of ethical intellectuals disagrees with you.

Protect an unethical corporation/system all you would like. Just don't claim to be doing "good".

Google went a long way with their don't be evil slogan, but now that they are public, it is my opinion that it is time to put it to rest, because it just ain't true no more.

Re:google doesn't do evil by protecting evil

[nido]

I hate bloodthirsty health professionals ... The healthcare professionals aren't the bad guys - they're just doing the best they know how for their clients (patients). What most don't realize is how their medical education has been coopted by pharmaceutical companies. In the early 1900's, the Carnegie foundation financed the Flexner Report, which was used to start shutting down about 1/2 of the country's medical schools. Closures fell disproportionately on for-profit schools, because the curiculum at schools which operated on grants could be influenced easier. I have a 1965 book which talked about a coming doctor shortage, which is an obvious consequence of closing so many of the country's medical schools... 100 Years of Medical Robbery is a good piece on the medical scam, as is the followup, "Real Medical Freedom".

Insurance Companies are Evil.
Pharmaceutical Companies are Evil.
Medical Professionals do the best they can in a system which is rigged against them.

Re:google doesn't do evil by protecting evil

[Descalzo]

...they're just doing the best they know how for their clients (patients).

I disagree. Their clients are not the patients, their clients are the insurance companies. The patients are the subjects.

Re:google doesn't do evil by protecting evil

[glarbl_blarbl]

So by your logic all of those tobacco, alcohol, firearm lobbies are just doing their part and not actually evil. Trying to spin coverage of a practices pretty universal unethical practices is unethical.

Ugh. Is it really unethical to drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, or go shoot a gun? Personally, I don't think so. At least I can take some consolation in the fact that you recognize the fundamental inconsistency of the war on (some) drugs. It should be just as illegal to smoke and drink as it is to smoke some hash. But we tried outlawing booze in the 20's and it worked out just as well as Prohibition does now.

It seems to me that people will always search for ways to alter their consciousness, whether through religion, drugs, politics, or risk-taking. It should be between the individual and their higher power what the individual does with their body and their mind. Police should stick to arresting people who harm others or commit property crime.

Perhaps it wouldn't be so painful to pay for everyone's health insurance if we weren't pissing away 7 billion dollars every year in a futile effort to keep tens of millions of people from taking a recreational drug other than alcohol, tobacco, or caffeine. I wonder how many health care professionals were among the more than 700,000 arrested last year for cannabis possession?

You know, there are so many things wrong with the policies of our government these days... A lot of times I think that we should just toss out everything but the Constitution and start from scratch. It might even be time for another constitutional convention, but I don't trust anybody currently in the government to do it properly. With effort, the internet could enable us to create the world's first true democracy.

Ah.. fuck it, I'm gonna go take another hit off the bong (4 Jesus, dontcha know)!

Re:google doesn't do evil by protecting evil

[Simulant]

It should be just as illegal to smoke and drink as it is to smoke some hash. But we tried outlawing booze in the 20's and it worked out just as well as Prohibition does now. Avid stoner/drinker/smoker that I am, I've given some thought to this subject. I firmly believe that individuals should be able to ingest what ever they like. I consider it a basic human right. However... It may not be a bad idea to make illegal, the marketing & mass production of such vices. So... basically, you can grow your own tobacco & pot, brew your own beer & distill your own alcohol, and consume it yourself & maybe share it with your friends. BUT NOT SELL OR MARKET IT. There's no complete solution to human vice but this would at least limit the negative effects somewhat while allowing a fundamental & very personal freedom.

Re:google doesn't do evil by protecting evil

[glarbl_blarbl]

So... basically, you can grow your own tobacco & pot, brew your own beer & distill your own alcohol, and consume it yourself & maybe share it with your friends. BUT NOT SELL OR MARKET IT.

That's a cool idea. But it's probably too late to outlaw the alcohol industry without ending up with the same kind of mess we've got with the war on drugs. Also, the only alcohol I drink anymore is $6-a-glass Bushmill's every three months or so. That, and the only thing worse than having to fear the police is that I can't just go to the liquor store and pick up a few grams of ganja when I have cash to spend on cannabis. The black market is nothing if not unreliable.

We should reform drug laws for the children. It's really insane to leave the marketing and sales of dangerous drugs to criminals. It's not just us who think this is a civil rights issue, either -- last year former Seattle chief of police Norm Stamper said as much at the NORML annual conference.

Re:google doesn't do evil by protecting evil

[QMO]

You would almost have appeared to have been semi-credible sources, if you hadn't included a reference to mises.org.

Great..

[Iam9376]

..another reason to no longer put my faith into google.

-.-

Re:Great..

[Colz Grigor]

Why on Earth would you put your faith in a company?! If you've got to put your faith into something, try an idea like Jesus who at least promises eternal salvation for your troubles. Putting faith in any organization to always do good is just silliness. It's up to you to keep your eye on any organization which claims to be doing good in order to keep them in line.

And if you happen to think that Google or any other organization is stepping out of line, pipe up and tell them what you think they're doing wrong and how they can do right. Take action.

::Colz Grigor // This message was not brought to you by Google.

Re:Great..

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you even read Nietzsche?

Re:Great..

[Wicked Zen]

If you've got to put your faith into something, try an idea like Jesus who at least promises eternal salvation for your troubles. Eh, I rather think I've got a better shot with Google.

But that's a different discussion...

Dont be evil is just a slogan

[ghoul]

Just the fact that they are so marketing driven to have a slogan shows they are evil. After all all marketing is evil but waht more can you expect from what is basically an advertizing firm which happens to use tech a lot. I mean nothing besides ads makes money for Google.

Hmmm

[Captain Murdock]

I'm not really sure what that blog post entails. Does it mean Google is going to purposely tamper with it's search formulas to make sure that health care companies don't get "Google Bombed"? Or specifically censor anti-health care, Michael Moore related content?

It's one thing to keep health care searches relevant, but it's quite another to accept money to censor content.

Re:Hmmm

[mr_luc]

No, no and no. It says nothing about censorship, tailoring of google's 'search formulas', or google bomb insurance. ;)

As surprising as this may be, it's just a straight-up plug for the utility of their text search ads.

Is it evil? Well, now. That's quite a question.

Sure, HMO's are evil. Sure, censorship is evil. But it would also be evil for google to refuse to sell ads to the health insurance industry.

This is not, as people have stated, a sign of google moving to protect its interests and maximize profits in a way that puts people after corporations. Offering these services, in order to let health insurance companies respond to a particularly strident and vocal political opponent, by selling them context ads, is hardly evil.

Far from it. I'd rather have text ads than know about the truly evil PR crap that is, and will continue to be, spewed across our television screens if the HMO's really feel threatened, like they did in the mid-90's.

Re:Hmmm

[babbling]

I think they're actually trying to get the health care companies to start an Google AdWords campaign. They're just saying "our product would be useful to you" and I think this story is making a big deal out of nothing.

Re:Hmmm

[ghoul]

But what Google is actually offering is to put context ads on the blogs which are opposing the HMOs. So right next to an HMO blasting blog u will see an ad for the HMO. Kind of like selling the context words pro-life to say Planned Parenthood so any blog blasting abortion would have a Planned Parenthood ad next to it. Its not evil its hilarious!!!

Re:Hmmm

[babbling]

Only on the blogs that choose to serve Google Ads.

Also, users of Google AdSense are able to block certain ads from appearing. So the bloggers could just block any ads they didn't like.

Re:Hmmm

[glarbl_blarbl]

That's pretty good... I was tickled in 2004 when I was reading an editorial arguing for Bush's Impeachment and saw an adsense ad for the president's website!

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it evil? Well, now. That's quite a question.

Indeed. What if Google decided to offer selling ads to the tobacco industry, to counter studies and documentaries showing that tobacco has an negative impact for health?

Re:Hmmm

[mr_luc]

If we're talking about text and contextual ads, then I'd say that's just fine.

Why? Because of the nature of this method of advertising, which is inherently more balanced than anything on TV. If you search for "Sicko" and see the #1 ranked page, a huge majority of the time you'll choose to navigate to THAT page, or one of the other top few pages, and not a sponsored ad. You're looking for information, the best information, and you want to locate it by relevance to your search terms.

Unlike the insidious -- in fact, utterly sickening -- nature of modern PR, currently nothing that google offers to advertisers can compromise this dynamic.

However, if these companies want to make their side of the story available, well, there are sponsored results. They can always make their side of things just a click away, if they pay for it. But they can't interfere with people informing themselves, at least, not through Adsense/Adwords. Contrast this with traditional mediums, where they can not simply interfere, but can absolutely dominate the discussion.

And this holds just as true for a tobacco company as an HMO.

Moore isn't Neutral

[feyhunde]

His Documentaries are not anywhere near neutral. He's the founding father of the new stream of Documentaries that don't let the subject speak for itself but ram home opinions. I think it hurts the causes as much as it helps.

Not everything he says is lies, nor is it truth. He has a political point to make and he wants to make it more sexy so he'll get more attention.

As such there are points to be contained and rebutted. Roger met with Moore in Roger and Me, but Moore didn't show it. GM had years of bad press from that despite Moore being less than truthful. No wonder others have opinions on this. There are some in the Healthcare that think its fine, there's lots that think it's broke, but think it can be fixed without using Socialism as a cure due to the problems of socialized medicine in a nation that doesn't have vast oil reserves.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[dsanfte]

Health Care is expensive, in part, because it's chronically understaffed due to professional-school elitism by the AMA and the Nurse's unions.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[feyhunde]

Fixing that would be an issue, so would fixing the lawsuits that drive up insurance in many places.

Or bringing back tax incentives to be a doctor/nurses in places that really need them.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Wonko the Sane]

Health Care is expensive, in part, because it's chronically understaffed due to professional-school elitism by the AMA and the Nurse's unions.

Or maybe it's unhealthy because it's trying to fix things the hard way.
How much money would be saved if people would stop eating junk food, and maybe ride a bicycle a few times a week? Trying to treat diabetes with drugs is like driving a nail with a pair of pliers. Billions of dollars to treat a disease that is largely preventable.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Wonko the Sane]

Or maybe it's expensive
yes I forgot to preview

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Volante3192]

Is it too hard to believe that maybe, just maybe, he wants to spur debate on the health care issue in the US? I doubt the majority of people in the US would say they're happy with their coverage.

Whether or not you agree with him is irrelivant: the point is to open debate. Bring the issue into the open rather than let it fester like sores that don't get treated.

And as far as documentaries being neutral, I really wish people would get over that fallacy. Unless you're Ken Burns making a documentary on something happening over a century ago, the film ends up taking a side. Would you consider Battle for Brazil a 'neutral' piece? It doesn't exactly place Sid Sheinberg in a very favorable light.

I'll admit Moore uses more non-documentary techniques, and they seem to fall more under Op/Ed pieces, but strictly speaking, a documentary is a documentation of fact. Whether or not those facts picked are the mainstream or the outlying data points, or if they have a heavy emotional impact, it still makes them fact. Facts on the fringe are still facts.

And I think there's enough questions about that Roger and Me incident to not have it carved in stone yet...but it sounds like you've already made your mind up. That, I think, is Moore's biggest problem...he's too polarizing. The films he makes are great for opening conversation; but people seem to have already made up their mind before...

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[AusIV]

His Documentaries are not anywhere near neutral. He's the founding father of the new stream of Documentaries that don't let the subject speak for itself but ram home opinions. I think it hurts the causes as much as it helps.

Michael Moore in a nutshell. All he does is polarize subjects. I watched part of Fahrenheit 9/11 some months after it came out, and while people who wanted to believe what he said could take it as gospel, it was clearly biased and misleading to anyone of a neutral or opposing views on the subject. I suspect Farenheit 9/11 raised as much support for the Bush administration as it did opposition. If Moore had been less one sided with his documentary, he might have swayed a few neutral people to his side - as it were, he only managed to push them away.

I'll be honest - I don't know much about the state of health care in the United States. If I ever decide I ought to learn about the subject, I'm not going to go to Michael Moore's "documentary" for my "facts". Anyone who refers to it for facts made up their mind ahead of time. Quite likely, Moore's film will rally opposition to his cause, and it may even lead to a strong opposition of socialized medicine.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[jollyreaper]

Health Care is expensive, in part, because it's chronically understaffed due to professional-school elitism by the AMA and the Nurse's unions. Wrong. They are chronically understaffed because so many institutions have become for-profit. The overhead of dealing with medical billing is insane and every clerk hired means one less nurse.

You think H1B visas are bad? Try going into a local hospital. We're importing a lot of our medical workers from overseas now. My mom is an RN and she tells me that she wouldn't want anyone she knows going into an American hospital. Her fellow nurses stand vigil when family members go in. A fellow nurse had to stand guard over her heart attack husband lest one of the unskilled new nurses kill the man with her incompetence. The dumb bitch dropped an IV needle on the floor and picked it up as if she were going to use it on him. One of the new stunts hospitals are attempting is replacing RN's with cut-rate staff with less training than CNA's, a gaggle of McJobbers with each one doing a small portion of the RN's overall job. Do they know what they're doing? Hell, no. But the hospital figures the wage savings will be far greater than the cost of wrongful death suits. I haven't even gone into the chaos that comes from immigrant medical workers who can't speak the fucking language. I have no problem with foreign people and foreign ways but if lives are on the line, communications had better be standardized! If the hospital is in Cuba, we can speak Spanish. But if the hospital is in the States, we'd better be speaking English and there better not be an accent thick enough to club someone with. Poor communication kills. And let's not even get into the Medicare fraud perpetrated by for-profit home health agencies, going into fucking hospices to give physical therapy to terminal cases. Look! The patient is going to be dead inside a month, there's no need for --oooh, did I see money?

There are some things far too important in life for dollars to be the deciding factor. Health care should NEVER be a for-profit enterprise. Anyone who says different needs his insurance revoked right before he's kicked down a flight of stairs. See how you like it now, asshole.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[amabbi]

Health Care is expensive, in part, because it's chronically understaffed due to professional-school elitism by the AMA and the Nurse's unions.

[disclaimer: I am a med student and a member of the medical student section of the AMA.]

I hear this reasoning time and time again, and I'm convinced this is an urban legend. The AMA has no jurisdiction over the number of slots available in US med schools; at best, the AMA has influence over the number of residency slots available (since they do act to certify certain specialty and subspecialty boards). In fact, the counter to the fallacy promoted by the parent post is that there are more residency slots available per year than US med school graduates.

If you want to find fault, blame the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC), which certifies med schools and would be the body most responsible for the number of med student positions in the US. It is not affiliated with the AMA.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[The One and Only]

Health care should NEVER be a for-profit enterprise.

Why the fuck not? Food and housing are for-profit enterprises--they're just better managed. If you're poor, the government will even help you pay for them. You get a nifty debit card and you get to buy all the groceries you need. Public housing doesn't work quite that well, though...

Anyone who says different needs his insurance revoked right before he's kicked down a flight of stairs.

It should be a pretty fucking long flight of stairs before the lack of insurance makes a difference. Here's an idea, dumbasses: insurance is supposed to cover rare, catastrophic emergencies. I don't buy homeowner's insurance so some bureaucracy can pay for a plumber every time my pipes back up--I buy it in case my house burns down. I don't buy auto insurance so some bureaucracy can pay for my oil changes--I buy it in case I get rear-ended. The expense of "medical billing" comes from bad laws intended to benefit insurance companies. I would be far happier to just write you a check for setting a broken arm after falling down those stairs, thank you very much.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[jorghis]

Moore may be a hack. Socialism may be a bad idea. But at the end of the day, the things he says about insurance companies actually are true. They do deny care to clients who deserve it because they know they can get away with it and they save money by doing it. People die because of this.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[poopdeville]

People, look at his nickname. He is clearly an AMA shill.

(I'm joking. ;-)

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Anonymous Coward]

Bwahaha so you have to have vast oil reserves to have a social health care system? Tell that to New Zealand. Tell that to Australia, Ireland, the UK and France while you are at it. I love it how socialism can be invoked with such loathing in the US without any real knowledge of what a functioning social welfare system might look like. Ah well, I guess I'll just keep on enjoying my longer life span over here in Socialist (gasp!) New Zealand, waiting for you guys to catch on...

P.S. Yes we do have free speech and yes we are a fully functioning first world democracy. Stop by sometime.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[feepness]

There are some things far too important in life for dollars to be the deciding factor.

I suppose you're talking about food, which is more important than healthcare. Also housing I guess should also never be for-profit either. Energy? Well, everyone needs gas and electricity so let's nationalize that. Phone service? Why let a corporation profit from something everyone uses. Entertainment? Well, those are public airwaves... can we make sure that a correct viewpoint gets on once in awhile?

Sorry, doesn't work for me. You don't always get what you want. And you also don't always get what you need.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Anonymous Coward]

Is a moderate social democracy *that* horrible?

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

How are you supposed to be neutral while having a point of view?

Oh i'm sorry i have to be neutral in my questioning... So i'll add, I think you're right, hes not netural while having a point of view. I mean come on.. this is silly.

You say the room is white, i say its black. One of is right, perhaps we're both right.. perhaps we're both wrong... BUT we have our point of views. Listen, learn, accept or dismiss...

BUT DO NOT EVER expect a neutral argument. That is ridiculousl.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[timmarhy]

nurses unions are elitest? my mother has been a nurse for 25 years and from what i've seen they are far from elitest. doctors yes, but anyone with a brain and drive can become a doctor. the problem with staffing issues is pay and fear of being sued by white trash who's prodecures go wrong.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Travoltus]

When you are hungry, the local loaves and fishes provides you with food.

When you need early cancer treatment to keep breast cancer from going terminal, and you have no money, where do you go for that? Nowhere, in capitalism. You die.

Breast cancer is instant and certain death for the poor.

I for one hope you get just that, right after your employer goes overseas and your stocks go south - oh and yes, it can indeed happen to men.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Pig Hogger]

Health care should NEVER be a for-profit enterprise.

Why the fuck not?

You obviously never have been sick or injured...

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[The One and Only]

I have a chronic thyroid condition that requires daily medication, but thanks for your concern.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[lawrenlives]

Well I know if the Canadian gov't wasn't hooking me up with ~250 bucks worth of schizophrenia meds a month I'd probably be living in a van down by the river. I sure as hell couldn't afford them on a student's budget!

There's a lot to be said for socialized medicine, and most of it has already been said. When people aren't afraid to go to the doctor, the psychiatrist, the specialist, society as a whole is bound to benefit. Don't worry, you can still hate Michael Moore.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[feepness]

I for one hope you get just that, right after your employer goes overseas and your stocks go south - oh and yes, it can indeed happen to men.

Sorry asshole, I've already had cancer and you can't even imagine how far you diminish yourself by saying that.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[casings]

Interesting, so do you pay for your medication out of your own pocket without the use of your insurance?

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[The One and Only]

Since I happen to have insurance and that's the way things are done, I have nothing to lose by not paying that way. But if I had to pay out of pocket, I could afford it. My total expenses would probably be less in a world where insurance wasn't expected to pay for everything--and that world is totally compatible with (for instance) my prescribing physician making a living without getting subsidized by the government, or the manufacturers of my thyroid supplement profitably selling it through pharmacies to me.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Quiet_Desperation]

I love people who say "but sometimes he has to alter the truth to make a point".

Uh, excuse me, but if you have to alter truth to fit your points, YOUR POINTS ARE INVALID!

Seriously, when did geek culture become such a morass of ideological zerothink?

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Xofer D]

Health care should NEVER be a for-profit enterprise.

Why the fuck not?

Although I'd object to the rather extremist language of the grandparent, free markets are terrible regulators for healthcare. To put it a little simplistically, compare these cases:

You need a car to get to a job. How much are you willing to pay for the car? I'd pay enough that I'd soon make a good return on that job compared to some job I could get to without the car.

You need a treatment or you'll die. How much are you willing to pay to stay alive? I'd pay everything that I have, because it does me no good when I'm dead. This doesn't depend on how much I have. In fact, I'd be willing to pay money I don't even have yet. This is why so many people go into debt to stay alive in the USA.

Since the value of your own life is essentially boundless, markets don't regulate health care well.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[casings]

Great, you can afford it. However if you were in a low paying job, where there is little chance you would get the same kind of insurance plan (or even being insured at all), then what?

Whats the difference between health and other things the government subsidizes like safety? After all aren't they the same inherently? How can you put a price on health, honestly?

You think your physician will become poor simply because the government pays his salary? I agree he might not get paid as much, so he might not be able to afford the Ferrari, he'll have to settle for a BMW... It's a hard life being a doctor, and not being able to afford your supercars...

Give me a break, your arguments are as flawed as someone without an illness. Come back when you experience this shit first hand.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[thule]

The overhead of dealing with medical billing is insane and every clerk hired means one less nurse.

Google concierge medicine to see how the market is handling this. I just recently looked into this and am going to apply my companies FSA dollars to this system and save my insurance for bigger things.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[damiam]

No offense, but you're an idiot if you can't see that health care is a special case. All of the markets you mention involve a normal exchange of money for goods/services. Companies have incentives to provide me with good food, housing, phone service, and entertainment, because if they don't, I won't buy their product. (energy and other utilities are another special case due to the required infrastructure, which is why they're generally provided by a heavily regulated government-granted monopoly, no free market). Health care doesn't work that way. In health care, there are two entities trying to profit - the hospitals and the insurers. When you get sick, the insurer already has your money; why would they pay if they can get out of it? If you have a heart attack, you'll go to the nearest hospital, and they'll bill you the same whether the care was great or terrible. Since neither insurers nor hospitals can be comparison shopped in most circumstances, why would they have an incentive to provide good care?

Also, most people understand food pretty well. We buy it all the time; it's fairly obvious what we need and what we're buying. Almost no one understands health care, and health care decisions are far more crucial than what food to buy. Do you really want the people making decisions for you at the most vulnerable point in your life to be motivated by how much money they can make off of you, rather than what would be best for you? With the exception of elective stuff like plastic surgery, health care just doesn't operate in a free market, and allowing a profit motive is just asking to be exploited.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[The One and Only]

This is exactly the problem insurance is supposed to solve, at which point it turns into how much you can reliably get from the insurance company. This is before we abandoned the entire concept of insurance and replaced it with some sort of witchcraft through which you're supposed to pay some company less than the value of the health care they're buying for you, and yet they still make a profit somehow. (Strangely enough, this witchcraft manages to work out only for the "insurance" company!)

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[NMerriam]

Food and housing are for-profit enterprises--they're just better managed.

And by "better managed", you presumably know that there are government inspectors verifying all important work at every stage and making sure it is up to code (literally and figuratively). If you think it'll be more cost-effective to have every hospital pay to have a government supervisor follow around every single nurse and doctor in the country, that's an interesting economic argument. It's certainly the only way that you would have the equivalent quality of oversight in medicine that food processing and construction have.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[The One and Only]

Great, you can afford it. However if you were in a low paying job, where there is little chance you would get the same kind of insurance plan (or even being insured at all), then what?

That's like asking, "what if they don't pay you enough to afford groceries or rent?". You'll find that there are probably similar answers to all these questions, and they usually involve some part of society (these days, the government) extending a helping hand to the impoverished for the necessities of life. It doesn't involve having the government nationalize the farms, for instance.

Whats the difference between health and other things the government subsidizes like safety? After all aren't they the same inherently? How can you put a price on health, honestly?

"Safety" isn't an industry--although I'm sure companies that make motorcycle helmets do so profitably. Asking "how can you put a price on health" is like asking "how can you put a price on food" or "how can you put a price on rent"--just because you need something to survive doesn't mean it can't be provided in a market.

You think your physician will become poor simply because the government pays his salary?

I think there's nothing wrong with my physician working for himself, or in partnership with other physicians, to make a profit from providing their services--so long as there are ways of helping the poor afford those services.

Come back when you experience this shit first hand.

How could I possibly experience the type of health care system I'm describing when it doesn't even exist? I'm sure you've had a bad time with a health care system that's been set up specifically to make money for insurance and drug companies--I'm just saying it would be a bad idea to, for instance, start throwing doctors in jail if I paid them $50 to examine my sore throat.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[The One and Only]

If we had nationalized medicine, we still wouldn't have "the equivalent quality of oversight" by your standards. The government inspectors for food, construction, and product testing are, at best, trained and licensed professionals. If you're talking about that kind of "oversight", that's the exact same thing we accomplish by licensing doctors and having legal recourse for malpractice. Also, I've seen no indication that the incidence of malpractice is a serious concern (unlike the efficiency and availability of medical care). Still, it's not like every single orange and grape is looked over by the government inspector from picking to processing to sale--similarly, review of prescriptions and surgeries can easily be done efficiently, with information (and possibly video) recorded for later review.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[casings]

That's like asking, "what if they don't pay you enough to afford groceries or rent?". You'll find that there are probably similar answers to all these questions, and they usually involve some part of society (these days, the government) extending a helping hand to the impoverished for the necessities of life. It doesn't involve having the government nationalize the farms, for instance. Farms are already subsidized by the government...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidie s

However, no this is a capitalist marketplace and things like foods and housing are leisures where many aren't necessary for survival: for instance one needn't shop at Whole Foods to survive when they can grow their own food... Also housing is based on property, and one doesn't necessarily have to be housed at all.

The problem is when you apply this logic to health care, which at its core means without it, you cannot survive. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure they provide equal opportunities for survival for anyone because everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To deny anyone medical care because of money is to deny the right of life.

Medical care isn't a leisure, and shouldn't be expected to be paid like one...

And don't confuse this with me saying that there is something wrong with private insurance, there is something wrong with free public insurance.

There are some things which should be free to citizens, education, police, speech, and health care. I am not making a case for welfare. I am making a case for basic human rights which a democratic government of the people should provide for the people.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[sacrilicious]

Why the fuck [shouldn't health care be for-profit?

Because none of the following are present in healthcare, and all are required for a functioning free market:

• elasticity of demand
• elasticity of supply (aka low barriers to market entry)
• consumers informed sufficiently to make intelligent choices

Free markets are great when these are the case. Health care misses all by quite a lot. NOTE TO SELF-TAUGHT ECONOMICS WANNABES: Free markets are not the right solution for everything.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[The One and Only]

I'm perfectly willing to agree that the necessities of life should be made available to everyone regardless of their ability to afford it. I'm not sure what to make about your bizarre handwaving about food and shelter, but they definitely fall within the category of "necessities of life", moreso than medical care. (The ancients had food and shelter--they didn't have open-heart surgery.) Food is bought and sold on an open market, and in places where this falls short, there are ways of helping people get what they need without engineering a centralized takeover of the entire system by a government bureaucracy. The same can be done for medicine. Even if medical care is provided for profit, no one need be denied medical care for inability to afford it--if you can't afford medical care but need it anyway, you have the same basic problem as the person who can't afford groceries without food stamps, and what you need is the same basic solution.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[The One and Only]

"Free market" implies the absence of regulation. Clearly, a regulated market can resolve at least some of these problems--for instance, the licensing and personal liability of doctors for their professional decisions, if done properly, can compensate for the lack of information on the part of consumers. Elasticity of demand in medicine is probably comparable to food--everybody needs to eat a certain about of food in order to avoid dying, and yet a regulated market is workable for food. That leaves elasticity of supply--which we would have more of, if medical schools were permitted to train more doctors. The supply of doctors and nurses is kept artificially low by restrictions in medical school enrollment. So I guess we're left between two alternatives--nationalize the entire health care system, or properly regulate the market instead of mis-regulating the market in order to make money for people who have political clout. I'm clearly in favor of fixing the regulations, because it's not at all clear to me that nationalizing the whole system is necessary or efficient.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny you should mention socialized medicine in the UK and Ireland. I was just there last summer, and from what I saw on local newspaper covers and heard on Sky News, the locals were none too happy with the way it was working. A couple of years ago I read a story on the BBC's website about an older woman whose teeth were literally rotting out of her head. The wait to see a dentist was so long that she just got piss drunk one day and had her husband pull her teeth out with a pair of pliers. If that's what socialized medicine looks like, then no thanks!

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Colin Smith]

Do you really want the people making decisions for you at the most vulnerable point in your life to be motivated by how much money they can make off of you, rather than what would be best for you? This doesn't change in a fully socialised health care system:

http://news.netdoctor.co.uk/news_detail.php?id=180 52027
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3196134.stm

http://www.nice.org.uk/

Etc, there's several more examples. In a socialised system, instead of making money off you, the care depends on how much you're going to cost the budget. Exactly the same thing as commercial healthcare.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Skald]

You need a treatment or you'll die. How much are you willing to pay to stay alive? I'd pay everything that I have, because it does me no good when I'm dead. This doesn't depend on how much I have. In fact, I'd be willing to pay money I don't even have yet. This is why so many people go into debt to stay alive in the USA.

Assuming that there's only one person able to save my life, sure. Of course, that's not much of a market.

That one person is going to make a lot of money... so much that other people are going to want to be able to do what he does. Once there are a suitable number of people willing to save my life, I have choices, and the price will drop. We won't stay alive without food, either... and most of us would have difficulty doing so without housing. Markets are about supply and demand.

This glosses over a lot of important details, but so does the point being addressed. Possibly a good argument can be made that markets don't regulate health care well... but this isn't it. This argument doesn't address the most obvious free market predictions.

By the way, if there really is only one person who has the cure for your disease... be thankful he's there, and that you do have the choice to give him everything you have in return for saving you. You can still decide not to.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Corbets]

Since the value of your own life is essentially boundless, markets don't regulate health care well.

I'm 100 percent confident I'm going to get seriously modded down for this, but... the point that you make isn't as strong for government-operated healthcare as you think. The value of your own life to yourself is essentially boundless. Is it the same to society?

Sure, if you're Mother Theresa or such, society benefits from keeping you alive, even at excessive costs. But if you're a junky wasting away your life on crack, how much money is your life worth to society? (for the purpose of this argument, assume you have no redeeming qualities whatsoever and will never amount to anything). Government systems simply don't make any judgement regarding return on investment (see government construction projects, where the lowest bid gets the job, period). Therefore, the system is inherently inefficient.

Of course, current free-market systems wouldn't work in this example either. Ma T didn't make a whole lot of money, she wouldn't get the service she needs. No, the current model assumes worth based on economic success and takes that as an indicator of future success. So a different model might be better.

But in the end, arguments such as this or any other won't make a difference; people always want what's best for themselves. The rich believe they deserve good treatment because they can afford it. The poor believe that the rich owe them healthcare (I don't know how to word this statement any better, but look at it from a socialist-redistribution-of-wealth point of view). Most will make the argument that their plan is the right one for the majority of somesuch, but very few think of anyone but themselves.

Myself in included. I have a higher education, good job, and lots of marketable skills; I intend to be able to buy whatever healthcare I need. :)

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[ozbird]

Michael Moore in a nutshell. All he does is polarize subjects.

As opposed to other media commentators, like ... hmm. Come to think of it, there aren't any balanced commentators - they're all pushing their own barrows.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[NMerriam]

If we had nationalized medicine, we still wouldn't have "the equivalent quality of oversight" by your standards.

I never said we would. I said that having inspectors following around doctors and nurses would be the only way to accomplish equivalent oversight to what we have in food and construction. I don't think it's very practical or cost-efficient, but people always bring up food and construction in discussions about healthcare to defend the notion that even essential life services can be run by the free market with no troubles whatsoever.

I just don't think people who make such arguments have any notion of just how much oversight happens in those industries. It's certainly nothing like licensing physicians or examining random samples of patient data after the fact.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Anonymous Coward]

You overlook competition. If there are numerous health providers, and one of them charges you $50k for a simple life saving operation, and another does the same thing for $8k, then wouldn't you pick the cheaper one, if it's reputable?

And wouldn't your family, or your emergency insurance also pick that provider? So where's the problem?

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Rufty]

These decisions will get made. But will they be made on the basis of clinical reasons or financial ones? Which descision will benefit most patients or which decision will maximize profit?

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[The One and Only]

"No troubles whatsoever" is impossible. What we are looking to do is minimize our troubles. And there are many reforms we can make to the regulatory system surrounding healthcare to minimize our troubles without ditching the entire system, requiring every doctor to be employed by the government, and throwing doctors in jail for trying to work outside the government monopoly. Socialized medicine is a solution, and it's arguably a better solution than what the US has now, but it's not the best solution.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[whoop]

I work in this evil health care system. I treat people with kidney failure. I treat everyone from homeless to wealthy people. They get their medication, treatments, and kidney transplants whether it be from their own insurance or state money and charities.

A coworker's mother with no insurance was diagnosed with uteran cancer. She was given a list of charities, free clinics, etc to contact. She did, had a hysterectomy, and is recovering without a penny spent.

In 2006, my wife racked up $600,000 in a hospital stay. The insurance settled with the hospital (as they do) for about $200,000. I pay $250 a month for it through my mediocre job. I would have to work 66 years for them to break even for that one stay. At no time did they say, "Alright, we've paid enough, you're out of the hospital on your own."

There are plenty of counter-examples to Michael Moore's movies. I've seen more people die from a fear of needles (voluntarily refusing treatment) than from lack of insurance/money.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Pig Hogger]

Since I happen to have insurance and that's the way things are done, I have nothing to lose by not paying that way. But if I had to pay out of pocket, I could afford it.

Wait until your condition worsens enough so your insurer will decide to drop you...

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Pig Hogger]

"Safety" isn't an industry--although I'm sure companies that make motorcycle helmets do so profitably. Asking "how can you put a price on health" is like asking "how can you put a price on food" or "how can you put a price on rent"--just because you need something to survive doesn't mean it can't be provided in a market.

For this, there has to be a market. You cannot shop for insurers, insurers shop for you. And if they don't like you (you have diseases that are too expensive to treat), they will refuse to cover you.

There is no free market for medical insurance.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Pig Hogger]

Food is bought and sold on an open market, and in places where this falls short, there are ways of helping people get what they need without engineering a centralized takeover of the entire system by a government bureaucracy. The same can be done for medicine.

Medicine, yes, but we're talking about medical INSURANCE, here.

There has to be a market, but in reality, there is NONE. You cannot shop for insurers, insurers shop for you. And if they don't like you (you have diseases that are too expensive to treat), they will refuse to cover you.

There is no free market for medical insurance. There cannot be, because insurance companies would falter and die if there were, leaving everyone high and dry.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree with the first part of your argument that Healthcare is a special case, I disagree with the second part. Most notibly this

            Do you really want the people making decisions for you at the most vulnerable point in your life to be motivated by how much money they can make off of you, rather than what would be best for you? With the exception of elective stuff like plastic surgery, health care just doesn't operate in a free market, and allowing a profit motive is just asking to be exploited.

            I see a flaw in the logic here that I see in many posts. You assume that the person providing the treatment and the entity that they work for as one in the same. When you go to a hosipital for life-saving surgery the head of the board of directors is not putting the new heart in your chest, a surgen is. This surgen doesn't get a bonus for having you die on the table. This surgen is also honor bound to do everything in his power to heal you. So in reality the quality of your treatment isn't determined by the hospital but by the skill of the doctor and nurses on staff. How much you pay for the doctor is generally on par with the skill of the doctor.

            I would like to bring into the discussion something that I haven't seen talked about but here in America there is a major problem with doctors and hospitals being sued for malpractice. This is a major cost to the medical institutions in this country. Does anyone have any insight as to how socializing medicine with effect this?

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[TheMongelloid]

While I agree with the first part of your argument that Healthcare is a special case, I disagree with the second part. Most notibly this

                        Do you really want the people making decisions for you at the most vulnerable point in your life to be motivated by how much money they can make off of you, rather than what would be best for you? With the exception of elective stuff like plastic surgery, health care just doesn't operate in a free market, and allowing a profit motive is just asking to be exploited.

                        I see a flaw in the logic here that I see in many posts. You assume that the person providing the treatment and the entity that they work for as one in the same. When you go to a hosipital for life-saving surgery the head of the board of directors is not putting the new heart in your chest, a surgen is. This surgen doesn't get a bonus for having you die on the table. This surgen is also honor bound to do everything in his power to heal you. So in reality the quality of your treatment isn't determined by the hospital but by the skill of the doctor and nurses on staff. How much you pay for the doctor is generally on par with the skill of the doctor.

                        I would like to bring into the discussion something that I haven't seen talked about but here in America there is a major problem with doctors and hospitals being sued for malpractice. This is a major cost to the medical institutions in this country. Does anyone have any insight as to how socializing medicine with effect this?

• first time post and I didn't put my name to this!

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[jollyreaper]

I suppose you're talking about food, which is more important than healthcare. Also housing I guess should also never be for-profit either. Energy? Well, everyone needs gas and electricity so let's nationalize that. Phone service? Why let a corporation profit from something everyone uses. Entertainment? Well, those are public airwaves... can we make sure that a correct viewpoint gets on once in awhile?

Sorry, doesn't work for me. You don't always get what you want. And you also don't always get what you need. Ah, yes, misquoting the philosophy of the Stones. Allow me to try my hand at it.

Oh, HMO's are threatening
My very life today
If I don't get some health care
Oh yeah, I'm gonna fade away

Health, children, its just a shot away
It's just a shot away
The cure, children, its just a pill away
It's just a pill away

Ooh, see the greed is sweepin
Our hospitals today
Burns like syphilis now
Hippocrates has lost his way

health, children, it's just a shot away
It's just a shot away
the cure, children, it's just a pill away
It's just a pill away

Coverage denied, murder!
It's just a shot away
It's just a pill away

Explanation of benefits, murder!
It's just a shot away
It's just a pill away

Free markets, murder!
It's just a shot away
It's just a pill away

Oh, HMO's are threatening
My very life today
If I don't get some health care
Oh yeah, I'm gonna fade away

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[AusIV]

It's certainly true that most if not all media commentators are trying to rally support for their own causes, my point was that Michael Moore tends to rally as many people against his cause as he does for them.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[catchblue22]

So are you saying that people aren't going bankrupt to pay for heart bypass operations or cancer treatments? Are you saying that individuals aren't denied employment because they or someone in their family have an expensive medical condition? Does your not having seen it make it not exist?

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Rich0]

Wrong party blamed - correct issue identified... :)

One issue I have is with the number of private standards bodies that are essentially codified in law.

Want to create a college and offer financial aid? Go pay an accredidation bureau.

Want to rewire your house legally? Go fork out $50 for a copy of the National Electric code.

Don't like something in the NEC? Don't bother calling your congressman - they can't change it.

Want to test some pharmaceuticals for purity? Buy your standards from the USP. Want to know how to test them? Go buy a copy of the latest USP and all the updates.

The same applies to ISO, and any number of other standards bodies.

They aren't bad things to have. My objection is that they become officially blessed in law - so you have to follow some standard that isn't government-set, and which you can't even obtain without paying for it.

Imagine being fined $1000 for violating town ordinance 1.343.14. You ask for a copy of the town ordinance and are told that it can't be copied - it is copyrighted. You have to buy the town legal reference series for $1000.

The laws and businesses activities of the government should be public domain. Sure, there is room for exception for national security and personal privacy. However, the rules followed by the government should be available to anybody to read, copy, comment-on, and for elected officials to revise...

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to work at a health insurance company, thus the anonymous posting.

Ok, insurance company A (the patients insurance company) files a $500 million malpractice suit against insurance company B (the doctors insurance company) because the doctor didnt follow insurance company A's protocol. Say you went to your family doctor (a general practitioner) for a broken finger and he didnt refer you to a orthopedist. These lawsuits are filed on your behalf which means they are not even required to notify you of this malpractice suit, you signed this right to them when you signed your insurance policy (read all contracts carefully). Anyway, insurance company A now has to pay out $500 million dollars and they can use this to justify raising their customers rates (remember doctors are also customers of insurance companies). Now here is the rub, the next year insurance company B files a $500 million malpractice suit against insurance company A, for the same reason only different patient/doctor combo. Now company A has a justification to raise their rates to their customers because they had to pay out such a large settlement. Even though company B just recovered their $500 million they lost last year, they still keep the rate increases. This goes on year after year with the two companies passing the same $500 million back and forth and raising their customers rates until we have the current situation we have. There is a good chance that you have indirectly sued a doctor for malpractice and dont even know it (if you have insurance in America).

To your question, by having a nationalized system of health insurance and centralized administration we could put an end to these sorts of practices. A major benefit to a system of socialized medicine is that we could finally have a regulatory agency who can control private insurance companies and their shady business practices. One of the worst things we have ever thought of in this country was to make certain types of insurance a legal requirement. The harm it has done (the increasing cost of everything) definately outweighs any the benefits (fewer and quicker court cases) we were told we were going to have under this system.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[hcjiv]

Why exactly do you think no one is comparison shopping for their insurers? I'll guarantee you that if my HR department starts getting complaints about our coverage and especially a case where one of our employees has died due to being denied that insurer will be on the chopping block and probably will lose a bundle.

I don't understand where the idea, that healthcare companies can just do as they please with no repercussions, comes from. They have to maintain and grow their customer base to make their stockholders happy just like other businesses. They cannot do that if they get a bad reputation which they surely would if they denied services every time someone filed a claim.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[The One and Only]

Do you really need to repeat the same post over and over again? If we got away from two very dangerous ideas--the "insurance should pay for routine care" idea, and the "your employer provides your health insurance" idea, we would be much better off. Combining a health savings account with actual insurance that only pays for expensive contingencies (you know, the original idea of insurance in the first place) would make things more cost-effective as it would simplify the billing process. When you combine this with a government program that provides an HSA and insurance to people who cannot afford it themselves, you have universal health coverage without nationalizing the entire system.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[The One and Only]

About the only "worsening" that can happen would be when my thyroid gland is completely destroyed and my only source of thoroxine is the supplements I'm taking. And I'm pretty sure that's already happened by now. In any case, I'm not at all arguing for the status quo--insurance shouldn't cover routine care (so insurers would only drop me, or charge me a higher premium, if I was a higher risk for emergencies), and anyone incapable of buying insurance and an HSA on the open market should be provided them by the government.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Travoltus]

Sorry asshole, I've already had cancer and you can't even imagine how far you diminish yourself by saying that.

Aw, poor baby! You wish upon 300 million Americans a line of thinking that gets countless people killed for no other reason but that they don't have enough little green pieces of combustible paper, and then you cry when someone rejoices over the possibility of you becoming a VICTIM of your own thinking? Spare me. You ought to get exactly what you give. You diminish America with your Ebenezer Scrooge line of thinking. I wish Darwin would make a public example of you.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[feyhunde]

The issue is Documentary films used to not have an argument at all. They were to show the issues and let the facts speak.

Proper Commentary and Editorials are themselves a good body of work, and Moore does a decent enough commentary. But he is not making Documentaries. He makes Commentaries that try to be Documentaries. Documentaries suggest an attempt at gathering all the facts on an issue but not judging. Of course they won't be neutral, but they will try. It's the Wikipedia NPOV attempt. Doesn't always work, but they really do try.

Commentaries have clear agendas and a point to make. Documentaries let you decide the point, and often enough Moore is trying to shove his point down the throat. (Not that it's just him, or it's just one side of the political debate). I dislike him for his spreading of his film style.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[feepness]

Aw, poor baby! You wish upon 300 million Americans a line of thinking that gets countless people killed for no other reason but that they don't have enough little green pieces of combustible paper, and then you cry when someone rejoices over the possibility of you becoming a VICTIM of your own thinking? Spare me. You ought to get exactly what you give. You diminish America with your Ebenezer Scrooge line of thinking. I wish Darwin would make a public example of you.

I believe in the longer term a choice based system benefits everyone.

Just so you know, I wouldn't be against expanding the state run systems on a state by state basis. I don't support nationwide because I think the Feds are pretty stupid and I don't want Bush as commander-in-chief of my health.

I wasn't crying by the way. I was explaining to you that you are an asshole.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[SonicSpike]

No, because as long as there isn't marketplace collusion (rare) then the respective healthcare institutions and companies would be competing for your business which means you could shop around and vote with your feet. If the government did it, there would be no choice, and no options. Not to mention it is unconstitutional for the federal government to be involved in healthcare, or regulating the healthcare/insurance industry.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Pig Hogger]

and anyone incapable of buying insurance and an HSA on the open market should be provided them by the government.

Keyword here: "SHOULD BE PROVIDED". Aha! But it's not! If you're working, you don't qualify. Even if your employer doesn't offer you insurance.

Now, if you have the government insure the uninsurable, you have a recipe for financial disaster; not being sustainable, you will run in the wall sooner or later.

The idea with universal government health-insurance is that everyone is covered and everyone pays. And since there is no red-tape (everyone gets the same coverage), the efficiency is as high as 97% (compare this to the 30-35% overhead of private US insurers).

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Pig Hogger]

Do you really need to repeat the same post over and over again? If we got away from two very dangerous ideas--the "insurance should pay for routine care" idea, and the "your employer provides your health insurance" idea, we would be much better off. Combining a health savings account with actual insurance that only pays for expensive contingencies (you know, the original idea of insurance in the first place) would make things more cost-effective as it would simplify the billing process. When you combine this with a government program that provides an HSA and insurance to people who cannot afford it themselves, you have universal health coverage without nationalizing the entire system.

Do you really need to keep beating about the bush and trying to find non-workable excuses not to justify the only course of action that's guaranteed to work, that is, an universal health-insurance system in which **EVERYBODY** pitches in?

Why should someone who works his ass off should pay extra to insure big profits to a private insurer??? Do private insurers have a god-given right to bilk the public?

I mean, look at that ridiculous idea: a "health savings account". Comeon. let's get real. No one save the filthiest rich will be able to put any meaningful amount of money in there, given how expensive anything bigger than a band-aid is.

The very idea of insurance is to spread the risk; the larger the people who contribute the insurance pool, the cheaper everyone will pay. Therefore, the only way to make sure you pay the cheapest is to have everyone pitch-in.

When everyone pitches-in, it's a simple matter to give the very same coverage to everyone; this way, you reduce the paperwork needed to figure out if for such and such patient, such and such procedure is approved. Or pre-approved, for that matter.

Then by removing the profit motive, you make sure no one is denied treatment.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Travoltus]

Nice intellectually dishonest and cowardly misdirection.

Here is what you said:

I suppose you're talking about food, which is more important than healthcare. Also housing I guess should also never be for-profit either. Energy? Well, everyone needs gas and electricity so let's nationalize that. Phone service? Why let a corporation profit from something everyone uses. Entertainment? Well, those are public airwaves... can we make sure that a correct viewpoint gets on once in awhile?

Sorry, doesn't work for me. You don't always get what you want. And you also don't always get what you need.

Now you're trying to worm your way out by "adding" that you don't mind expanding the state run systems. You said nothing to indicate that before, when you said, coldly and heartlessly, "And you also don't always get what you need."

Well, asshole this, dude. As I said before, I say it again - I hope you also experience not getting what you need sometime. Especially, in light of this story, critical life-saving health care. I hope you are a victim of your own line of thinking. Asshole? No. That's called making you take your own medicine. The asshole was you for saying that crap in the first place.

Here's a lesson for the future: don't dish out what you can't take.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[The One and Only]

Aha! But it's not!

Well, that's the problem. Good job pointing it out.

Now, if you have the government insure the uninsurable, you have a recipe for financial disaster; not being sustainable, you will run in the wall sooner or later.

As opposed to, for instance, the government nationalizing all the medical insurance and providing generous plans to everyone for free. That's not a recipe for financial disaster at all.

The idea with universal government health-insurance is that everyone is covered and everyone pays.

The idea with my idea, is that everyone is covered, everyone who can afford to pay pays, and everyone who can't afford to pay is covered by the public because we are a benevolent society.

And since there is no red-tape (everyone gets the same coverage), the efficiency is as high as 97% (compare this to the 30-35% overhead of private US insurers).

"No red-tape" is a too-sunny appraisal of nationalized medicine. Although, in reality, the only difference between my idea and (for instance) a two-tier, universal health insurance system is that there's a means test to get public assistance. This can further be contrasted with a Canada-style single-tier system, in which the entire government health service is a monopoly, and the wealthy cross the border to get decent care when that monopoly falls short.

For those willing and able to pay, the US health care system is the best money can buy. I don't want to throw that away in the name of making sure everyone gets coverage, and a nationalized single-payer system would absolutely do that. There are better ways of ensuring everyone gets health coverage.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[The One and Only]

Treatment is expensive specifically because insurance pays for routine care. Unless you nationalized all the hospitals and pharmaceuticals (which is a guaranteed failure), you're going to just change from a "bilking the insurance companies, who in turn bilk the consumer" system to a "bilking the federal government" system. We're trying to get away from solutions that involve vast amounts of tax money enriching politically powerful corporations, remember?

The very idea of insurance is to spread the risk; the larger the people who contribute the insurance pool, the cheaper everyone will pay.

This works great until you start using insurance to pay for the predictable costs of routine care. Insurance is not a magical genie that automatically gives you more money than you put into it. If you pay the insurance company insurance premiums and expect the insurance company to pay for a routine checkup, not only do you have the overhead of billing the insurance company, but you're expecting to pay the insurance company $20 so they can pay the doctor $200 for a $50 appointment. This is absurd--why can't you just pay the doctor $50--even better, from a reserved tax-free account, and save a bunch of waste in the process? And if you can't pay the doctor $50, this is where government assistance steps in.

The idea of insurance only makes sense for emergencies. If you have 200 people with a 1 in 100 chance of getting into an accident that'll cost them $50,000 to recover from every 24 months. Then the insurance company has to pay out $100,000 in aggregate, so it has to collect that $100,000 (plus overhead and profit, so $125,000, $150,000) from 200 people over the course of 24 months. In other words, each person pays $30 a month to avoid the risk of having to pay $50,000 that they don't have. Do some more complex probability calculations and you're the actuary who sets these rates and makes an efficient, profitable insurance company.

This is the same principle for homeowner's insurance, auto insurance, liability insurance--everything except medical insurance, which has somehow turned into a magical genie thanks to bad laws--not to mention the regulations, which only serve as a barrier to entry, leading to an oligopoly. And this model works, with a regulated but profitable market, for every other form of insurance that exists--so well, in fact, that liability insurance is required by law for motorists. There's no reason it wouldn't work for medicine if bad laws and bad policies didn't get in the way.

If you can afford it, the United States has spectacular health care. The only problem is making this care available to more people more economically. Nationalizing everything (which is the only way to keep your "universal health insurance" from turning into "more tax money for corporations") would destroy the very thing we're trying to improve.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[feepness]

I was objecting to the idea that profit should be removed from the equation. Expanding state-funded insurance which still uses for-profit agencies to provide health care does not contradict that.

Since you would have no problem taking the husband and father from my wife and children, perhaps you need to consider having your own father removed... or you (or your husband) leaving your own.

You would fit right in at a Stalinist era trial, you know that?

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[NateTech]

Perhaps his documentaries serve to foster enough discussion and outrage, that those who think they know how to fix things start to have motivation to do so, and really start to take action.

GM certainly started working on many of their serious problems only after Roger & Me, even if it was less than truthful.

Maybe that's the most useful "purpose" to Moore's movies. And if you believe that he feels the causes are more important than making money from the movies (I don't, but some might)... perhaps he's figured out how to be very effective.

Most of the time I find his movies both repulsive (because of his tactics) and also highly interesting at the same time. It's strange.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Travoltus]

I was objecting to the idea that profit should be removed from the equation. Expanding state-funded insurance which still uses for-profit agencies to provide health care does not contradict that.

But that is not what you initially said, you backpedaling crybaby. That's what you added after you got challenged. That's what people do when they're caught red handed making the kind of boo boo that you made.

Let me repeat: neither I, nor anyone else, believe you meant "Just so you know, I wouldn't be against expanding the state run systems on a state by state basis." You added that after you got busted as a way to gain some sympathy for poor widdle ol' you.

This is what you actually said:

You don't always get what you want. And you also don't always get what you need.

Translation: "you've got cancer, you can't afford care, too bad, so sad."

Since you would have no problem taking the husband and father from my wife and children, perhaps you need to consider having your own father removed... or you (or your husband) leaving your own.

I would have no problem seeing you being a victim of your own belief system. That is, the beliefs you stated before someone challenged you and forced you into damage control mode.

You would fit right in at a Stalinist era trial, you know that?

Wow, that really offended you, didn't it? Join the crowd. "You don't always get what you want. And you also don't always get what you need" offended me. Your dishonest explanations of what you supposedly "meant" offend me even more because you take me for gullible and homey don't play dat.

And now, wishing you became a victim of your own medicine, is the same as being a Stalinist death squad yanking you out of bed at night to put you on a show trial. Ah hah. I wouldn't waste the lightning bolt on you if I were Zeus. Why? Because you're not only heartless, you're also a dishonest little backpedaler, and your character will bring you the kind of ruin worth watching, and rewinding over and over again.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[feepness]

The reason I say you would do well in a Stalinist era trial is you wish harm on me to "help the public good". Typical gulag thinking. You'd take the father away from two children and the husband away from a wife just to prove your point. You are really a sick individual.

I'm not going to bother defending, explaining, or expanding on my words because anything I add to the conversation is now used as evidence to call me a backpedaling crybaby rather than as added information. I will say cancer was never mentioned prior to you bringing it up you nutcase.

You have some real problems.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah - when I read that comment I couldn't believe it.
Roughly translated: "I disagree strongly with what you say. Because you don't believe what I do I hope you get cancer and suffer a horrible death."

I know the safety of the net allows people to make trollish statements without fear of getting punched in the mouth, but it amazes me the amount of hate that is out there. Apparently someone wasn't loved when they were a child...

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Pig Hogger]

As opposed to, for instance, the government nationalizing all the medical insurance and providing generous plans to everyone for free. That's not a recipe for financial disaster at all.

But it is. The moment you provide the slightest crack for the bourgeois to slip-in, they will totally subvert and corrupt the system so that they get the best, whilst leaving crumbs to the rabble, all this in order to pay less taxes.

The idea with my idea, is that everyone is covered, everyone who can afford to pay pays, and everyone who can't afford to pay is covered by the public because we are a benevolent society.

Every dollar that is paid for by one own's pocket is a dollar that is not used towards covering everyone else. The only way to insure success is to have everyone in, without exceptions. Otherwise, the system will be utterly gutted and destroyed in a few years.

And since there is no red-tape (everyone gets the same coverage), the efficiency is as high as 97% (compare this to the 30-35% overhead of private US insurers).

"No red-tape" is a too-sunny appraisal of nationalized medicine.

But it is an actual fact. If you want, I'll have you meet a doctor I know (a friend, not "my" doctor) who went to practice in the US. He came back very fast, because his malpractice insurance premiums were eating more of his revenue than the high taxes here, and he spent 30% of his time doing paperwork to justify and account everything he did to insurance companies.

You anglo-saxons need to remove that head out of your butt, and ditch that stupid hatred and distrust of what the State does, and look elsewhere at other cultures that DO put some trust in the State and do not harbour that visceral defiance of it. And, you know what? In such cultures, working for the State is not seen as something bad, so bright people WILL go work for the State and provide competent, efficient, quality service.

Up here, we got the cheapest electric power in the world, thanks to a government-owned utility that's the Wall Street poster child; everytime it wants to make a new dam, Wall-Street lenders will bend-over backwards to lend them the money, because they know their top-notch infrastructure will not collapse like the northeast power grid did several years ago (ours is the only northeast power grid that bravely stayed put).

Although, in reality, the only difference between my idea and (for instance) a two-tier, universal health insurance system is that there's a means test to get public assistance. This can further be contrasted with a Canada-style single-tier system, in which the entire government health service is a monopoly, and the wealthy cross the border to get decent care when that monopoly falls short.

The idea of insurance being to have the largest pool to spread the risk better. Every time someone gets out of the sytem, the cost goes up for everyone.

For those willing and able to pay, the US health care system is the best money can buy.

Are you a zillionaire that can affort to buy it? I doubt it, you wouldn't be on Slashdot then.

So why do you defend the zillionnaires? Have you been brainwashed? Are you expecting some crumb handouts???

Believe me, the zillionnaires do not give a rats' ass towards the public good. They could not care less if you croak out in the gutter because you've been denied a lifesaving procedure.

I don't want to throw that away in the name of making sure everyone gets coverage, and a nationalized single-payer system would absolutely do that. There are better ways of ensuring everyone gets health coverage.

Like what?

Don't worry, no matter the system, the zillionnaires will always be able to "escape" and get "better" health-care.

You oughta worry about yourself, though.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Pig Hogger]

Treatment is expensive specifically because insurance pays for routine care. Unless you nationalized all the hospitals and pharmaceuticals (which is a guaranteed failure), you're going to just change from a "bilking the insurance companies, who in turn bilk the consumer" system to a "bilking the federal government" system.

We're not talking about nationalizing hostpitals nor pharmaceuticals. They are not in Canada.

What you do is regulate the pharmaceutical market so the companies do not gouge the people. Prohibiting advertisements is a good way to do this, given how much obscene amounts of money is poured in advertising, money not available for actual research...

Then you have the governement insurance paying such and such for such and such service. Don't worry, the hospitals will make sure they can deliver the service for that amount of money, because that's all they're getting, and they're strictly prohibited from billing the patients. This way, you keep costs in check, without any extra governmental intrusions beyond the basic standards compliance.

We're trying to get away from solutions that involve vast amounts of tax money enriching politically powerful corporations, remember?

Duh ? But of course!!!! By eliminating the private insurance corporations altogether, you eliminate that political risk. No croporation has a god-given right to exist, especially if it has a negative influence on Society.

The very idea of insurance is to spread the risk; the larger the people who contribute the insurance pool, the cheaper everyone will pay.

This works great until you start using insurance to pay for the predictable costs of routine care.

Duh ? Are you on Earth? What the hell is wrong with having insurance paying for preventive care? It's in it's own goddammed best interest!!!!

Oh, it's true, you bourgeois/anglo-saxons believe that a pound of cure is better than an ounce of prevention, so you can make more money...

Insurance is not a magical genie that automatically gives you more money than you put into it. If you pay the insurance company insurance premiums and expect the insurance company to pay for a routine checkup, not only do you have the overhead of billing the insurance company, but you're expecting to pay the insurance company $20 so they can pay the doctor $200 for a $50 appointment.

This looks like "magic-thought" mathematics... Of course, if you have an inefficient insurance company, one that has to have the overhead needed to nitpick every single claim, that is, doctors that are paid to violate their hippocratic oath, it will indeed have to pocket a bigger share of money than one that covers everyone the same and doesn't care about pre-existing competition.

Then there is that pesky question of the legally mandated maximum return to shareholders thingy... Without shareholders to fatten, more money can be poured towards caring for those whom the system is made for, the covered population...

This is absurd--why can't you just pay the doctor $50--even better, from a reserved tax-free account, and save a bunch of waste in the process? And if you can't pay the doctor $50, this is where government assistance steps in.

This implies that everyone who "can't afford it" will have to be investigated if they're not bullshitting, thus adding more overhead.

The magic word here is: "LESS OVERHEAD".

Repeat after me: *** LESS OVERHEAD ***. What your solution does is to let the insurance companies skim the cream from the healthy profitable cases that do not need any care at all while dumping the heavy cases to a government that is pressured from all sides to cut taxes.

Your solution will put big money in big croporations while letting the public high and

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[GungaDan]

"Roger met with Moore in Roger and Me, but Moore didn't show it."

This lie has been debunked almost as often as it has been repeated. Count this as one more debunking. Now please don't repeat the lie.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Anonymous Coward]

Facts on the fringe are still facts. But passing them off as being not on the fringe or not stating other important facts is lying by omission if nothing else. just saying :)

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[The One and Only]

What the hell is wrong with having insurance paying for preventive care?

It's not insurance at all--it's a proxy payment. You're paying your insurance company $x+c to pay the care provider $x, where c is the overhead of the insurance company. It's pure waste and allows for collusion between insurance and care providers (the status quo today).

"Efficient", "profitable". This means that it dumps heavy cases

Some insurance companies will do this. Some insurance companies will simply charge them more. This is the exact same situation that unsafe drivers are in--companies like State Farm won't insure them, and companies like GEICO will charge them more. And if no insurer will cover them at all, then the government can step in there as well.

Go try insure a house against hurricanes on the Gulf Coast. Go, I dare you.

Places like Florida have government programs for this. Of course, maybe you shouldn't be building houses in hurricane zones in the first place...

There is absolutely no talk of nationalizing everything except the problem area: THE INSURANCE. Everything else can be provided as it is now.

But if you nationalize health insurance without nationalizing health care providers and pharmaceuticals, the system will degenerate into health care providers and pharmaceuticals overcharging the nationalized health insurance, and getting rich off of tax money. This is the inevitable result of nationalizing health insurance in the United States, because of the way our political system is set up. That's why it's unworkable.

No one in his right mind in Canada would want a US-style system.

Well that's a clever way to say nothing at all. I don't want a US-style system either, if you haven't noticed. Although plenty of Canadians do, in fact, use the US system that already exists...

If it works well for Canada (which is 75% as anglo-saxon as the US is), why wouldn't it work for the US?

Canada's system only works for Canada because the US system exists as a second tier for Canadians who can afford it. 80% of Canadians live within a couple hours of the US border, and the Canadian system is protected from backlog by having wealthier Canadians (and not just the super-rich) drive those couple hours to get care in America. So, in effect, Canada has the type of two-tier system I'm describing, just like most of Europe. The one-tier, monopolistic system you're proposing has never been proven to work without the ability to easily cross the border into a country with private care.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Pig Hogger]

But if you nationalize health insurance without nationalizing health care providers and pharmaceuticals, the system will degenerate into health care providers and pharmaceuticals overcharging the nationalized health insurance, and getting rich off of tax money. This is the inevitable result of nationalizing health insurance in the United States, because of the way our political system is set up. That's why it's unworkable.

Au contraire, mon cher; the national/federal (whatever you call it) insurance program will pay so much for a given service. It's up to the private hospitals to live with that, because they're not allowed to overcharge.

Just like it is up here.

Canada's system only works for Canada because the US system exists as a second tier for Canadians who can afford it. 80% of Canadians live within a couple hours of the US border, and the Canadian system is protected from backlog by having wealthier Canadians (and not just the super-rich) drive those couple hours to get care in America. So, in effect, Canada has the type of two-tier system I'm describing, just like most of Europe. The one-tier, monopolistic system you're proposing has never been proven to work without the ability to easily cross the border into a country with private care.

So? Don't worry, Switzerland will be the escape route for those super-rich who don't want to be treated like the rabble.

What? You can't afford Switzerland? Oh, poor little dear. Have you got any idea about how many people will shed a tear towards your predicament?

None at all; exactly none at all.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[The One and Only]

So you're satisfied to drag down the quality of care for others just so it matches your own? You are a very bitter, sad, petty man.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

"The issue is Documentary films used to not have an argument at all. They were to show the issues and let the facts speak."

I understand what you're saying. I'm a professional in film and videogames, i know film making, cinematography, animation etc... and I've seen plenty of documentaries where they try to let the event unfold as is.

The difference is usually they document the event as it happens. Micheal Moore does that to some extent, but he is also traveling from location to location to learn and understand while trying to show a point of view. Michael Moore can interview someone and document their beliefs, behaviors and situations and it is still a report that is valid of being called a documentary.

It just is a different kind of documentary film more along the lines of a report. I've seen a great documentary on a farm family and they followed them day in and day out for over a year and made a great film out of it, showing their challenges in life as it happened. So i understand what you're talking about but Moore doesnt have that kind of luxory when he's investigating an idea. You cant follow a single family for 2 years and cover the health care or the scope of his arguement.

Definatly there is an editorial aspect to his films but i'm certain there is a lot of discovery in his adventure. I mean yes he sets out to see if there is a problem in the healthcare system, and trys to find evidence where that is true. It is a report, based on a question he set forth which is "is there a problem with our healthcare service and how do we compare world wide... because i feel there is problem"

I dont think that is any different than saying... "well running a farm is difficult, and i know the family doesnt make a lot of money, and they have children and i'm sure its a strain on their marriage... i think it would be a good idea to document this family for the next 2 years"

You always set out with a goal, based on what you think may be interesting. I dont think it is much different from Moore having a political view and documenting situations that support it.

Re:Moore isn't Neutral

[Pig Hogger]

Typical answer from a conservative who's too stupid to educate himself and pulls out old worn-out clichés about socialism. And what's worse is that you don't have any money, and are held by the balls by your debt, and you still defend the super-rich who could not care less about you.

slow and steady but predictable

[KarmaOverDogma]

As soon as Google went public, their stated policy of "don't be evil" began its slow but steady erosion. This is just one more relatively small example of it. Someday Google may turn out to be quite nasty indeed. Time will tell, and I hope I am wrong.

Google lost as soon as it began....

[zonezero]

Any company with the chance at large profits will go public and as soon as that happens do no evil takes a back seat to the stock holders. This has always been the case and it always will be...we are all human and we are all greedy little #@$@$@$^.

Google knows where the money is

[throatmonster]

The healthcare industry has it. The uninsured don't. I'd be surprised if Google isn't working feverishly on health-related web apps: Track your health online here, more b-b type stuff like helping doctors offices and hospitals track data, then of course selling that data to the insurance industries so they know who to drop.

ad company

[More Trouble]

Exactly how "not evil" can an ad company be? "Don't be evil" directly conflicts with Google's raison d'etre.

Re:ad company

[Jokkey]

Exactly how "not evil" can an ad company be? "Don't be evil" directly conflicts with Google's raison d'etre.

It's debatable to what extent Google is an ad company. Personally, I think they're a search/information company (with a stated goal of "organizing all of the world's information"), and ads happen to be how they generate revenue.

This isn't too different from other companies and other industries - Red Hat is an open source software company that happens to generate revenue from support, NBC makes their revenue from selling commercials but isn't a "commercial company," etc.

Re:ad company

[More Trouble]

... NBC makes their revenue from selling commercials but isn't a "commercial company," etc.

The parallel with NBC is particularly apt: NBC's customers are those who wish to advertise. The product they sell is ... you. Google is the same way: you (and everything Google can glean about you) are Google's primary product, sold to those who want access to you.

In TFA, I believe we hear Google offering to help certain businesses get "their message" out. In this case, they are acting indistinguishably from an ad or pr company. I guess by at least one measure, NBC is in fact an ad company: when the companies that purchase ad space on NBC dictate the content. And that happens all the time, either directly or indirectly.

:w

Be realistic

[Meor]

Calling Moore's films documentaries is about as accurate as calling Slashdot "news". They're both opinionated editorials.

Don't Be Evil Is Just a Cover

[NeverVotedBush]

It's a distraction. Google is now as evil as they come - Chinese censorship, logging people's searches, identifying people by their searches, invasive street-level photography, invasive satellite photos, you name it.

Goggle has gone dark.

Re:Mod Parent Up!

[Neitokun]

As they say on 4chan, >parent >Parent's parent Same person.

Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[jollyreaper]

And with the right lawyers, you can get very creative with the defining.

I enjoy the conservative reaction to Michael Moore. They hate him so much that they discount anything he says automatically. He could tell a conservative his hair is on fire and that conservative would use his final breath denying it as just another liberal plot.

I like Michael Moore. Most of the time he's on my side of a given issue. The only problem I have is that he can sometimes get a little sloppy when he's being cute and this gives critics a means of attacking the messenger directly and the message by proxy. I thought there were some weaknesses like that in Bowling for Columbine that undercut a good message. I was very pleased with Fahrenheit because he took himself out of the picture for the most part, critics could no longer direct their ire at Michael Moore the director. There were so many clips where administration officials could only be taken at their own recorded word, there's just not any way to spin what was said. Critics were left with saying "Michael Moore is a fat fuck, therefore what he said is wrong."

With SiCKO, it really doesn't matter if you are left or right, conservative or liberal, dem or rep. Health care is a problem for all of us. This system is fucking broken. To all the conservatives fuming at Michael Moore for saying nice things about France's health care system, shouldn't the US be able to outdo France? Shouldn't we be able to beat them at health care if we're the greatest nation in the universe?

What it boils down to, there's enough money and wealth in this country to pay for everything, it's just concentrated in the wrong hands. How many fucking billionaires do we need? How many Enrons do we have to see before we start seriously taking the business-criminal class to task? I'm not just talking about a few show trials that accomplish nothing, I mean serious reform. Because the mess that is health care is just another symptom of the greed disease that is killing us.

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[feyhunde]

The only way you can really do this is crippling tax rates on the super rich, which only work for so long and has a side benefit of killing the industrial drive that creates them. Or you gut the military spending.

I'm not just talking Iraq with the military spending either. No new jet planes, aircraft carriers etc. Some might argue for this, some might argue against it, some might try and find some other place to get the money. But in truth the US choose national security over national healthcare. I've got my own issues with national Healthcare. (Imagine having a nationwide version of the DoD system or the VA). I don't feel our government is able to give that care even with the money.

Honestly, our best bet is bulk buying plans, requiring private insurance for anything approaching a full time job, and trying to make insurance rates stop climbing, both for doctors and patients. Hell, make it much more of a tax write of for every patient a doctor or hospital sees for free. Make it enough and doctors will find it to be their wild. This along with more incentives for new doctors and nurses might help us with out going big government.

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[myth24601]

With SiCKO, it really doesn't matter if you are left or right, conservative or liberal, dem or rep. Health care is a problem for all of us. This system is fucking broken. To all the conservatives fuming at Michael Moore for saying nice things about France's health care system, shouldn't the US be able to outdo France? Shouldn't we be able to beat them at health care if we're the greatest nation in the universe?

According to CNN:
""Sicko" also ignores a handful of good things about the American system. Believe it or not, the United States does rank highest in the patient satisfaction category."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/06/28/sicko.fact.ch eck/index.html

So everyone tells us that our system is so bad but we like it.

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[tenchiken]

In England Moore neglected to mention that the UK is slowly dismantling the system that he praises. In Canada he got grilled by their press for misrepresenting how many people are dying waiting for opperations. In Cuba, ever dissident is cursing his name, or at least would be if they knew about him, but instead are thrown behind bars for daring to think diffrently then Da Capo.

That's the problem with Moore. He is good at making things entertaining... But his is not documenting things, he is making propaganda movies to back up his own point of view. That includes fibbing fibbing about Charles Heston, calling Launch Vehicles for satellites "ICBMS"

In short, Moore doesn't care to tell you the truth, he just wants to entertain you and outrage you so you will support his remarkably ill-formed opinion. He does no service to either liberal or conservative causes.

In this context, I have very little problems with what Google is doing. I am not a fan of HMOs or Moore. I have no problem with beating each other into a bloody pulp.

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[jollyreaper]

According to CNN:
""Sicko" also ignores a handful of good things about the American system. Believe it or not, the United States does rank highest in the patient satisfaction category."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/06/28/sicko.fact.ch eck/index.html [cnn.com]

So everyone tells us that our system is so bad but we like it. Which poll? I don't see a citation there. Are they saying this is from WHO or is it from some other poll?

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[bagboy]

I'll start out by saying I'm middle class, not rich. It burns me up to hear cry-babies say there is enough wealth in the hands of billion/millionaires to handle things and to redistribute wealth. Many people who are wealthy spent most of their lives work extremely hard and being smart with their decisions. They are entitled to reap from what they sowed, just as anyone is. The Robin-Hood syndrome does not work in a country where you are free to make of yourself whatever you want. I grew up in middle class, did not have mommy and daddy pay for college (which I never really finished), joined the military for little pay, raised a family of five, got out and busted my hump studying independently to earn the pay I have. If I ever make it further up the pay scale, I'll be damned if I'm gonna let some cry-baby say "I deserve some of your pay, because I'm not willing to work as hard as you do to earn it." Take two jobs if you have to. Study night and day if you have to. I did.

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[jollyreaper]

The only way you can really do this is crippling tax rates on the super rich, which only work for so long and has a side benefit of killing the industrial drive that creates them. Or you gut the military spending. Yeah, military spending would be a nice place to start. We spend more on warfare than the rest of the world combined and we're still getting our asses handed to us by irregulars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We spend like crazy but we sure don't get much bang for the gigabuck. And according to that CNN poll, "The United States spends more than 15 percent of its GDP on health care -- no other nation even comes close to that number. France spends about 11 percent, and Canadians spend 10 percent." Those countries seem to have better health care for a lower expenditure. Hmm, I wonder how that can be? Oh, right: it's not a for-profit system.

I'm not just talking Iraq with the military spending either. No new jet planes, aircraft carriers etc. Some might argue for this, some might argue against it, some might try and find some other place to get the money. But in truth the US choose national security over national healthcare. I've got my own issues with national Healthcare. (Imagine having a nationwide version of the DoD system or the VA). I don't feel our government is able to give that care even with the money. I'd argue that most of that DoD money is wasted anyway. I'm all for a strong defense but what we're talking about here is military-industrial complex corporate welfare. The metaphor I use to describe government spending, it's like trying to use a lawn sprinkler to fill a dixie cup. Sure, you'll fill it eventually, but it'll take fifty gallons to fill up an 6 ounce cup. Military spending is out of control and needs a serious revamping.

Honestly, our best bet is bulk buying plans, requiring private insurance for anything approaching a full time job, and trying to make insurance rates stop climbing, both for doctors and patients. Hell, make it much more of a tax write of for every patient a doctor or hospital sees for free. Make it enough and doctors will find it to be their wild. This along with more incentives for new doctors and nurses might help us with out going big government. Oh, dear. Are you a free marketer?

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[IgnoramusMaximus]

The only way you can really do this is crippling tax rates on the super rich, which only work for so long and has a side benefit of killing the industrial drive that creates them.

This, of course, is one of those oft repeated, and completely, utterly, false canards, which the accolytes of the All-Powerful Deity of the Free Market Mammon are so fond of breathlessly repeating.

If it were true, the only motivation for progress, since beginning of time, would be massive piles of gold coins. That would mean Aristotle, Socrates and Plato were in it for the money, right? How about Copernicus? They made him the King of Poland, no? Or, say, Da Vinci, who surely ended up owning most of Venice, right? Perheaps this is to old for ya, lets try something modern: Albert Einstein. Given their relative contributions to humankind, that dude certainly died with a fortune which makes Bill Gates look like a pauper, no?

How about industry then? A typical Japanese CEO makes about 10 times the average salary of a worker in his corporation. A CEO of a US corporation is now past 500 times that of an average employee in his operation. Are you trying to tell me that Japanese CEOs lack any motivation to produce quality products and therefore their companies are 50 times less competetive?

I could go on like this for hours.

The point is that the phenomenon of people taking seriously (particularly in the USA) the laughable assertion of unquestionable equivalency between drive to innovation, increase of productivity and unrestricted, boundless, avarice is a very recent one.

This is a testimony to the success of the propaganda of the greed-mongers, in their unceasing efforts to destroy any reasoning ability in people's brains and to obfuscate pretty much all of the recorded history which directly contradicts their inane greed-centered world-view.

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[jollyreaper]

If I ever make it further up the pay scale, I'll be damned if I'm gonna let some cry-baby say "I deserve some of your pay, because I'm not willing to work as hard as you do to earn it." Take two jobs if you have to. Study night and day if you have to. I did. So, "Bagboy", which two supermarkets are you working at?

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[nido]

The only way you can really do this is crippling tax rates on the super rich, One thing that gets glossed over in SiCKO is how much profiteering there is in the U.S. healthcare system. For example, when my Grandmother was in the final months of her conventional treatment for Multiple Myeloma (sp?), her doctor perscribed Thalidomide. Cost for a one month supply (30 pills, iirc) was $2309.99. Cost in Brazil: $0.09/pill. Thalidomide's patent has long-since expired, but the U.S. distribution company has patented a method that's supposed to keep the pill away from pregnant women (Thalidomide was banned because it causes birth defects).

Just one example - there are countless others.

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that's right:
Money is Bad,
Freedom is Slavery,
Ignorance is Strength, at least on /.

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[willyhill]

I enjoy the conservative reaction to Michael Moore. They hate him so much that they discount anything he says automatically. He could tell a conservative his hair is on fire and that conservative would use his final breath denying it as just another liberal plot.

No less interesting is the liberal reaction to Michael Moore. If I wasn't looking hard I'd think he was Moses coming down that mountain with the Ten Commandments in his backpack.

Moore is an alarmist. He gives you a tunnel vision POV of a problem and then tells you "see? see how bad it is!! run for the hills!!!"

He's no better than the people he's "unmasking" or whatever he's trying to do and raking in hundreds of millions in the process.

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Yes, that's right: Money is Bad, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, at least on /.

At a risk of feeding a mindless troll, here is the breakdown: Money is merely a mechanism to make exchange of labour and resources convenient. That is all that money is, ergo saying that "money is bad" would be like saying "labour and resources are bad". You are not even trying to make sense, which labels you, with a high probability, as a member of the "ME! Mine! All Mine! Me! My! Myself! I got Mine you go get yours, on some other planet!" school of social sciences.

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[Blakey Rat]

I'm sorry, I stopped listening to anything Moore had to say after he called a plant which worked every day to dismantle ICBMs and convert them to peaceful purposes launching satellites a "weapons factory." The guy's an absolute scumbag with no concern for telling the truth. His movies should be be considered documentaries.

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[jnnnnn]

it's just concentrated in the wrong hands. Whose hands should it be concentrated into?

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[Anonymous Coward]

Your attack on "greed" is pretty obnoxious. Consider this - wealth is security. It means that you aren't at the mercy of others. It means you can provide for your offspring and send them to get good educations so that they can provide for themselves. These are obviously desirable things. You have to work to get them. Your assumption that anyone who acquires wealth is "ME! Mine!" is a really lame simplification. Feel free to give your own wealth away, don't tell me I'm just greedy and try to take mine from me.

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[casings]

Do me a favor, bagboy. Find one person, just one, who is sick and can't afford the costs of health care, can't be insured because of their ailments, and just look at them, because its because of your reasoning that is keeping them from it. However, they won't be mad at you. They won't threaten you. Most won't even ask for your help like you say they would.

Universal health care isn't about redistributing wealth my good sir. It's about things that should be provided by a government for the people. You are very much entitled to spend your wealth as you see fit, but as a citizen of this country it is your responsibility to that everyone should have the same right you do.

Health care should not a privilege earned by working hard, taking advantage of opportunities, or studying. It is a basic right that the government should provide for its people.

National defense in this country is a joke. An absolute joke. We are an offensive country (take that how you want), but we are actively engaging enemies. But why even start an offensive abroad when the government feels its not its responsibility to protect the citizen's health.

Please tell me how any logical, ethical person can dispute this? Would you not want it the same for you and your family? If your children become uninsured and ill, do you really want to take the responsibility for their bills, because you feel that paying an extra percent on taxes is something which you can't afford. Wake up man, the amount of money you most likely spend on health care each year could cover the costs of socialised health care in this country.

Seriously, take time and evaluate your arguments before presenting them. Maybe have a intelligent discussion and be open to other opinions, and you will be surprised at how much of a daft opinion you actually have. I did.

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[humphrm]

This system is fucking broken.

No system, not even France, is perfect, and no system is completely broken. I like Michael Moore too, but for a different reason - he takes one subject to the absolute extreme. France's may be far better than the U.S. in some respects, but it others it is worse.

How many fucking billionaires do we need?

I don't think that we have a quota per-se. Capitalism doesn't need billionaires, but it does produce them.

I don't see anything here that makes me think Google is doing any evil. Michael Moore's entertaining movies can, as I said, go to the very extreme and as such be very one-sided. I usually agree with his premise, but not with the extreme. But I find the "extreme" part entertaining. Still, no harm in Google providing a little bit of the other side of the argument, eh?

Or should we just shut up everyone who disagrees with us?

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[cdrguru]

The reason that other countries spend significantly less on health care is really pretty simple. The common view is most of the world is that at some point in your life you will get sick and die and nothing can change that. In the US this belief is not widely held. So we spend and spend trying to put off what the rest of the world considers inviteable. Not only inviteable but there is no question in their minds that it is going to happen. Even that it should.

Until you change that view in the US, people here are going to spend more on health care than the rest of the world.

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[moosesocks]

The problem with Moore is that through his sensationalist tactics, he's sort of become the "face" of left-wing liberals as seen by far-right conservatives.

Unfortunately for those of us who want the liberals to win an election, that face is fat, rude, and mean-spirited. At the very least, the republican party has pretty clearly defined who its leaders are -- sure, it helps being the ruling party, but the number of high-profile republican politicians far outweighs the democrats, which is why Ann Coulter isn't seen as being as much of a mascot for the republicans. As for the republicans, you've got Bush, his cabinet, McCain, Stevens, among others (and formerly Colin Powell) carrying the torch, and attracting attention.

The democrats really don't have much in terms of a figurehead, which largely contributed to them losing the 2004 elections -- Howard Dean turned out to be a tad bit unstable, and the primaries got thrown to Kerry, who wasn't charismatic enough to lead anything.

With all due respect, Michael Moore is an asshole, regardless of whether or not you agree with his politics. He's not the sort of person you want representing your side of the table.

Personally, I'm only a bit left of center. I agree with Moore on most points (although not with his tactics). I can very clearly see that there are times when the government needs to step back, and let the country run itself. Right now, the Bush administration has managed to stick its hands in all the wrong places, whilst completely ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the living room. Health care isn't a political issue. It's a humanitarian issue -- I believe that it is very much the government's policy to adopt a strong set of morals -- specifically a set of morals that serves and protects its citizens equally and fairly. I really can't comprehend how a group that refers to itself as the "moral majority" has been actively pursuing to restrict the civil and human rights of American citizens.

In the grand scheme of things, being "far on the left" in America is actually really closer to center in the grand scheme of things.

And now, I'll step down from my soapbox.

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[sunwukong]

I'll hold onto it while you guys decide.

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Your attack on "greed" is pretty obnoxious. Consider this - wealth is security. It means that you aren't at the mercy of others. It means you can provide for your offspring and send them to get good educations so that they can provide for themselves. These are obviously desirable things. You have to work to get them. Your assumption that anyone who acquires wealth is "ME! Mine!" is a really lame simplification. Feel free to give your own wealth away, don't tell me I'm just greedy and try to take mine from me.

There a numerous problems with this reasoning.

For one if your desire for secuirity requires impoverishment, and thus destruction of sequirity for others, it simply leads back to feudalism, where few had all the "security" from their "property", i.e. peasants, enforced via private armies. So the wealth creation has to be spread evenly throughout society. More concentrated it becomes (a process which is accelerating insanely now in the US) less "security" the unwashed masses have. Which can only result in two outcomes: violent revolt or enslavements of many by the very few. Non necessarily in that order.

So if you keep proceeding with only your own ass in mind, the end result will be stuff being taken away from you, including, possibly, you life, should things get really ugly.

Next, there is a huge gap between a wish to provide for one's family and a wish to own a Boeing 767 painted pink, with a toilet seat made out of pure gold. An unrestricted, boundless greed, for greed's sake, is what I am talking about, not a materialistic motivation to achieve a comfortable, secure life-style. The difference between that of a talented engineer, or a bio-scientist living in comfort due to their contributions to society, and, say, Paris Hilton or Prince Bandar.

Finally, even though financial motivations are for many creative people secondary (as my quick run through history books shows), if there was truly a demonstrable, reliable (as opposed to wishful-thinking based one) relationship between wealth and contributions to society, an idea which is the very cornerstone of the "capitalist" societal phillosphy, I would be a card-carrying member of the CATO institute, instead of ridiculing the uncritical wealth-worship which you are so keen to exhibit.

In short, my attack on "greed" is an attack on falsity, boloney and flim-flam of the so-called "Free Market" society, which is by now a thinly-disguised feudal order and my objections have nothing to do with wealth and creation of therof, merely with lies dealing with its distribution.

And I am not even going to venture into the whole realm of attribution of credit for progress presently used by the various greed-mongers, whereby already mentioned Paris Hilton is thousands of times more "valuable" to the society then those dudes a few /. articles back who are busy splicing genes in search of cures for devastating diseases.

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[Hal_Porter]

I grew up in middle class, did not have mommy and daddy pay for college (which I never really finished), joined the military for little pay, raised a family of five, got out and busted my hump studying independently to earn the pay I have. If I ever make it further up the pay scale, I'll be damned if I'm gonna let some cry-baby say "I deserve some of your pay, because I'm not willing to work as hard as you do to earn it." Take two jobs if you have to. Study night and day if you have to. I did.

Good for you. But I bet here you'll get a load of sneering comments from far richer people who became 'socialists' after skimming through Noam Chomsky and seeing a Moore film or two. The ironic thing is Chomsky for all his faults would be horrified by people like them that shout down anyone that disagrees with their world view.

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[ErikZ]

I also believe it's up to people to take their health care into their own hands.

And I'm a logical person.

I see the reason health care is so high is because of the lawyers. My solution is this: You cannot sue doctors or hospitals over the medical care they give you.

It would be wrong to keep them completely immune though. So there would be one condition. If you feel you've been wronged so badly, that they're a danger to their patients, you can move to have their ability to practice medicine removed.

There you go. Best of both worlds. You understand that doctors are human and make mistakes. And you also have an outlet for the dangerous ones.

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[king-manic]

In Canada he got grilled by their press for misrepresenting how many people are dying waiting for operations.

They are. News to me. I live here and no one in my immediate circle of acquaintances nor anyone in the local or national news.

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[casings]

If you are logical, then please reexamine the "logic" of your post.

You claim that the extremely high costs can be alleviated by the inability to sue a doctor who has caused harm through malpractice. This amounts to essentially a claim that the reason someone has to pay 12,000 to attach a ring finger and 60,000 to attach a middle finger is because they are covering their asses in case they get sued???

Am I hearing this correctly?

The reason people sue is because they have suffered damage, and seek compensation. This goes for any field. The monetary compensation would be less however if the cost to fix the damage wasn't so high. So why not fix the real problem at the source? Why should doctors get immunity from having to pay for the consequences of their actions?

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[Anonymous Coward]

Kurt Loder of all people had a pretty insightful analysis of Moore's film. It's well worth the read.

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[servognome]

CEO compensation for the most part tracks the S&P 500. They make more money in proportion to the money the stockholders make, which I would say is appropriate compensation.

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[UserGoogol]

The world doesn't owe you shit. I don't know how so many conservatives and libertarians bemoan the "culture of entitlement" and then say stuff like this with a straight face. Just because you work hard to get something doesn't mean you deserve it. Lots of things are hard. You can whine all you want about how you "earned" your wealth through hard work, but at the end of the day that doesn't mean shit. You could easily lose everything tomorrow if you had a particularly bad day. There is nothing in nature which says "If you work for something, you should be able to keep it." It's merely something people made up, just as much as "If you can't work, you should be able to have some stuff anyway, even if that means taking stuff other people want."

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[elborrachogato]

Another liberal moron.

If you can't afford healthcare then you don't deserve it.

Its. That. Fucking. Simple.

Why should the government be responsible for your own failure to get a decent job? I pay about $500 a month for my family's health insurance. It's nothing. I can easily spend that much on dinner for a few friends.

Go to Cuba if you want a doctor that ashes his cigarette into your wound while he works on you. I WANT my doctors rolling in money, we have the best doctors in the world bar none. You want the best, you have to pay. I watched SICKO and got SICKO from watching all the losers whine about how they can't hack it in life. You're 70 years old, if you haven't saved up enough money to retire and live a comfortable life, then something is seriously wrong. Forget healthcare, just kill yourself. You're not fit.

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[IgnoramusMaximus]

CEO compensation for the most part tracks the S&P 500. They make more money in proportion to the money the stockholders make, which I would say is appropriate compensation.

No it is not. If the CEO compensation and the compensation of employees diverge by a factor of 500, even if profits of some shareholders are proportional (an unlikely scenario since the CEO pay is well known to be wholly independent of the profitability of companies, and in fact tends to be astronomical especially when the company itself is about to fold and more stunning the incompetence and corruption of the CEO, better the pay apparently) then the society has no longer any need for allowing the corporate charter to exist. The purpose of allowing the corporations to come to being is to benefit the society as a whole not a few feudal lords, otherwise known as billionaire stockholders, and their semi-loyal vassals, the CEOs, at the expense of everyone else.

It is truly mind boggling how many excuses people like you come up with in order to justify the galloping return to feudalism-in-all-but-name, which is so advanced already in the USA. Not only that, many of you are apparently not satisifed about how fast can you become wholly owned and operated by your "betters". "Give me liberty or give me death" my ass.

And before you start going off about how average Joe American is a stockholder too, be sure to realize that 90% of all stocks in the USA are owned by less then 20% of the population, with over 30% of all companies owned by just the top 1%.

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[jollyreaper]

it's just concentrated in the wrong hands. Whose hands should it be concentrated into? Wealth should never be concentrated in the first place. It should be spread equitably amongst the people working to create it in the first place. Does Bill Gates work? Yes. Does the janitor at Microsoft work? Does the code monkey work? Yes. How much is the time and labor of the janitor worth? How much for the code monkey? How much for Bill Gates? Don't even tell me that's something for the free market to decide because it's not free in the first place, the game is rigged. A very old criticism of democracy goes along the lines of "It will last just long enough for people to realize they can vote themselves largess from the state treasury, and that will continue until the state collapses." In other words, short-term greed hurts long-term success. Could you define these benefits packages as anything other than voting largess from the coffers of the company? The CEO tries every trick he can to spike the stock price, like a bodybuilder roiding up to win a competition without a care for what happens next. The stock peaks, the board approves a bigger bonus, and the cycle continues until the CEO bails with his golden parachute.

The point I'm getting at is that nobody's work is worth a billion dollars. People who insist otherwise are corporate apologists with an agenda.

I think the old Japanese model of compensation made sense. The company CEO made maybe ten times what the lowest snuffie makes. Whenever I hear "top talent requires top compensation" I see red. What's that supposed to tell the rank and file who see their wages pushed through the floor, that they're not top talent? Why have all-star managers running a team of feebs? It's just bullshit rhetoric to justify corporate thievery.

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[ErikZ]

I wasn't specific enough, this is one of the things that's plaguing the medical field causing high costs. Not the sole reason.

And even if it cost a dollar to reattach a finger, people will sure for much, much more. Lost work, permanent damages, death, mental anguish, etc. The cost of lawyers to fight these things in court.

"By 2003, medical liability costs reached $26 billion..."
http://www.protectpatientsnow.org/site/c.8oIDJLNnH lE/b.1549475/k.CFF/The_High_Cost_of_Medical_Lawsui t_Abuse.htm

If you can not get this under control, it doesn't matter who provides the medical care. It's going to be expensive.

And doctors don't have immunity from the consequences of their actions. I specifically added the "Lose their medical license" clause. This means no more suing doctors and hospitals in the hope that they'll throw money at you. Your victory means that you've taken a bad doctor out of the profession and that's all.

The next thing that causes the price of medical care to go up is the sheer amount of illegal immigrants that go in for free health care...

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[fimbulvetr]

In MM's movies, I can look up and confirm/deny the facts/stats he uses. Do you by chance have links for your assertions?

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[fimbulvetr]

So there's a middle ground between the two? What do you suppose it is?

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[servognome]

No it is not. If the CEO compensation and the compensation of employees diverge by a factor of 500, even if profits of some shareholders are proportional

If you look at the CEO compensation vs S&P 500 chart you will see they are proportional. Yes there are high profile circumstances where CEO pay at a particular company is totally out of sync with performance, but as a whole CEO compensation is fine.
The problem is that company growth due to employee productivity increases do not result in increase of employee compensation. It's the employee wages being held down that's the problem, not the CEO pay being out of control.

The purpose of allowing the corporations to come to being is to benefit the society as a whole not a few feudal lords, otherwise known as billionaire stockholders, and their semi-loyal vassals, the CEOs, at the expense of everyone else.

The history of corporations has always been to help mercantilists to make more money by reducing risk (and in theory helping society as a whole). Benefits to society have only been a side-effect of corporate greed. I do agree that society does have the right to revoke corporate charters, I don't necessarily think that will really accomplish what you want. All that would do is push everything back to privately owned companies with much less transparency and responsibility, and reduce the middle class of ownership. Rather than the rich owning most everything, they would in fact own everything.

It is truly mind boggling how many excuses people like you come up with in order to justify the galloping return to feudalism-in-all-but-name, which is so advanced already in the USA. Not only that, many of you are apparently not satisifed about how fast can you become wholly owned and operated by your "betters". "Give me liberty or give me death" my ass.

It is truly mind boggling why people carry this sense of helplessness. Why do you feel you are owned? Because somebody else is making more money than you is jealousy not patriotism. If you feel owned start your own company, one that reflects your own ideals.
Yes there are problems in the US, just like there is everywhere else in the world. Most of the problems are caused by the choices of individuals, the structural problem such as medical coverage and access to higher education should be the focus. Not that CEOs make more money, and people are deciding to go into more debt.

And before you start going off about how average Joe American is a stockholder too, be sure to realize that 90% of all stocks in the USA are owned by less then 20% of the population, with over 30% of all companies owned by just the top 1%

The problem is Joe American isn't a stockholder, the biggest mistake most middle class people make is to put consumerism over real ownership. Instead of investing they buy goods that overtime will be worth less, with credit that makes them cost more.
How many of those shares are owned by the corporate founders? Also, your numbers are skewed since institutional investing has taken the place of individual investment. I may not own a share of stock, but I'm invested in a mutal fund that holds stock; I'm an owner by proxy, with less risk exposure.

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[IgnoramusMaximus]

I don't necessarily think that will really accomplish what you want. All that would do is push everything back to privately owned companies with much less transparency and responsibility, and reduce the middle class of ownership. Rather than the rich owning most everything, they would in fact own everything.

My answer is an abolishment of corporate charter (and thus return to personal responsibility of business owners for the actions of their companies - a key element which you forgot to mention being circumvented by the corporate charter) but more importantly, return to 90+% tax brackets. We do not need large businesses and super-wealthy super-businessmen in any area. We need a lot of smaller businesses competing for everything. That is what ensures that the "invisible hand" of the marketplace remains working. Very, very, very steep progressive taxation (along with near 90% inheretance taxation in higher brackets) is what ensures that the capitalist game remains functional, by preventing consolidation and runaway (due to some market failure) fortunes. Otherwise, the removal of "tax friction" to unlimited consolidation of companies and unlimited acquisiton of wealth results in feudalism, which the USA is at this point far too close to for any comfort.

It is truly mind boggling why people carry this sense of helplessness.

Maybe because of the fact that most of the population in the US (and increasingly most of the West) has a negative savings rate?

Why do you feel you are owned?

Because we increasingly are owned. As an example, in an area we nerds find dear to us: where I live, all cell-phone service providers have merged into two cartels, who now charge identical rates of ~0.5$ per kilobyte for internet access on your phone, or roughly $21,000 for 4Gb. Your "consumer choice" is that of a Dick A up your ass, or Dick B up your ass. Same applies to land-based ISPs whose best uplink rate (in a densly populated city centre) is 384kbit/s for a mere $95 a month.

Because somebody else is making more money than you is jealousy not patriotism.

The problem is not that they are making money. It is the way in which they are making money. What I am pointing out is the total breakage of the basic, fundamental rules of the whole "capitalist" society!

If you feel owned start your own company, one that reflects your own ideals.

Oh yea! That will cure the problem! I will just hop on to my bank, get a loan for, say, $5 billion, get the government to sell me some radio spectrum presently used by someone else (I will have to buy a few politicians to do that, bribing them more then the other guy) and then I will start my own cell-phone company and I will never have to pay 50 cents a kilobyte again! That's the truly practical plan for all citizens in my area, surely .... not!

As an aside. I do own my own small business. This however is not a cure to what ails the society. We are discussing systemic, nation-wide problems, not what some more fortunate individuals are privileged to do for themselves. Not everyone can own a business. Not even 1 in 10 people can do so, for many, many reasons.

Yes there are problems in the US, just like there is everywhere else in the world. Most of the problems are caused by the choices of individuals, the structural problem such as medical coverage and access to higher education should be the focus. Not that CEOs make more money, and people are deciding to go into more debt.

Yes, apparently, as in the example above, we, the individuals (or more accurately our grand-parents), have sinned gravely by deciding to live in this area, no? And higher education will certainly solve the problem of oligarchies, cartels and duo-polies! That is of course righ

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[tenchiken]

If you can look it up, why do you need me to do it? Other then spreading FUD?

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[servognome]

My answer is an abolishment of corporate charter (and thus return to personal responsibility of business owners for the actions of their companies - a key element which you forgot to mention being circumvented by the corporate charter

So your answer to fixing the class imbalance is to remove any chance of ownership from the lower and middle classes? Yes you will have more "responsibility" but the risk will then further concentrate power in the hands of the few who can afford to take risk. You can point all you want to "evil" corporations, but privately held business throughout history aren't any better.
I do agree that some measure of corporate accountability is necessary, but it should be focused on the executive level, those in control. Exposing shareholders would just change how capital is raised from shared ownership to debt.

We do not need large businesses and super-wealthy super-businessmen in any area. We need a lot of smaller businesses competing for everything

First from a practical level, who decides the minimum number of companies, or what size company is too large? A grocery store has different capital investment requirements from a wafer fab.
Second from an economic point of view, we would be eroding economies of scale causing things to be more expensive. Do we really need more bankrupt airlines?

along with near 90% inheretance taxation in higher brackets

I do agree with this, there are too many loopholes that allow multi-generational legacies to be established. The children of the rich have enough benefits that they should be able to become self-sufficient and not need inheretance

Maybe because of the fact that most of the population in the US (and increasingly most of the West) has a negative savings rate?

Most by individual choice. Just look at this weekend, thousands of people waited hours, even days, in line so they could spend $2000+ dollars for a gadget (including the 2year contract). Some of them probably could afford it, but many probably couldn't and just stuck it on their charge card. People overpurchased on homes, bought gas guzzling SUVs, playing the credit game of financing longer, so they could afford the payments because of all the other debt they have. People choose to live on the edge, then cry helplessness when the world doesn't go according to plan.

Because we increasingly are owned. As an example, in an area we nerds find dear to us: where I live, all cell-phone service providers have merged into two cartels, who now charge identical rates of ~0.5$ per kilobyte for internet access on your phone, or roughly $21,000 for 4Gb. Your "consumer choice" is that of a Dick A up your ass, or Dick B up your ass. Same applies to land-based ISPs whose best uplink rate (in a densly populated city centre) is 384kbit/s for a mere $95 a month.

You forgot choice C which is don't give into consumerism and just use your phone for phone calls.

The problem is not that they are making money. It is the way in which they are making money. What I am pointing out is the total breakage of the basic, fundamental rules of the whole "capitalist" society!

How specifically are they making money that breaks capitalist society? Other than inheritance, most of the wealth is generated through risk taking and entreprenuership.

Oh yea! That will cure the problem! I will just hop on to my bank, get a loan for, say, $5 billion, get the government to sell me some radio spectrum presently used by someone else (I will have to buy a few politicians to do that, bribing them more then the other guy) and then I will start my own cell-phone company and I will never have to pay 50 cents a kilobyte again! That's the truly practical plan for all citizens in my area, surely .... not!

There are unlicensed parts of the rad

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[zahl2]

That's nice. So do you both have health care?

If you get it through your employer, that's nice. If you're self-employed, good luck finding anything reasonably priced that's useful for much.

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether it tracks the S&P 500 or not, is irrelevant.

When the head of Toyota makes only 10x his average worker's salary yet still manages to position his company as #1, then American auto company stockholders are being robbed. They should probably seek out more talented foreigners.

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[servognome]

A small grocery store is dead next to a WalMart. A mom-and-pop burger place has no chance on the same corner as McDonalds. A small-time family car repair shop is nearly always devastated by a national chain. Etc and so on.

Perhaps we should just go back to the good old days of individual craftsman, instead of mass production, then everybody will be the owner of their own company; that would definately improve everybody's quality of life.
The solution to the economy is not to make everything more expensive. Mom & pop shops can and do compete, just not directly with price. People will pay a little more for a burger that doesn't taste like cardboard, for goods that aren't mass market cheap plastic, and for good customer service at the repair shop.

No one decides per-se. Taxation brackets would be adjusted based on median income of the nation, and thus floating automatically with the increase/decrease of the wealth of the whole populace.

You still have to decide the scale. Is 95% bracket at 10 million dollars? What happens to companies like airlines, the cost becomes completely prohibitive because you can't form an airline on a few thousand dollars. You actually eliminate competition by pricing people out.
The approach is backwards in that it promotes cheap & less risky investment, rather than expensive & revolutionary development.

This of course is one of those big lies of the "free" market, today. Many things, which are supposedly available because of "economy" of scale are simply rip-offs. Microsoft products (up to 10000% margins) or FLASH memory chips (400-800% margins) alike and are simply a result of activities of various cartels.

You contradict yourself. If there are these huge margins across the board, then mom & pop shops would be able to compete. For the most part economy of scales have brought us much cheaper goods, a-la Walmart. Yes there are specific cases where the system breaks down, I never claimed that the free market is perfect. There should be a strong FTC & DOJ to prevent such problem (Memory maker collusion, MS monopoly, etc); and it should be something the citizens demand, of course half the people can't be bothered to vote let alone educate themselves.

Perheaps it is so, but you cannot put a blame for the result of the decades of corporate propaganda squarely on the shoulders of its victims.

If commercials make people buy, then I guess video games make people murder.

And now you are blaming the hapless goofuses, who unlike you and me, had no privilege of other points of view, which in my case is of foreign origin.

Which is why I feel so strongly about education. Exposing people to new points of view is the only way to change the culture. Massive taxation won't fix things, it will just concentrate wealth in the hands of the government, another elitest group. The solution is to fix the culture.

make a long story short, none of these technologies are practical in the slightest, and all ultimately depend on the good graces of the very people you are trying to cirvumvent

Those were just brainstorming examples. The solution most likely is not obvious, but there is a solution - that's how companies are started.

But the whole insideous nature of such "soft" slavery is that, as Goethe once said: "None are more enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free". And I think this statement applies quite nicely to most of the populations of the Western countries. The fact that people in some other places have it worse, does not excuse what is going on here. It is a logical fallacy to try to excuse removal of someone's freedom by pointing out that someone else is going hungry.

On the flip side, telling a man he is free does not end his hunger. To

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[drsquare]

I see the reason health care is so high is because of the lawyers.

No, it's high because of the inherent costs of running a private business. A state-run health service doesn't need a huge marketing budget, hordes of expensive executives, actuaries, salesmen, brand consultants, dividends, etc. etc. etc.

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[Yunzil]

The only way you can really do this is crippling tax rates on the super rich, which only work for so long and has a side benefit of killing the industrial drive that creates them.

So, between 1940 and 1963 when the top marginal tax rate was over 80% there was no industrial drive?

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[Yunzil]

If you can't afford healthcare then you don't deserve it.

Yeah, maybe those poor people should die and decrease the surplus population!

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[ErikZ]

No, it's high because of the inherent costs of running a private business. A state-run health service doesn't need a huge marketing budget, hordes of expensive executives, actuaries, salesmen, brand consultants, dividends, etc. etc. etc.

Where have you seen a cost analysis that showed this was a problem?

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Mom & pop shops can and do compete, just not directly with price. People will pay a little more for a burger that doesn't taste like cardboard, for goods that aren't mass market cheap plastic, and for good customer service at the repair shop.

That is untrue. The general public does normally prefer low price and is willing to mindlessly destroy their own livelyhood in its pursuit. But where low price alone is insufficient, it is scientifically proven that the public is also subject to mass scale media-based brainwashing, which in marketing circles goes by the name of "branding". That is why people will buy McCrap burger, even though a Mom & Pop store is offering much better cousine next door. They are simply inundated with incessant multi-billion psychological manipulation, from very young age onwards, for which very purpose the so called "mass media" exists. That is why the advent of "franchise" stores is so popular, as they do provide the mass-media centered mass-mind-warping mechanisms, which individual stores cannot even dream of. So the unholy duo of low price (at the expense of foreign slave labour and environmental destruction) and "branding" pretty much seals the fate of all locally owned opertions.

The approach is backwards in that it promotes cheap & less risky investment, rather than expensive & revolutionary development.

Really? What was the last time "expensive and revolutionary" development occured by a private company, not in any way stolen from the government-funded academia?

You contradict yourself. ... If there are these huge margins across the board, then mom & pop shops would be able to compete.

You forgot about the barriers to entry. If the barrier to entry (most of the time artifically created by the participants of the cartels) is so high that only a mega-bazillionaire multi-mega-national can enter, the mom & pop crowd is at a distinct disadvantage. Say a government demand that some spectrum be sold whole as a unit to the highest bidder (for a mere few billion dollars usually), instead of being managed by the government and small participants sharing in its use for a nominal fee. Same applies to city wide conduits, which instead of being privately own (and thus monopolized due to geography and building restrictions) should be managed by the government or a non-profit consortium, and leased at a nominal fee to small businesses competing on service delivery. Etc and so on.

Those were just brainstorming examples. The solution most likely is not obvious, but there is a solution - that's how companies are started.

And oft there is no solution, no matter how many try. Go check out the "perpetual motion machine archive" for examples. Raw willpower is not a substitute for reality.

On the flip side, telling a man he is free does not end his hunger. To quote Full Metal Jacket, "They'd rather be alive than free, I guess. Poor dumb bastards." Western countries do have erosion of freedoms, mostly in "Wars against [drugs, terror, etc]," coupled with organized special interest groups which have greater influence over government due to their ability to organize votes.

So I guess it is all right to be owned by our feudal betters, as long as the TV keeps playing and the bread is available, right?

Have you looked at the demographics for graduate school in engineering? Our highest levels of education are training those H1B workers because people in the US aren't attending.

See your own post above. The foreigners (particularly oriental where all the manufacturing and thus wealth is heading) have far more purchasing power then the locals, and the locals have been repeatedly burned by investing in useless education, only to become underpaid corporate drones, and so their lesson learned was that the educatio

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[servognome]

The general public does normally prefer low price and is willing to mindlessly destroy their own livelyhood in its pursuit.

They prefer lower price unless there is a compelling reason to pay more. Cooking your own food is even cheaper than going to fast food, but people choose to pay more for prepared food because of a compelling reason (time). People pay more for good food or atmosphere at a mom & pop shop.

But where low price alone is insufficient, it is scientifically proven that the public is also subject to mass scale media-based brainwashing, which in marketing circles goes by the name of "branding". That is why people will buy McCrap burger, even though a Mom & Pop store is offering much better cousine next door. They are simply inundated with incessant multi-billion psychological manipulation, from very young age onwards, for which very purpose the so called "mass media" exists.

Yes, nobody can resist the sheer compelling power of mass media, all Dubya needs to do is start an advertising campaign and all his problems will be forgotten. I tend to give people more credit, mass media may have some limited impact, but it is far from being so compelling it controls people.

That is why the advent of "franchise" stores is so popular, as they do provide the mass-media centered mass-mind-warping mechanisms, which individual stores cannot even dream of.

Franchises work because people are risk averse. I walk into Starbucks, McDonalds, Apple Store, I know what to expect whether I'm in Louisville or Tokyo. There are better coffee shops than Starbucks, but most people don't want to go around experimenting. I go to a mom & pop coffee shop in town, because they offer better coffee and better pastries. But when I go to other countries, unless a place is recommended I will stick with the safety of a franchise... I don't have the time or patience to look for something better when I'm travelling.

You forgot about the barriers to entry. If the barrier to entry (most of the time artifically created by the participants of the cartels) is so high that only a mega-bazillionaire multi-mega-national can enter, the mom & pop crowd is at a distinct disadvantage

Yes they are at a disadvantage, but it doesn't mean impossible. There are new small businesses started every day, just because the obvious path is dominated by giants doesn't mean that nobody can compete; that's why hundreds of small business start up every year.

So I guess it is all right to be owned by our feudal betters, as long as the TV keeps playing and the bread is available, right?

Only if the alternative is starvation and economic collapse. I still don't see how we are being controlled by feudal betters; because we freely choose to buy things from big multi-national corporations? The US economy would be unsustainable without globalization and economies of scale, we'd be worse off, not better

The foreigners (particularly oriental where all the manufacturing and thus wealth is heading) have far more purchasing power then the locals, and the locals have been repeatedly burned by investing in useless education, only to become underpaid corporate drones, and so their lesson learned was that the education is yet another empty slogan in a long parade of many.

Have you ever travelled to China or Asia? They do not have nearly the same purchasing power as people in the US. The asian sweatshops are filled with people making Nikes for the "poor" inner-city kids in the US.
When 15% of students drop out of highschool, the problem isn't about being "burned" by pursuing higher education.

Since at this point pretty much all is being outsourced, which is only logical after the core of the economy, the manufacturing is already somewhere else, I am not sure what you are trying to recommend for all

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[servognome]

This is one of the critical errors in Adam Smith's scheme, the fact that the consumers are often ignorant and/or purposefully misinformed on a large sacle and thus unable to participate in the marketplace in a way that leads to true competition between sellers.

Seems that our fundamental philosophical difference is you are looking for a structural method of protecting people from their own ignorance. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it just doesn't fit with my definition of freedom.

You mean it didn't work for him in whipping hysteria with all sorts of bizarre fabrications prior to launching his PNAC designed plan to conquer and loot Iraq, resulting in hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed, unheard of before war profiteering schemes and, now, wholesale fire-sale of Iraq to his closest corporate benefactors?

That wasn't mass marketing, that was leveraging the bully pulpit. The mass marketing stunts like "mission accomplished" have failed miserably.

There are a miriad companies world-wide which make soft drinks identical in taste to that of Coca-Cola and yet they are forever doomed to tiny market shares because by now people will buy, completely instinctively at this point, like Pavlovian dogs, either Pepsi or Coke. Subsequently this duo-poly has 90%+ ownership of all fast food associated carbonated drink delivery. "Free market" my ass.

If enough people demanded something else then fast food companies would sell it. Are you saying it's wrong for people to be satisfied? As you say there are plenty of alternative products (carbonated beverages are not the only products in the drink market), people just choose not choose something else.

This is one sad rationalization of your own mental shackles, installed compliments of the corporate brainwashing operations. What do you suppose is the perecentage of "travellers" amongst people who patronize those franchises? And even then of course you can get a shrimp burger (no kidding) at the Tokyo McDonalds. But you did know to expect that, right? For your next shock try the ones in Thailand. Then come back talking about "risk aversion" of "travellers". The only thing which is consistent for these franchises is their brand. And that is their true prime property, the key element in their success, based on the art of psychological manipulation (a victim of which you appear to be yourself).

I would say a large percentage of people are in the "traveller" market. The fact that I can get the same "burger" on the other side of town is just as important as getting it on the other side of the world. As for Tokyo and Thailand, and elsewhere yes they have localized products (Typically a lot more chicken products that I prefer over burgers), but those are expansions of the core menu. I can still buy the same Big Mac in Tokyo, get the same fries.

You keep missing the main point: allowing gigantic mega-corps destroying local businesses is not good for the long-term health of the society in those areas. Yes, there are some short-term, superficial "benefits", but in the long term the locals simply lose their ability to generate income, because the "niche", "specialty", odd-ball businesses cannot provide well-paid and gainful employment on the same scale as those "inefficient" Mom & Pop operations did prior to the mega-corp arriving on the scene, with its super-efficiency and minimum wage part-time jobs. Some will survive, sure, but the overall employment and income situation will worsen as an immediate result of killing the Mom & Pop stores, and in the long term as a delayed result of killing all the manufacturers who no longer can compete with Made in Wazoostan commodity products, purely on price, a fact which is missed by those shoppers (mostly under the influence of the inane immediate gratification "culture" also heavily prmoted by the same people who own the media and the mega-corp store).

Re:Depends on what your definition of "evil" is

[Anonymous Coward]

I am afraid that I cannot continue this, rather interesting conversation of ours, given the fact that some "libertarian", "free market loving" foes of mine have found a way to abuse Slashdot moderation system and thus every post I now make is immediately downmodded as "Flamebait" etc, irrespective of topic and contents. Which in itself is a rather ironic commentary on their belief system: they are for "liberty" for all ... except those who disagree with them or if it interferes with their greed and desire to con others out of all of their possessions. Or more precisely, they are for liberty for themselves to treat everyone else on the planet as a disposable object. Which is why I do not get along with these "libertarians" very well.

And so I shall refrain from posting until Slashdot fixes the abuse ... which may take a long while, or else I will be posting at -1 within 50 or so more posts.

Another Sensationalist /. post with no substance.

[whoever57]

If one actually RTFA -- actually, if you read the blog post, all the poster is offering to do is to place adverts. That's it.

The blog post only offers to place adverts that highlight campaigns from health service companies. There is no "protection" offered. In fact the word "protect" does not appear in the blog post.

Who's being evil here?

[Grave]

To suggest that Google is taking sides is a bit ridiculous. They're simply looking at an opportunity to make some money by offering advertising services to the health care industry. If that's evil, so are 99.99% of your fellow citizens.

I have watched Micheal Moore's previous work, and consider it horribly one-sided and narrow. Arguments that are sensationalistic and focus only on a single side might drum up a bit of support from some people, but not everyone. To me, this sort of thing is nothing but propaganda. I'm not going to get into a debate here about our current health care problems, but I will say that anyone who views this film should take the time to do their research and come to their own conclusions before blindly agreeing to any conclusions this film may come to.

Re:Who's being evil here?

[willyhill]

They're simply looking at an opportunity to make some money by offering advertising services to the health care industry.

That's a little disingenous, isn't it? Considering the context of that blog post?

Since apparently, everyone knows that Moore is always right, "Sicko" can't be any different than Bowling for Columbine or Farenheit 9/11, right? I'd bet the attitude wouldn't be so lenient towards Google if they'd offered the US government or firearm manufacturers a "Get the facts" campaign after those.

Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

So Google is in the business of making information mare easily available to people now, even if Michael Moore doesn't approve? How evil!

Is Google a tech company anymore?

[I'm Don Giovanni]

Since when did Google start doing other party's PR for pay? What, did a Googleite's 20% project evolve into a PR division for hire? Or is doing 3rd-party PR one of a Googleite PhD's bright idea? Seems strange.

Re:Mod Parent Up!

[dreamchaser]

Except in this case you'd be wrong. Perhaps adding something substantive to the conversation next time instead of trolling would be in order.

How is this evil?

[Anonymous Coward]

I missed the part about how the motto "don't be evil" means choosing what side to support in a non-black and white issue.

He Gets Results

[Volfied]

Say what you will about how Michael Moore presents his material, but he stands up for what he believes in and he gets things done. If absolutely nothing else, Bowling For Columbine was a great achievement because, through it, he was able to stop Kmart from selling handgun ammo. Granted, Kmart's in trouble and Wal-Mart would have been a much greater achievement, but it was an actual, tangible result. With that act, more than anything else, he earned my respect.

Re:He Gets Results

[eagl]

Moore's assault on the 2nd amendment makes him a threat to the US constitution. That doesn't make him a hero, it makes him an enemy of the US constitution. We have a legal method to change the constitution, and it isn't through media hype or public hysteria. It's called a constitutional convention, and it's done it's job many times over the last couple hundred years. If he wants to eliminate the 2nd amendment, he needs to buy some congressmen. Whipping up public hysteria that prevents law abiding citizens from exercising their 2nd amendment rights is an attack on the rights of every US citizen, whether they choose to exercise those rights or not.

Re:He Gets Results

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude.

Please.

He got K-Mart to stop selling handgun ammo, but do you really think that statistically changed the number of gun deaths or injuries ?

As you point out, K-Mart is dead, and people can buy handgun ammo at other places, most commonly, where or who they bought the handgun for the in first place.

That did not get anything done, any more than crying at the funerals got anything done. "Getting things done" means ACTUALLY CHANGING THE WORLD. I.e., if he had gotten anything done, there would have been fewer deaths or at least fewer school deaths or something afterwards. However, that number drifts around up and down, weakly influenced by the economy if anything, and no effect by Michael Moore is visible.

That said, I am a big fan of Michael Moore, I have been since I saw "The Big One." However, he got the same kind of results from his films, so far, as Gore and Kerry did in their elections: they fucking lost. If you truly care about these things, you care about winning.

Re:He Gets Results

[Anonymous Coward]

"He Gets Results"? Useful results? This seems to imply that he somehow stopped the occurrence of things like Columbine. Is that the case? Nope. The only thing he succeeded in doing was exploiting victims of Columbine into doing what he wanted, which is to lend emotional appeal to his video. How much of the profits from Bowling were distributed to those victims?

How much time did Bowling spend examining victims of bullying and exploring the issue from their point of view? How much time did he spend talking to the bullies themselves? Zero? Oh, so basically he accomplished nothing in stopping bullying or retaliation to bullying. Instead, he fraudulently passed off Columbine (and by association, VA Tech) as a policy issue -- gun control, while ignoring the truth, which is that shootings like this are a result of deep-rooted social imbalances that tend to be dismissed or ignored by society at large. In other words, by implying that Columbine was principally a gun problem rather than a social problem, Michael Moore is a contributor to the conditions that cause school shootings.

Re:He Gets Results

[Anonymous Coward]

So rather than try to spread his point of view, so as to convince the oridnary person, so that they might in future vote for a change - which would be an attach on the US constitution - he should buy a congressman - which would be all above board and keeping with the spirit of the constitution?

Re:He Gets Results

[hughk]

I guess you didn't see the film. He didn't attack the right to bear arms and moreover was making the point that other countries have the same rights but exercise them better. He is a gun-owner and member of the NRA. What concerned him was the ease of access to arms and ammunition as well as attitudes. The points he made were good ones and the better for being aired. Back to the health-care system, it is clear there is a problem, what he has down is to get people talking. Isn't that a good thing?

Moore's propaganda

[flar2]

Why are we so quick to label Michael Moore's films as propaganda? It seems like a quick and easy way to dismiss him without actually dealing with what he says. I've seen SiCKO and can't understand why any average American would want to dismiss Moore so quickly. ~~ooooh scary socialism~~

Re:Moore's propaganda

[Blakey Rat]

Probably because of blatant half-truths in his earlier films. For instance, in Roger and Me where he claims a factory that dis-assembled ICBMs to re-use them to launch satellites was a "weapons factory." I suppose it's technically true, but come on! Or perhaps in (I think) in Farenheit 911 when he edited his film to make it appear as if he was yelling at Charlton Heston's back and Heston was ignoring him; in reality he was yelling at nobody and splicing in earlier film of Heston leaving the house. These things aren't the work of somebody interested in the truth.

Re:Moore's propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

It is called poisoning the well. You repeat the same lie enough times (Michael Moore lies all the time) that people start to believe it.

Re:Moore's propaganda

[xsadar]

You don't need to see Sicko or know anything about it, to say that Michael Moore makes propaganda. It's known from past experience. That doesn't necessarily mean that Sicko is propaganda, but from the perspective of someone who knows Michael Moore, but hasn't seen his latest film, it's safer to bet that it is than that it isn't. Personally, I believe the health care system is very broken, but that doesn't give me much incentive to see Sicko, because I don't consider Michael Moore to be credible. And that has nothing to do with fear of socialism. I'd just rather get my facts and opinions from people I can trust.

Re:Moore's propaganda

[ThreeSpace]

I have no problem with socialism. I believe that the US would do well to socialize certain things, health care among them. However, I do have a problem with misleading people and telling outright lies, which Moore does frequently. That's why I dismiss Moore, not because he promotes socialist policies.

going public = evil turning point

[pak9rabid]

As soon as a company goes public and has stock investors' interests to worry about, they start to turn "evil"..it's just the way things work. Just take a look at the gaming industry. All of these companies have filthy business practices. The only company exempt from this I would say is id Software, and this probably because they're the only gaming company left that's never gone public.

Doesn't need to be "fair" or "balanced"

[RealGrouchy]

Pardon the slightly offtopic rant, but there is an article on the AP wire entitled "Moore's 'Sicko' gives accused little say" by Kevin Freking and Linda A. Johnson. (You can find it yourself if you want to, but I'm not about to send them traffic.)

To boil it down to a soundbite (in appropriate MM style), is this quote: "The industry -- doctors, drug makers, hospitals, insurers -- is charged with greed and putting personal interests above patients'. ... But one aspect missing from the film is the defense. Do not expect to hear anyone speak well of the care they received in the U.S."

It disgusts me that the mass media like to skirt around issues by claiming things aren't "fair and balanced". If I can't afford to feed my family, what good does it do me to know that my neighbour just had filet mignon for the fifth day in a row?

The issue is not whether the US healthcare system is incapable of producing good results, nor whether the most vulnerable in the country are taken care of. The issue is that there are large parts of the US population that is unserved or underserved by the current health system. They are un(der)served because they are not so poor as to fall under medicare, but they are not so rich as to be able to afford proper health care themselves.

It should not be beyond the capacity of a wealthy, civilized country to ensure that its entire populace--particularly its hard-working middle class--is kept healthy.

(And no, I'm not arguing that Canada has a perfect system, either)

- RG>

Re:Doesn't need to be "fair" or "balanced"

[canuck57]

(And no, I'm not arguing that Canada has a perfect system, either)

Then we agree. Both systems are foobar just that there are not that many "objective" people that can admit it. I have lived 10 years in the US, and about near triple that in in Canadian system and can honestly say they BOTH have serious problems. I am going to get the revenge of the mod down but what the heck...

Canada's claim to fame is that it is "perceived" to be universal. And it is sort of if you overlook the regional approvals that go on. Often based on age and are you paying taxes. Case in point, I had a career/lifestyle threatening condition, as did my mother, about the same time. I wait 30 days, she waits 1 year and 4 months. Tehy occured about the same time, same issue, same doctors, just that I am working any paying taxes. The difference, I could say disability insurance if they didn't fix it, my mother is already on CPP/retirement (Social Security for the US readers).

Next Canadian point, my father in law has been waiting 4 months to see a specialist about dizziness due to what is suspected to be an inner ear issue. There are also numerous cases where hospitals out west ran out of the ability to deliver babies so they went to Montana (lucky kids, hope they get their dual citizenship).

So for Canada you have a backlogged, often rationed and "tax" expensive system and no options as there is only one service provider and they know it.

In the US, subscription is option so coverage is not universal. It's biggest weakness. While I don't agree with government doing it, the US should have a law that says if you work you or your employer must pay and subscribe including your dependents. Also the nickel and dime paper work, a service charge to could Kleenex used? Come now? Hasn't the autocracy costs been added up? But never had to wait in line...

The best thing would be for Canada and the US to sit down together and figure out what is best of both systems and how to eliminate the was and BS in both. But I suspect such insight in our politicians isn't there.

Re:Doesn't need to be "fair" or "balanced"

[mikers]

Thats right!

Sicko should have to be fair and balanced the way that "Fox News" is "Fair and Balanced" (apologies to all non-neo-cons, emphasis on double quotes)

Re:Doesn't need to be "fair" or "balanced"

[king-manic]

Then we agree. Both systems are foobar just that there are not that many "objective" people that can admit it. I have lived 10 years in the US, and about near triple that in in Canadian system and can honestly say they BOTH have serious problems. I am going to get the revenge of the mod down but what the heck..

The US system is systemically fucked and is beyond repair short of boot fucking all the insurance companies and going back to square one. The Canadian system is stressed by the number of aging boomer's and will be fixed when they die. It still works reasonably well. Also our system is essentially a public system with a public payer. It's not perfect in Canada but it's reasonable given the situation.

Re:Doesn't need to be "fair" or "balanced"

[Billly Gates]

I have not had healthcare for years for financial reasons and America still has the best health care system in the world.

I admit I am becoming quite conservative over the last few years and would formally agreed with you.

The problem I see is as of right now if the cost of health care keeps going up by the time 2020 comes along 100% of all taxes will just pay for medicare/medicaid!

Universal health care will break our government and cause it to bankrupt. Also the public sector is quite bad and I have seen Canadian health care first hand. 5 hours waiting to get your teeth clean?? The bean counters and greedy admins are worse in the public sector where they are not accountable. Universal health care would magnify the problem.

America is not alone in the issue of declining health care. We need to bust these small pharmaceutical companies up which hold all the patents and charging obscene rates. Europe too is having skyrocketing Intellectual property rights for standard procedures and drugs owned by a few and the tax payers are being screwed over.

Re:Doesn't need to be "fair" or "balanced"

[Anonymous Coward]

> I have not had healthcare for years for financial reasons and America still has the best health care system in the world.

Can't you just re-read what you just wrote ? That is funny as hell.

Personally, I am French, I have healthcare, I always had, everybody here have healthcare, and France has the best healthcare system in the world.

Re:Doesn't need to be "fair" or "balanced"

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Sicko should have to be fair and balanced the way that "Fox News" is "Fair and Balanced"

Sicko is fair and balanced the way that "Fox News" is "Fair and Balanced" -- except that Moore doesn't make false claims of fairness or balance.

Re:Doesn't need to be "fair" or "balanced"

[pimpimpim]

yes, that bothered me in the blog post: "Moores film portrays the industry as money and marketing driven, and fails to show healthcares interest in patient well-being and care.". The ass licking of this google blog is clear.

They are allowed to do this of course, but does not match with their slogan of 'do no evil' and over time, these inconsistencies will lose them good faith of their resources, which are we, the users (we are not the clients, but google needs the internet users to look at the ads bought by google's clients, the industry).

I am amazed by the american healthcare system and that many people do not even have healthcare. This might partly be a cost issue, but note that for me, a european, the healthcare costs are 10% of my net income as well! (say for someone earning 2500 euro they end up paying 250 euro) Still for no money I would choose to stop it. I always thought it might also be involved with the US mentality of everyone being able to be a winner. A winner doesn't need a social system, and a winner won't get sick either, a winner doesn't have to worry about his credit card debt. This Will Smith movie 'in pursuit of happiness' was just what US people want to see. See, if you work hard enough, sell your soul to your firm, you can be a winner! Then why are there so many people with huge debts, who can't pay for the dentist, etc etc?

I would like the next michael moore movie to show the US-ians that, guess what, most of us aren't winners at all and never will be. This is true in every country in the world, but in a lot of places people just are realistic about it. Yes, there are places in the world where everyone fights for his own life and some of them end up as winners, whereas most others are on the loser side. They are called third world countries. The only difference might be that the inhabitants there actually would like to see their situation changed for the better.

Re:Doesn't need to be "fair" or "balanced"

[SoulRider]

But one aspect missing from the film is the defense.

I also don't get this, why is it Micheal Moore's responsibility to do this? This is a documentary, the purpose of a documentary is to make a statement then prove that statement with facts. Objectivity is not only not a requirement but usually hurts the argument you are trying to make. Any rational and half intelligent person knows this, and any journalist who paid attention in school should know this. Moore's objective is to get us talking, not push some personal agenda, even if that conversation is "It cant really be that bad, can it?", at least people are thinking about the issue. If someone wants to do a documentary defending the current health care system they are perfectly free to do so. As long as it is not done by the health care industry (or someone that is indebted to them) I will watch it and keep an open mind.

I also feel that health care in this country is generally excellent, at least at the health care level (doctors, nurses, etc), but it sucks at the administrative level (insurance, hospital administration, etc), they are ruining it for everybody. But the number of Americans who are unable to utilize our excellent health care is getting too large too fast. What is the use of having excellent doctors and nurses if nobody can afford them? What really amazes me is the number of people who feel no embarassment and think there is nothing wrong with the fact that we cannot even take care of our own people.

Re:Doesn't need to be "fair" or "balanced"

[typicallyterrific]

(IAmNotADoctor, but) Actually, that sounds like your mum god triaged differently.

People with different needs get prioritised differently; for a while, they thought my girlfriend might've had some form of cancer in the brain. Within a week or two she got an MRI, which for people with say something not life threatening might take months to get seen.

You were either in worse shape or your condition was more threatening to your quality of life than whatever your mother had.
Or maybe your remaining life expectancy is also a factor they take into consideration.

Re:Doesn't need to be "fair" or "balanced"

[flappinbooger]

10% cost per month and that buys you health care? So you pay your taxes and 10% of that goes towards the state health coverage?

And then, when you need something, you go and get it, and it is of no additional cost? You are in, get it done, and then leave, and that's it?

Ok, I would call that a winning scenario.

I saw moore's sicko movie a couple weeks ago. His true point of the movie, which he makes clear in the fist 5 minutes, is the problem for those who HAVE health insurance in the US. His movie is not about those who do NOT have health insurance.

The problem with health insurance in the US is THIS: You can be paying a lot of money each month for the privilege of having insurance, but if you are unfortunate enough to ever need to USE it, you find that with things called "copays" and "deductibles" and "minimum out-of-pocket" charges, you STILL HAVE TO PAY large percentages of the bills yourself.

A European guy and an American guy might both be paying $200 per month for health coverage. But if the European guy only ever has to pay that $200 and everything else is included, but the American guy has to pay that each month and then, say, 30% of a huge medical procedure when he gets injured or something, who wins? The European guy wins, in this example, hands down.

Re:Doesn't need to be "fair" or "balanced"

[pimpimpim]

I don't know much of the details, because I didn't use it much up till now. The sum of taxes, health insurance, and pension funds adds up to an impressive 40% of your salary. So of the 2500 euro bruto salary you get about 1500 nett. In germany there is even a special (I'd call it dubious) tax for people that are religious, that money is collected by the state, but given directly to the main religious organisation of your choice (As a side note: Scientology is NOT a religion under german law).

Back to your question: Things are getting worse more likely than they are getting better, also here, but I will tell you how it works here in germany now: if you visit your practioner you have to pay ten euros, this is then valid for the current quarter. He can send you to a specialist for some case, then you don't pay. If you go directly to the specialist you also pay ten euros. This is just to prevent people from going to the doctor for useless things. Still, for those just managing their monthly costs, ten euros is way too much I think (apparently, this is the copay system you mentioned). Going to the first aid is excluded from this, and this might have shifted a bit more pressure to the first aid posts. Most medicines get reimbursed, others partly. You never pay more than about 10 euros I guess. I am not sure if there are copays for chronic medicines. It shouldn't, as this will kill medicine compliance, and medicine costs are easily way cheaper than chirugical treatment. I can go to the dentist without an additional programme (this might change in the future), checkups and standard treatment are fully reimbursed. They will offer you the high-quality fillings, crowns, and implants, which will cost you an extra (in those cases, insurance pays the part that would be imbursed if you would have chosen the standard package).

In Holland there has been a reform recently, so that you can choose between extras (as a 60+ person you don't need pregnancy checkups in your program, etc.) All in all it got a bit more expensive, but the basics are the same for everyone. This has huge implications, if I need to have an MRI, hearth surgery, a pacemaker, a fix for my third broken leg or whatever, this does not add to my healthcare costs. I guess that there lies the big difference between the us and european system.

Ambulances are a bit of a problem, they work independently of hospitals and health insurance, and have to get their money back from the health insurance. Apparently, they only pay if the ride was an emergency, as in other cases they would act as a very expensive taxi. Note that calling an ambulance and having them check you is always free, just bringing you to the hospital will cost above hundred euros. A very awkward situation. The very expensive stay in the hospital bed is covered, even though the hospital will try to kick you out as soon as possible. Also, if you want to have a room of your own, you should have chosen some additional package.

All in all, it is probably still a lot better, and you will hardly end up with paying large parts of the bill for decent healthcare. But, tendencies are downwards, and they have seemed to 'learned' a lot from the american system, unfortunately. But at least still a jobless person, a student, a low-paid worker here has the right to the same high quality basic treatment as someone with the most expensive package. There is no way to work or to go to college, or to get a state allowance without having a health insurance, you have to prove you have one. I sure hope they keep it like this.

Re:Doesn't need to be "fair" or "balanced"

[Deadplant]

"Canada's claim to fame is that it is "perceived" to be universal. And it is sort of if you overlook the regional approvals that go on. Often based on age and are you paying taxes."

um, what?
That is simply not correct. You are either mistaken or simply lying.

There is no connection between an individual's tax status and their health care in Canada. (see Canada Health Act section 10 'Universality' http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-6/bo-ga: s_7//en#anchorbo-ga:s_7 )
For your mother to be given different care because she isn't paying taxes would be in violation of several laws.

If you really think your mother was given inferior care because she is on cpp and not paying taxes then call the police and the media right now. I'm serious.

Not only is it illegal to deny or delay care to an individual based on their income or taxes it is also illegal for the CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) to divulge an individual's tax status to anyone in the health care system. Even the police need a subpoena to see your tax information.
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/newsroom/factsheets/2005/ nov/fs051110-e.html

I'll not bother to debunk the rest of the ridiculous assertions you made in that post as this one item clearly shows that you are trolling.
Besides, trying to interpret your writing is giving me a headache. I really hope english is not your first language or that you were drunk/high when you wrote that text.

Re:Doesn't need to be "fair" or "balanced"

[AK Marc]

We have a minimum wage in the USA. It's $5.85 currently. Someone holding down two jobs (working 80 hours a week) at the minimum wage would be spending about 40% of their gross salary if they were buying the insurance I have. Given the tax rates, I'd guess that they'd be paying over half of their take-home pay just on medical insurance. Oh, and my insurance has a $3000 deductible, so it isn't necessarily the best out there. If they used their insurance to the point of meeting the deductible and had some non-covered expenses and co-pays and such, someone working two minimum wage jobs would pay more in health care in a year than they made. But apparently, people think that there's nothing wrong with our system, as they fight all they can to not change it.

Re:Doesn't need to be "fair" or "balanced"

[freeweed]

I have seen Canadian health care first hand. 5 hours waiting to get your teeth clean??

No, you have not seen Canadian health care first hand.

Teeth cleanings, like all non-emergency dental work, are in no way, shape, or form covered by Canada's medicare plan. Dental work is entirely private, entirely for-profit, and a whole different world from our general healthcare system. We even have (often employer-provided) insurance to cover it. Last time I had my teeth cleaned, it took about 20 minutes - for which I had an appointment.

That statement alone shows that you not only don't know the first thing about the Canadian healthcare system, but you're also willing to completely make up stories just to back your claims.

For the record, the US currently spends more tax dollars per capita than Canada. TAX dollars. You could take Canada's public system, tomorrow, and save yourselves billions of dollars. And have universal basic coverage to boot.

Re:Doesn't need to be "fair" or "balanced"

[pimpimpim]

Thanks for the details! BTW germany DOES NOT have a minimum wage. Some people are actually earning less per hour than $5.85 (although, after dollar->euro conversion it is about the same). Especially in trades where there is no union there are no agreements on the starting wages, therefore a hairdresser in the eastern part of germany will earn about 4 euro per hour. There is some initiative to introduce a minimum wage (http://www.mindestlohn.de), but it gets the same resistance here as introducing healthcare over there in the US. Probably the same arguments as well ('bad for economic growth', etc)

Re:Mod Parent Up!

[Anonymous Coward]

And your original post was? Informative? I think not. In general, all of the reviews (save fox) on nearly all of Moores films have been that he is correct with his figures. His interpretations leave a bit to agreed with, but he has not played loose with the facts. OTH, you have played loose with the facts as do people like you.

Michael Moore is not perfect

[jr748]

Michael Moore is not perfect... he's been known to fabricate facts and stretch the truth:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=manufac turing+dissent&btnG=Google+Search

Re:Michael Moore is not perfect

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of that material doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Moore has rebutted much of it on his own site.

Re:Michael Moore is not perfect

[zen-theorist]

google has got the ball rolling: on googling "Michael Moore" and hitting "I'm feeling lucky", i was whisked to cigna.com..

Re:Michael Moore is not perfect

[Wizardess]

Just in case you doubted he was lying there quite a few blog sites doing take downs on Moore's assertions that the Cuban hospitals are great models for America. In reality they are filthy, vermin infected, under staffed, and under equipped.

One example has pictures. I don't think I'd want to go NEAR that kind of a "health" facility.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/06/michael- moores-wish-for-america-cuban.html

Michael Moore is clearly an intellectual, one who is educated beyond his capacity. And his capacity is very low.

{^_^}

This isn't Google doing PR

[e-scetic]

Isn't it propaganda to frame Michael Moore's documentaries as mere propaganda, and isn't doing so also an attempt to dismiss the films as irrelevant? Especially in the absence of any counter-arguments or proper criticisms of the films? Ok, Moore is propaganda, yup, I believe you, well just because you said so... Way to counter propaganda with ideology.

A truly honest person would have to admit his films are not completely devoid of facts or statistics. And that sometimes the facts *are* one-sided, there isn't always balance in the world. And by the way, America isn't the perfect Disneyesque world, all rosy and wunnerful and perfect.

As for Lauren Turner, she's doing what sales and marketing types do, targeting her message by identifying with the fears and needs of her specific audience. She's trying to sell ads. Ads are only a small part of a proper PR campaign and I doubt Google is getting into the PR business.

Why has Sicko been featured on Google News

[Mobile Mineral]

for about two weeks now? It has stayed on top of the entertainment section day after day. Sometimes it fills two spots out of three in the entertainment section. Is it really a robot doing that?

CIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Michael Moore is suspected in internet circles of being an "operative."

Evidence:

Bowling for Columbine: The movie does not mention reports of additional people/cars ferrying arms to the killers. Likewise, the movie presents the viewpoint that "guns are bad," which is at odds with the views of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, et. al.

Fahrenheit 9/11: This movie presents the view that our cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia led to the 9/11 attacks. However, if you ask the Bush administration what happened on 9/11, they would tell you the same thing. Saudi Arabia bombed us, Bush was asleep at the wheel, etc. What does Michael Moore have to add?

Sicko: Director Moore, makes an illegal trip to Cuba and takes little more than PR flak over it. Who let him go?

Finally, Moore's attack interviews should leave anyone unsettled. They are not journalistic.

Re:CIA

[WilliamSChips]

Likewise, the movie presents the viewpoint that "guns are bad," which is at odds with the views of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, et. al. That's fallacious in both clauses--an AdVerecundiam in the second and a misreading of the facts in the first. Considering that guns are just as common in Canada which has much fewer of the Columbine stuff and Moore even mentions that in the film, the most you could say about Moore's gun opinions are that "The NRA is ridiculous". Which it is.

Time for the Google apologists

[Anonymous Coward]

to come to the fore. Protect your little darling, nerds, she has investors at her teats. That makes everything OK because, someday, even you might get to work there, and they have free soda. Free!

Critical thinking

[Bombula]

It's disappointing that so many slashdotters - intelligent and educated people that they tend to be - are reactionary blowhards who obviously haven't even seen the film, and that these same people are so unable to stomach criticism.

Newsflash folks: criticism is the basis of both science and democracy. The ability to be self-critical is what makes science and democracy different from religion and theocracy. You can't criticize Jesus. That means you can't learn, you can't grow, and you can't improve. Hurray!

People who scream 'Michael Moore hates America' are pathologically incapable of thinking critically or handling criticism, even when it is constructive criticism that is desperately needed. Accept Sicko for what it is: a searing and accurate indictment of our disgraceful healthcare system. Unless you are wealthy, our healthcare system is a catastrophic failure. It is complete and utter crap compared to the systems in other developed countries, and it is an embarrassment to our country.

If you care about our country and have a functioning brain, you'll get over the knee-jerk reactionary denial and accept this unpleasant truth, and then go out and help make a change.

Re:Critical thinking

[fermion]

This is really the problem we have right now. People are scared, people are not well off, and the elite really do not care. When someone speaks up, and asks why, the elite cannot fight against the obvious facts, so they play the man not the ball. Instead of looking at the stated facts, they call the man a pinko, or terrorist, or, in past days, a jew. Who knows if Sicko is an accurate movie. The issue is not to be accurate, but to promote questioning of norms. If someone comes out of that movie, and asks deep critical questions, and thinks it is wrong, that is fine. But if someone just attacks the man, or pushes an ad campaign to discredit the movie on the basis of well chosen data, then that is evil. When things like this happen, I always think back to The Jungle and Sinclair. this a book that a congressional hearing found to be largely accurate, and had a law written to correct the more egragreious crimes, and yet to this day, due to the careful manipulation of reality, intellegent people still believe that the meat packing industry is safe, and the laws were put into place only to calm the populace.. I mean we look around even today and see that meat packing jobs are one most dangerous jobs in America, and yet we are told by the apologist not only that there is nothing to worry about, but that the conditions were better in the time of The Jungle.

The thing with google is that it is, at present, one of the most liberating constructs ever created. It allows the access to relatively unfiltered information, and allows the reader to infer what is real and what is not. However, google is primarily a advertising egent, and therefore has the power to influence reality. If every ad for the search Sicko is an attack on the movie, then the reality will be shifted to the idea that the movie has no basis in reality. And this is why what google is doing is evil. If what the industry is saying is valid, then people will point to those finding and those finding will move up in rank. By offering to package ads, google is no better than the link farms that are increasingly making the search engine useless.

Re:Critical thinking

[DerekLyons]

It's disappointing that so many slashdotters - intelligent and educated people that they tend to be - are reactionary blowhards who obviously haven't even seen the film, and that these same people are so unable to stomach criticism.
 
Newsflash folks: criticism is the basis of both science and democracy. The ability to be self-critical is what makes science and democracy different from religion and theocracy. You can't criticize Jesus. That means you can't learn, you can't grow, and you can't improve. Hurray!

When Micheal Moore upgrades his films from (self serving) political propoganda to criticism - you'll have a point.
 
 

People who scream 'Michael Moore hates America' are pathologically incapable of thinking critically or handling criticism, even when it is constructive criticism that is desperately needed.

Precisely. Constructive criticism is exactly what is needed. 'Sicko' doesn't provide it. It provides sensationalist and heavily slanted propoganda.
 
It's fascinating that someone can title a post 'critical thinking', and not only fail to provide any, but instead provides nothing flames, stereotypes, and insults to those who fail to agree with the posters point of view.

Re:Critical thinking

[Solandri]

People who scream 'Michael Moore hates America' are pathologically incapable of thinking critically or handling criticism, even when it is constructive criticism that is desperately needed. Accept Sicko for what it is: a searing and accurate indictment of our disgraceful healthcare system. Unless you are wealthy, our healthcare system is a catastrophic failure. It is complete and utter crap compared to the systems in other developed countries, and it is an embarrassment to our country.

This appears to be the implicit and unsubstantiated assumption put forth by everyone defending the movie. That the U.S. health care system as a matter of course, sucks.

A couple years ago, a minimum wage employee at my previous workplace severed his thumb on a power saw. He was taken to the local hospital, which determined that they couldn't help him. He was then airlifted to Loma Linda Medical Center. They examined him, and called one of the top finger reattachment surgeons in the country from Houston. He flew in, and our employee was in surgery for 5 hours.

Unfortunately, they weren't able to reattach the thumb. But they put him on a 3-month rehabilitation program including weekly therapy sessions to teach him how to function without the thumb, and psychiatric sessions to help him cope with the loss.

This was in California, where companies are required to have worker's comp insurance. So the entire thing was covered by worker's comp. It was later discovered that he was an illegal alien, but that didn't change anything with respect to the insurance and coverage.

Meanwhile, the company controller had recently moved from Canada. He was absolutely floored by the above sequence of events. His brother (in Canada) had been diagnosed with RSI and was scheduled to be seen by a specialist who would decide if it could be treated with therapy or would need surgery. The time between the diagnosis and the scheduled appointment was 13 months. The pain was making it impossible for his brother to continue to work, so he hopped across the border to the U.S. and paid to have a doctor look at it there. Contrast this to a minimum wage illegal immigrant getting airlifted, getting one of the top surgeons in the country flown in to treat him, and 5 hours of surgery, all in less than 12 hours.

I completely agree the U.S. health care system has a lot of problems, mostly centered around an emphasis on treatment rather than prevention. But if you're so blinded by your love of socialized medicine that you can't see the good aspects of our system, you really have no business saying who is or isn't capable of critical thought. The U.S. health care system is not a catastrophic failure, nor is it utter crap, nor is it an embarrassment. It is suboptimal, and moderately wasteful, with many aspects that could definitely be improved. But it is also one of the best (aside from cost) health care systems in the world.

Re:Critical thinking

[Shuntros]

Finally! An American with the capability to respond from a constructive viewpoint.

The commercialising of such a rudimentary provision can only be described as an absolute fucking disgrace. In the UK we have free healthcare, the NHS. Whilst it certainly isn't perfect it is without doubt one of the finest things our country has ever constructed. Got some money to burn? Fine, there's plenty of private healthcare also. I have no problem with letting the wealthy spend their money if they want a few extra bells and whistles, but compromising care based on bank balance in a country whose TV stations describe it as "the greatest nation on earth" is frankly appalling.

Re:Critical thinking

[fyoder]

Accept Sicko for what it is: a searing and accurate indictment of our disgraceful healthcare system.

Perhaps, but the film itself isn't 100% accurate in the rosy picture it paints of the Canadian system. First of all, it isn't free. It's a bargain at about $50 a month (sliding scale for low income all the way down to zero), but it isn't free. Also while we theoretically can choose whatever doctor we want to go to, in many places good luck finding one who is accepting patients. Many Canadians get treatment at walk in clinics and, worse, emergency rooms.

I don't know how accurate his depictions are of the situation in other countries, but as a Canadian familiar with our system, I'm a tad skeptical of his portrayal of others.

All that said, I prefer a system of universal health care where private corporations aren't protecting their bottom line by denying service. Moore's comparison with the fire department is a good one. There are some things that just aren't in the public's interest to put in the hands of private interests.

What I would like to see is for the US to develop a system of universal health care superior to the Canadian system. Right now I think we're too complacent because compared to the US system, our system looks good. It would be better if we were looking south in envy and feeling motivated to come up with something better ourselves.

Re:Critical thinking

[ThEATrE]

What good aspects, exactly? The company the employee worked for didn't want to get sued, so they provided him with health care.

It's frustrating sometimes to interact with someone who's so blind.

Re:Critical thinking

[lysse]

What would the story have been if he'd severed his thumb on his own time? Or developed lung cancer?

Re:Critical thinking

[Solandri]

What good aspects, exactly? The company the employee worked for didn't want to get sued, so they provided him with health care.

The original assertion was that only the wealthy got good care under the U.S. system. I provided an anecdote which proved that assertion false.

It's frustrating sometimes to interact with someone who's so blind.

Indeed, it's frustrating interacting with people who're convinced that anyone with a different opinion from them is blind.

Re:Critical thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

Half of ALL bankruptcies in this country are due to health care reasons, half of those were people who HAD coverage at the time.
The Medicare D doughnut hole is going to (if it hasn't already) cost people THEIR LIVES.
When the profits of a few CEOs are more important than the lives of the citizenry you know the system is fucked.
Your anecdotal judgments aside...

Re:Critical thinking

[Tarwn]

Then he likely would have been relating a different anecdote. The entire point of his anecdotal story was that the issue is not black and white, that in order to truly think critically about this issue you need to consider positives as well as negatives. The point of providing an anecdotal story with a good outcome was only to point out that good things can happen and perhaps should be included in any critical thinking that is done on the issue. That the issue, like so many, is gray rather than black and white.
However even this point was considered by several people to be in support of one side or another, which is why the whole conversation about critical thought is so amusing. Think critically, but assume everything is black and white and that anyone who disagrees must be arguing the opposite "side".

Re:Critical thinking

[Rich0]

When the profits of a few CEOs are more important than the lives of the citizenry you know the system is fucked.

Actually, the tradeoff was with the viability of the entire pharma R&D industry. Sure, a few CEOs make off very well, but the fundamental issue is that drug R&D costs hundreds of millions of dollars, and somebody has to pay for it otherwise it just won't happen. The biggest cost is clinical trials (picture paying thousands of MDs to test tens of thousands of volunteers), which for new drugs are basically funded entirely by industry.

Sure, there are other ways to do it than charging $5-500 per pill. Government could fund the trials or they could lower the costs in other ways. However, you can't simply set a price limit of drugs - if you did people would simply stop developing them. Sure, academia would still do blue-sky R&D as they currently do, but nobody would actually scale up the processes, perform clinical trials, and then defend a marketing application. Academically the problem got boring as soon as you successfully cured the first rat.

People who think that price controls will work with no other changes simply aren't aware of the costs of drug R&D.

And putting limits on drug marketing won't save any money either - drug companies wouldn't be doing it if they didn't think it would increase revenue. All reduced marketing does is lower the number of people taking a drug - which decreases the likelihood of it getting developed in the first place. Which isn't to say that reforms on marketing aren't possible or proper - just that it won't actually save any money. What you lose on the bottom line you'll more than make up for on the top line. And the argument over marketing costs just ignores the fundamental issue of the fact that R&D costs STILL have to be paid.

What I've always advocated is leaving the drug industry as it is, and on the side starting a competitive publicly-funded soup-to-nuts R&D program run out of the NIH. They might subcontract some of the development work to Pharma if it was cost-competitive, but they would retain all patents and offer royalty-free licenses to any manufacturer so that the final product is very cheap. Then taxpayers can look at the total bill after a few years and see if they like the end-result. Taxpayers could still buy expensive privately-funded drugs if the public ones turn out not-so-good, but you'd still have state-of-the-art R&D available to benefit those who can't afford expensive meds. If the public effort works really well the pharma industry will just turn into a subcontractor as they won't be able to compete. If it fizzles we haven't lost anything.

I've never liked government plans where step 1 is to ban all competition. That basically just means that you won't have anybody to compare them to. Just look at where its gotten us with the local cable companies... :)

Re:Critical thinking

[lukesl]

This appears to be the implicit and unsubstantiated assumption put forth by everyone defending the movie. That the U.S. health care system as a matter of course, sucks.

It's not an implicit and unsubstantiated assumption. There is plenty of objective evidence backing up the deficiencies in the US health care system. First, last time I checked, we had over 40 million uninsured people. That alone is enough for me. I work with the health care system on a daily basis, and my opinion is that it is an embarrassment. When it works, it's the best health care system in the world. But when it doesn't work, the results are terrible. The problem is not that it doesn't work at all, but that it doesn't work consistently. In that sense, it is analogous to US high schools. The best US high schools are probably the best in the world, but it's hard to argue that our overall system is good when so many students are stuck in bad schools receiving low-quality education. On average, the quality of education received is lower here than in most of Europe, and the same holds true for health care as well.

Also, the issue of comparing our health care system vs. others, in my opinion, should not be about effectiveness, but about efficiency. Of course we have more MRI machines and airlift people more often--we spend twice as much money per patient as everyone else! Even if you don't believe that Canadian health care is better than American health care, studies comparing outcomes show that it's roughly comparable at HALF THE COST. How good would our system be if we were able to keep spending constant, but achieve that level of efficiency?

Re:Critical thinking

[DefenderThree]

I have to disagree with you. Self-criticism is necessary to improvement, but Michael Moore's brand of "criticism" is of the lowest form: deceptive, sensationalist, arrogant, bordering on propaganda and masqueraded as an authoritative documentary. If America is going to sit down and discuss the health care crisis it needs to do so in a balanced, rational manner, considering all evidence and viewpoints and constructively working towards a solution, rather than resorting to the hyperpartisan, us versus them "anyone who doesn't agree with me is a pathological idiot" mentality that Michael Moore loves to spread and you seem to have taken hook, line, and sinker.

Re:Critical thinking

[snerdy]

But the two examples you just gave are exactly the things that Moore suggests *are* working in the U.S. health care system -- people who can't afford heath care at all and people who can afford to pay whatever the cost is for whatever coverage they need (or want). Anyone in between will be a candidate for having to face choices like deciding which of two severed fingers he can afford to have reattached. Sure, you've got coverage, but not enough to save both fingers. Which one do you like more?

That severed finger example, by the way, is straight from the movie. Much like most most of the people making arguments here, I haven't even seen the film either. I saw this bit about a guy having to choose which finger he wanted reattached in a clip from the movie that was used for advertising and promotion.

Critical thinking will probably work better when you actually have some information to think critically about.

Re:Critical thinking

[7-Vodka]

Hey Solandri, I'll tell you what, I'll make you a deal:

There are currently 302,230,761 or so people in the U.S. and around 33,390,141 in Canada. Do me a favor and go read a little bit about statistics. When you figure out how to best create randomized sample groups that are large enough to matter at all in any kind of discussion about this, please let us know. We are not amused by your sample sizes of 1.

Then go back and think about a different kind of statistics. Think about how many horror stories you would have to personally hear before changing your mind. Stories of bankrupcy, illness and preventable deaths happening to many people who have paid all their lives into health insurance policies. Being denied their rightful paid-for care because the insurance company knows they can out-muscle them in the courts if the people even live that long or try to fight it. How many? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? Is that enough stories of absolute nightmares and despair for you? Now think about the 50,000,000 uninsured who also share in this. Many of them work but their employer doesn't provide insurance. Many of them are between jobs. Have you ever realized that if you quit your job and start looking for another you better not get sick or in an accident because you're fucked if you do?

Sometimes, I get really sad about the way the human brain works. It tends to develop models and after that tries to force all observed evidence to fit it, or even appear to substantiate it. It seems some of us fall prey to this more than others.

I fear I've asked too much of our friend Solandri. Just go home and try to figure out why a sample size of 1 is a Homer Simpson effort. Then when someone in your family gets sick and your insurance company decides to deny the claim with the intent of turning a profit and it causes you to go bankrupt, I will get off my lazy arse and start a website in order to raise $12,000.00 for you to help you out.
If you go see the movie you'll know the inside joke.

Re:Critical thinking

[Stephen Ma]

Almost any system has a few good outcomes; I'm sure that even the Mafia has saved a life or two. The point is not whether there is any good but whether the good outweighs the bad. Americans spend twice as much on healthcare, relative to Canadians -- and despite all that lavish expenditure, Americans die sooner. This tells me that the bad outweighs the good, by far, in the U.S. system.

I don't understand why the existing system has so many supporters. Why do you want to die earlier than necessary? Do you all have a death wish?

Re:Critical thinking

[Solandri]

Do me a favor and go read a little bit about statistics. When you figure out how to best create randomized sample groups that are large enough to matter at all in any kind of discussion about this, please let us know. We are not amused by your sample sizes of 1.

I am well educated in statistics. As I mentioned in my other followup, the original assertion was that only the wealthy got good health care in the U.S. Disproving that type of assertion requires only a sample of one.

The rest of your post I actually agree with. Like I said, I recognize there are many flaws in the U.S. health care system. My dad is a doctor so I got quite an earful of the inanities perpetrated by insurance companies. What I am opposed to is the type of hyperbole which basically goes, "because I am opposed to it, there can be absolutely nothing good about it." I fear that those types of extremist sentiments actually harm the cause more than help it, by causing undecided people to conclude that if an extremist holds that point of view, that point of view must be extremist.

Critical thinking means considering both the positive and negative aspects of the current situation and possible alternatives, before deciding how to proceed. Someone who declares the U.S. health care system an unconditional failure is applying no more critical thinking than someone who declares it an unmitigated success.

Re:Critical thinking

[Solandri]

Almost any system has a few good outcomes; I'm sure that even the Mafia has saved a life or two. The point is not whether there is any good but whether the good outweighs the bad. Americans spend twice as much on healthcare, relative to Canadians -- and despite all that lavish expenditure, Americans die sooner. This tells me that the bad outweighs the good, by far, in the U.S. system.

I don't understand why the existing system has so many supporters. Why do you want to die earlier than necessary? Do you all have a death wish?

That's a valid question. I don't have answers, but I do have some criticisms of your reasoning. Foremost, you are assuming correlation implies causation. That the reason Americans die sooner is due to the health care system. It's funny, but in another Moore-related movie topic, the hypothesis is put forth that a reason some Americans die sooner is due to a penchant for violence. So which is it? Excessive violence or a poor health care system? More than likely, there's a complex interaction between many different factors which all affect life expectancy.

Next, let's assume for the moment that you are correct and that the entirety of the correlation is due to differences in health care. The difference in life expectancy between Canada and the U.S. is 80.34 vs. 78 years, or a 3% difference. The difference in average annual purchasing power is $35,280 vs. $43,601, or a 23% difference. Arguably, those 2.34 fewer years of life are more than made up for by greater disposable income and higher standard of living. (My apologies for having to use mean rather than median, I was unable to find global median income stats in a quick Google search. The difference in median income is likely to be smaller due to the U.S.' disproportionately unequal wealth distribution, but the numbers should suffice to get the point across.)

Which brings me to a point I've been hinting at thus far but haven't stated. What if the degree of economic prosperity is tied to type of health care system? What if the lack of universal coverage in the U.S., as brutal as it is, has the darwinesque effect of tending to filter out those whose economic output is insufficient to counter their predisposition for disease and injury, whether from genetics or stupidity? Suddenly, you're faced with having to consider not just the primary effects of universal health care (which are all positive), but also the secondary and tertiary effects (which could be negative).

I really like the suggestion someone else put forth on this topic: The U.S. doesn't need to jump wholescale to a universal health care system. A few States can implement it on their own. This has the advantage of controlling for differences in economy, social standards like propensity for violence, genetic (ethnic) makeup, and the myriad of other factors we probably haven't even thought of. If it works well in those states, that'd be a solid argument to expand it nationwide. If it doesn't work well, then at least we'll be able to pick it apart to try to figure out why it's having problems, to reach a better decision about what to do next. (Incidentally, in this light, my anecdote supports universal health care since the reason the minimum-wage employee got his exemplary treatment was because California requires all businesses to carry worker's comp insurance.)

Re:Critical thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF do you mean, "aside from cost"??? What kinds of decisions do you *ever* make, in any walk of life, that are divorced from cost?

The whole debate about health care, in any country, is essentially an economic debate. How much of our limited resources do we think should be devoted to healthcare? And what's the best way of using those resources?

Thinking that you can set "cost" aside in any discussion of public policy, in healthcare or any other area, is like - well, it's a bit like making coffee without water. Your beans may be hand-selected and passed through the intestine of a weasel, they may be freshly ground individually to the optimum texture... but all you're getting out of it is a very expensive smell.

Re:Critical thinking

[fishshogun]

can't argue those points. I own a business and you're absolutely right, I have taken a couple of my employees to the hospital when they got hurt on the job. Being on the ocean on a bouncy boat it's not unusual. As employers we pay and pay and pay and I would be upset if they didn't treat my employee. I also have gone across the boarder for health care and dental work. You see I have health insurance in the US and I keep it in case I have to be treated here. I know they won't pay anything near what I pay for it but it should get me in the door in case of an emergency. I used it once or twice and I now know it's only purpose is getting in the door in an emergency. I must admit paying any bills that I incur in this country is cheaper than using my health insurance. I'm just glad I can go to Mexico and be treated. I am a United States citizen and always have been, just can't afford to be treated here with the insurance I pay $400/mo for.

Re:Critical thinking

[Stephen Ma]

What if the degree of economic prosperity is tied to type of health care system?

You are guessing, aren't you, in a feeble attempt to justify an unjustifiable and downright evil system. Because your own link on GDP per capita contradicts your hypothesis. Luxembourg and Norway are even richer, per capita, than the USA, so by your reasoning their health care systems should be even more brutally Darwinian, right? Look again. Both Luxembourg and Norway have socialized health care, like any other reasonably wealthy advanced country -- with the notorious, singular exception of the US.

Do you enjoy spending twice as much on healthcare so that you can die a few years sooner? Either you're a sucker for HMO propaganda, or you really have a death wish. Maybe both.

Re:Critical thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

All true but involving semantics in a heated issue just makes you look like an anal ass.

Re:Critical thinking

[pafrusurewa]

But if you're so blinded by your love of socialized medicine that you can't see the good aspects of our system, you really have no business saying who is or isn't capable of critical thought.

Why do you guys insist on taking Canada as an example of universal healthcare? Look at the WHO healthcare ranking. My country happens to be in the top 10 according to that list. I've never even heard of waiting times of more than one week. (That doesn't include emergencies or cases when you're in pain obviously. Then you just go to the hospital and will be treated immediately. Or you just choose a different doctor who isn't as busy.) Our healthcare system pays for itself (doesn't run a deficit) by comparatively low federally-mandated contributions that you pay according to your income.

Don't aspire to do as well as Canada. Try to do as well as the best (that's mostly evil "socialist" Western Europe for you -- most of which has conservative goverments of course).

Re:Critical thinking

[Solandri]

What if the degree of economic prosperity is tied to type of health care system?

You are guessing, aren't you, in a feeble attempt to justify an unjustifiable and downright evil system.

Quite the contrary, I am simply proposing that many factors go into life expectancy, not just health care system (or per capita GDP). I would hope that that's not too radical a proposition. I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm criticizing your reasoning. Since I haven't given my stance on the U.S. health care system, I find it disheartening that a simple criticism of your reasoning against it is automatically interpreted as support for the opposition. This sub-thread is supposed to be on critical thinking. How is it critical thinking if criticism of your argument is automatically assumed to be support for the opposing viewpoint?

Because your own link on GDP per capita contradicts your hypothesis. Luxembourg and Norway are even richer, per capita, than the USA, so by your reasoning their health care systems should be even more brutally Darwinian, right? Look again. Both Luxembourg and Norway have socialized health care, like any other reasonably wealthy advanced country -- with the notorious, singular exception of the US.

Here's a question for you: Why are you insisting that either of these (life expectancy or per capita GDP) are controlled by a single factor - type of health care system? I don't look at it that way. Lots of factors go into a country's economic output. Norway controls almost half the oil reserves in Western Europe. Luxembourg is a banking haven, which is an industry that generates oodles of money by doing nothing.

I'm theorizing that the fear in the U.S. is (rightly or wrongly) that switching to a universal health care system will cause a reduction in economic productivity which does not offset the increase in lifespan and quality of health. There are many good ways to argue against this fear. Some I've seen mentioned in this topic are: Administrative overhead is much lower in Canada than in the U.S., so the decrease in cost does not necessarily reflect a decrease in care. Canada is higher in the WHO's ranking of national health care. But arguing it based on life expectancy I see as untenable simply because there are so many other factors which contribute.

Re:Critical thinking

[Stephen Ma]

It's a surprise to see you back here after so long. Here's a question for you: Why are you insisting that either of these (life expectancy or per capita GDP) are controlled by a single factor - type of health care system?

I made no such claim, and I do not appreciate having my arguments misrepresented. I was merely puncturing your central thesis by pointing out an inconvenient truth: that it is possible to have socialized medical systems and still be wealthier than the U.S.

And please stop pointing out that Luxembourg enjoys special economic circumstances -- because the U.S. economy has plenty of hocus pocus of its own. For example, the trillions of dollars that George W. Bush pulled out of the air in order to "pay" for imports from Asia. So the economic numbers of Luxembourg and Norway are actually more credible than those of the U.S.

What I have been saying is simple: as the experience of more than 20 countries is proving, it is quite possible to spend half what the U.S. does on health care and still have a much better life expectancy.

So I ask again: why do you want to pay double for the priviledge of dying early? Why are you such a sucker?

Re:Mod Parent Up!

[The One and Only]

As they say on 4chan

Wouldn't it have been more direct to say, "Ignore the rest of this comment"? I highly doubt there is anything "they say on 4chan" that is worth the attention of anyone over the mental age of 13.

Not As Clear-Cut as One Might Want

[ewhac]

You could look at this two ways.

One is that Google is planning on "taking sides" on the issue, and is letting their New Friends know that Google stands ready to help them get their message out, and undermine Moore's.

The other is that Google, as a money-making concern, knows that the medical industry and big pharma will want to put a contrasting opinion out there in opposition to Moore's, and are going to spend enormous amounts of money to do it, so why shouldn't Google get some of that money?

Personally, I think it's the latter. In this sense, Google is acting as an arms merchant, not taking sides, but more than willing to sell weapons to anyone willing to pay an honest price for them. It's a rather cheesy ethical dodge, not looked upon highly by many people, but a valid one nonetheless.

Schwab

If true...

[freedom_india]

I doubt it is even a conscious attempt by google as a whole. If you read it, it is a generic letter sent as a template to everyone who wants their reputation overcome.

Google has two distinct parts:
1. Search Engine: This is omnipotent, not game for random changes unless approved by the management itself as in China's case.
2. Ads: This is a spinoff from search. This is highly configurable, and google can game the system in your favor if you pay them enough.

What the staffer offered was option 2. Google is earning money off 'sicko' to polish over the tattered reputations of many a HMO.

But if it is option 1 (which is highly unlikely), we need to be terrified and the next democratic president needs to sick google with anti-trust and break them up.

Re:Mod Parent Up!

[poopdeville]

SomethingAwful sucks, desu desu.

d^_-b

Bull spit

[Anonymous Coward]

>Cuba has a great medical system...as long as you are one of the elites.

My buddy's girlfriend severed her tendons in a home accident while they lived in Cuba and was taken to the local hospital and operated the same day. She is canadian so of course its not the same as a local but she told us about the people she met on her floor (no political apparatchiks) and compared it to waiting times in Canada and it wasnt even close.

Is there favoritism?
Probably the same you get if you are in the US and are part of the 'chosen' tribe: it doesnt affect you either way if it doenst affect you.

Bottom line, service was quick and grandmothers and housewives were treated as well.

The doctor/patient ratio in Cuba is still very high even though they've sent tens of thousands of doctors and nurses in Venezuela (those animals.... how dare they offer to take care of a poor population where 3/4 have never seen a doctor or dentist in their lives) and while their technology is behind ours, our own population want exactly dying 40-50 years ago without the fancy gadgets we have now.

Keep spreading the FUD my friend

Silly rabbit. You were looking in the wrong place

[smchris]

Don't look at what they _do_. Look at what they _say_.

And, technically, the principle states that one _can_ make money without doing evil. I don't see how that logically implies you _can't_ make money doing evil. So there's a lot of room to adjust the mix as market conditions warrant and I'm sure when the day comes that more money can be made not doing evil, they will be at the forefront with a really nice statement of principles like that.

Not evil (yet)

[timmarhy]

As long as google isn't removing or altering the listing of desenting views on their engine this isn't evil. it's just a PR service. you have to face it, that many people like michael moore talk total bullshit, companys should have the right to produce their own counters to such nonsense.

always remmeber that with people like moore, you aren't seeing the truth, just their highly opinionated and edited version of it.

Michael Moore = Jack Thompson then

[sid0]

and both deserve to be derided.

So, the debate is over then?

[steveha]

Ray Bradbury said it best: the remedy to speech you don't like is more speech. (As opposed to censoring the speech you don't like.)

A Google person is offering to help health care organizations tell their side of the story, and this is "evil"? If you think this is "evil" then I guess you think there is no room for debate here.

Personally, I think health care issues are not so cut-and-dried as that. For a look at the other side of the story, consider this editorial from MTV:

'Sicko': Heavily Doctored, By Kurt Loder

steveha

Re:So, the debate is over then?

[casings]

It is a sad, sad day when people think putting up a link to mtv instead of a credible (read: intelligent) report is convincing to anyone.

I read that article, just like I have read articles by established journalists working for established papers, and found Loder's article to be, simply put, in complete misunderstanding of Moore's work.

Leave mtv and fox to entertainment, they (arguably) do it very well. Don't use them to try and prove a point, because you end up looking like a complete fool.

Re:So, the debate is over then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Summary of your post:

Essay isn't from a "real" source, ignore it.

It's not from a "real" source. Also, it misunderstands Michael Moore's work, but I haven't bothered to give you any examples; just trust me.

Non-"real" sources suck, and so do you for citing them.

Whoa dude you totally destroyed GP with your flawless logic. Good job there. I'M CONVINCED!!!

Re:So, the debate is over then?

[casings]

You're right, I should have linked to an livejournal entry to sway the poster.

My point is simply this: If Moore's documentary and facts are so screwy, there would be at least a few reputable sources claiming this as well, but Loder's largely unsupported (by the journalistic community) paint a much different picture.

Re:So, the debate is over then?

[castrox]

I think the headline is inflammatory. See, if Google is PROTECTING healthcare FROM Michael Moore then I would interpret that as Google making Michael Moore less visible in e.g. their search results.

This of course is the exact formulation of your example of censorship and probably a reason for people to trip on this.

Re:So, the debate is over then?

[OfficeSubmarine]

A Google person is offering to help health care organizations tell their side of the story, and this is "evil"? If you think this is "evil" then I guess you think there is no room for debate here.

There is no room for debate. It's not an issue with opinions, any more than the results of an equation are up for discussion. The entire issue is numbers. Anything other than raw data, with no interpretation, from either side should be assumed as misleading.

Re:So, the debate is over then?

[houghi]

I see Google as a sort of mesenger and it is not cool to shoot the messenger.

Now they are activaly looking up an industry and offer their help. To me that is not about being a messenger anymore. That is about choosing sides.

Where were they when companies like Microsoft slung around FUD? Where this they say to the OSS community on how to solve the issue and how to make it easier finding facts?

Perhaps you will argue that we, as an Internrt community, are able to do this ourselves. Well, if we can, so can the poor healthcare companies.

Re:So, the debate is over then?

[lousyd]

Wow, I never expected MTV to post informative articles. When did that happen?

Re:So, the debate is over then?

[Snaller]

"A Google person is offering to help health care organizations tell their side of the story, and this is "evil"?"

Yes, because its going to be a justification for killing people.

"If you think this is "evil" then I guess you think there is no room for debate here."

There isn't - not if you want to be humane. Of course what it all boils down to is the fact that most humans don't give a damn about the guy next door. Let them die, is their motto. At least that's honest, if only the HealthDon'tCare Business could be the same.

Re:So, the debate is over then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because its going to be a justification for killing people.

It's funny, my insurance company has never killed me yet, and I'm not really worried they might be plotting something.

Are you aware that insurance companies don't have infinite amounts of money? Are you aware that some people actively try to defraud the insurance companies to get money they don't deserve? Because of these two points, insurance companies have to say "no" sometimes.

Do insurance companies only say "no" when they should? (Same question rephrased: Do insurance companies always pay the benefits they should without argument?) Michael Moore showed some examples of people who were treated very badly by insurance companies, so I'd say the insurance companies aren't perfect. Like that MTV guy said, it's a fine muckraking thing to hold their feet to the fire where they deserve it.

But you are saying that there is no good at all in the inurance companies, that they are plotting to kill people, and it's evil to offer to help insurance companies argue with Michael Moore. Geeze. Just think about what you are saying. Do you really want to say that?

There isn't - not if you want to be humane.

See above: no infinite pools of money, plus active attempts to steal insurance money, means that whether they want to be humane or no, they will be saying "no" sometimes. If you think they are not humane if they never ever say no, you haven't thought this through at all.

Of course what it all boils down to is the fact that most humans don't give a damn about the guy next door. Let them die, is their motto.

Jeeze is it emo night or something. Actually, I say you are wrong. Most humans want good things for everyone around them as much as possible. There are some cold, evil bastards and some of them end up as bureaucrats at insurance companies, but they are not "most people".

Re:So, the debate is over then?

[syousef]

Google person is offering to help health care organizations tell their side of the story, and this is "evil"? If you think this is "evil" then I guess you think there is no room for debate here.

So were Hitler's Nazi publicists evil or simply helping the Nazi party tell it's side of the story? Should those that denied the holocaust or backed "the final solution" bear any responsibility? I know. Godwin and all but I've always thought Godwin's law was a stupid act of censorship by ridicule. In this case a Nazi analogy is apt.

While I believe that speech should NOT be restricted, I also believe people should be held accountable for what they say and who they help say it.

Re:So, the debate is over then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did the Nazi publicists lie? I don't think Google has offered to lie on behalf of the health insurance guys. And I don't think the Nazi publicists told the truth about things like death camps. So, not really parallel cases there.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Not really evil, just a bit unwise.

[mattva01]

To me it just seems like Google is reminding the HMO's of a way to use Google services for damage control. As long as they would grant the same right to Micheal Moore I'm fine with it. Now if they gave a discount to the companies, then that would be evil.

Sicko is BS

[forlornhope]

I'd just like point out this link: http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1563758/st ory.jhtml

From MTV no less. But its worth a read. In short, you can't mandate access to a scarce resource without rationing. The best course of action (IMHO) is to reduce the cost of healthcare. And no, I'm not talking about making health insurance charge less by some law, I'm talking about reducing the real costs. The cost of malpractice insurance is one area that creates a big impact on the final cost of health care. Also moving more of the development of new drugs into public institutions and making sure that the results aren't privatized. Even patent reform could help in this area.

There are underlying realities in the health care industry that can not be changed. You can't increase the number of EFFECTIVE doctors and you can't make them work for peanuts. You can drive down the costs of education, equipment and drugs through the use of public funding though.

Re:Sicko is BS

[Abcd1234]

In short, you can't mandate access to a scarce resource without rationing.

Absolutely. And how does the US handle that rationing right now? Money. Call me a socialist, but I'd rather the rationing be based on, you know, who needs the resource more. Honestly, who gives a damn if someone is forced to wait 6 months for knee surgery, when the alternative is a blue collar worker being denied a heart transplant?

Re:Sicko is BS

[cdrguru]

The principal problem in the US is the way that "health" in general is dealt with.

Please do not take this as disagreement with the US attitude towards health. In general it is what I consider to be "right" and most other countries to be "wrong". Dead wrong, as you will see.

In most other countries, from what I have read and seen in quite a bit of travel, it is assumed that you will at some point in your life get sick and die. This is viewed as a natural event that cannot be altered, stopped or even delayed. You are born, you live and then you die. Period. Immutable.

In the US things are a bit different. It is assumed that when you get sick that you can be cured. Period. Again, immutable. The exception is that in some cases, after spending unbelievable amounts of money, you might die because the "cure" fails. Everyone is sad because of this "failure". Dying is not assumed to be something that is going to happen and that life should be allowed to "run its course" but, barring failure, something that can be put off indefinately.

Do you understand the difference? This difference makes it almost pointless to compare European medical systems with those in the US. It makes for US-culture people standing around in non-US hospitals wondering how "this dying" can possibly be tolerated and "why isn't someone doing something about this terrible situation?" Where as the non-US person is wondering what all the fuss is about.

The question is would the US population ever accept the attitude that prevails elsewhere? I doubt it. Until people get their heads around this basic difference in attitudes, comparisons are pointless. Spending in the US is going to be significantly more than anywhere else based on this attitude difference. And, as long as this attitude prevails in the US there is no way to change it.

Re:Sicko is BS

[ErikZ]

Obviously hot chicks need the resource more. And the well connected people.

Boy, I can hardly wait to be put in charge of the system for determining who needs health care the most.

Re:Sicko is BS

[Abcd1234]

Yeah, you're right, there's absolutely no objective way to judge who needs treatment more. That kind of... what do you call it... "triage"... yeah, that's just impossible.

Re:Sicko is BS

[joek1010]

If medical service is made financially availble to more people, won't that increase demand for doctors, and eventually increase the number of "EFFECTIVE" doctors? I fail to see why the number of doctors in the US would remain static.

Re:Sicko is BS

[Anonymous Coward]

The best course of action (IMHO) is to reduce the cost of healthcare.

I see you left out the salaries of the HMO management and payments to the various bodies in Washington DC.

Re:Sicko is BS

[forlornhope]

So, who should get treatment first? Two patients, exactly the same disease, in exactly the same stage. One is a famous surgeon and the other is a mentally ill homeless person. Who should be treated first? What if you can treat only one? What now?

Saying one life is more important than the other is cruel, but the surgeon can go on to be much more productive and help many more people than a mentally ill homeless person who refuses to take medication to control their illness. What happens when the disparity isn't so clear? All you have is two business people. One is successful and the other is not. Choose which one to treat.

Socialism doesn't work cause most people don't consider the common good when they are working every day. They want to know whats in it for them. In the end better health care is one of the motivators to be successful. Its sad, but its a fact of life. Without such motivators you get situations like France. France is making itself irrelevant and highly unproductive because of its socialist coarse. Socialism hopes for the best in people and bets on that. Unfortunately if you bet on people doing whats best for the general good then you'll find yourself mistaken more often than not. And thats not the way to run a country.

Re:Sicko is BS

[forlornhope]

You have got the wrong variables. The number of doctors don't increase based upon the number of patients. It increases on the available resources to pay them. All you would be doing is mandating that the same amount of resources be spread across more people. In the end you would likely see a reduction in the number of doctors because they would be over worked and not paid as much. The smart people that make effective doctors would move on to other professions that pay better.

Re:Sicko is BS

[Abcd1234]

So, who should get treatment first? Two patients, exactly the same disease, in exactly the same stage. One is a famous surgeon and the other is a mentally ill homeless person. Who should be treated first? What if you can treat only one? What now?

Well, in the current US situation, the answer is "whoever has more money". You're telling me that's the best possible solution?

In the end better health care is one of the motivators to be successful

Well, given the GDP of the EU, which is primarily composed of nations with socialized healthcare, not to mention the success of nations such as Canada and Japan, I'd say your argument has little basis in fact. As for France, it's problems are myriad, and only a simple mind would point the finger at "socialism", as if that was the single, root cause.

And as a counterpoint, individuals with poor health end up being a drag on society, as their illnesses reduce their productivity, and increase the chance they may be forced to avail themselves of what little social safety net is available in the US, creating costs borne by everyone in society.

But, you go on living with the delusion that "socialism is evil" and "the free market is perfect". Meanwhile, I'll be content knowing that, if I found myself in a car accident and in need of emergency surgery, the resulting costs wouldn't drive me into bankruptcy.

Re:Sicko is BS

[Prof.Phreak]

In short, you can't mandate access to a scarce resource without rationing.

Who ever said it -has- to be a scarce resource? Heck, fire department, and police seem to be doing an ok job, with their rationing. And sanitation workers seem to pickup trash---all rationing their time. Medicare seems to satisfy lots of elderly folks. Medicaid works ok for the poor. The middle class gets screwed! Most families pay ~$15k a year for health insurance. There -can- be a balance, and many countries seem to find it (or at least a balance where more people are happy with health care than in the US).

I think most folks would welcome a universal `Medicaid' system (ie: just remove any restrictions on getting it). The system is already in place. Every hospital accepts it, etc.

Re:Sicko is BS

[Dachannien]

Exactly.

The answer isn't to socialize health care. The government already pays half of all health care costs in the US as it is, and enacts limits on pricing that have pushed the burden of costs into the arena of those not eligible for federal assistance (including the uninsured). (So where do the costs go when all health care prices face cost limitations? That's something Moore and friends always seem to ignore.) It's to examine what has made health care so expensive in the US, identify the inefficiencies in the system that are passed along to the consumer, and fix those inefficiencies (through internal action or even legislation, if necessary). It's to identify preventable illnesses (smoking, AIDS, illness due to drug use) with (a) a high cost of treatment and (b) a high incidence of occurrence among those for whom the costs are absorbed by the system (federal assistance, etc.), and enact prevention programs such that the cost of prevention is less than the cost of treatment.

In particular, smoking-related illnesses cause about 7% of the total expenditure on health care. Unfortunately, this statistic was from 1998, and we could sure use another look at the problem, including examining the effects of anti-smoking legislation that's been enacted in various places over the past decade. Reducing or eliminating smoking would thus save a lot of money, especially among those of lower income, where smoking prevalence is higher.

Re:Sicko is BS

[maop]

So, who should get treatment first? Two patients, exactly the same disease, in exactly the same stage. One is a famous surgeon and the other is a mentally ill homeless person. Who should be treated first? What if you can treat only one? What now?
When you have two things with the same priority FIFO comes to the rescue.

Re:Sicko is BS

[mvdwege]

In most other countries, from what I have read and seen in quite a bit of travel, it is assumed that you will at some point in your life get sick and die.

...

In the US things are a bit different. It is assumed that when you get sick that you can be cured. Period.

You are comparing 'eventually dying' with 'getting sick'. I call strawman.

Re:Sicko is BS

[jbssm]

Err man ... but the life expectancy in Europe is higher than in the USA ... if we don't care about dying and we don't spend as much money as Americans trying to get a cure how do you explain that?

Your health system is fucked because most of the money people put in to it goes to make insurance companies richer not actually to take care of people.

I see lots of greedy non-human people in this forum saying that they don't have to pay for other people problems ... guess they are so stupid that they don't realise that they are paying insurance and instead of paying to help other people they are paying to get insurance companies richer ... well, what can we say ... Americans.

Bottom line is, medical treatment costs in Europe and much lower than in USA and people live longer AND we don't let children dye without treatment just because their parents cannot afford it. We are more humane and more efficient!

Re:Sicko is BS

[jbssm]

Syntax correction:
...medical treatment costs in Europe are much lower than in USA...
...we don't let children die without treatment...

Re:Sicko is BS

[Cocoshimmy]

In fact, the attitude in the US seems to be: If you get sick and can't pay, tough luck. If you get sick and can pay for healthcare, we'll try to cure you but if you don't have insurance we'll probably extort you for everything you have. Elsewhere: If you get sick, we'll try to cure you regardless of who you are and whether or not you can pay.

Perhaps I am interpreting your statement wrong, but I don't know why you think that people in Europe have this philosophy that death and sickness can't be prevented, stopped or delayed. If that were the case, they wouldn't spend any money on geriatrics (healthcare for the elderly), preventative healthcare, medical research and development, or provide universal healthcare for all their citizens (whether they are old, young, sick, or healthy).

Yes, people in the US believe in the "magic" of medicine to help improve the quality and extend the length of their lives but that doesn't mean people elsewhere don't. Europe and Canada spends millions on new anti-aging drugs and treatments, cancer treatments, physical rehabilitation, vaccines, etc. just like the US does. People in Europe and Canada aren't turned away from the hospital when they are sick because the government believes that "they are going to die anyways" or because the treatment may or may not work. (in fact, only in the US people are turned away but that is because they can't pay).

Re:Sicko is BS

[knewter]

I love Project86 :) Been listening to them since Drawing Black Lines, and they don't disappoint...

Also, this is the first post in the whole debate that mentions this:

The cost of malpractice insurance is one area that creates a big impact on the final cost of health care. I wonder how many people in these comments think of John Edwards as driving up healthcare. I wonder if Michael Moore talks about it.

Haven't seen Sicko, as I was turned off to Michael Moore since seeing _Bowling for Columbine_ and realizing that it was more about presentation than justifiable argument. Just can't risk being swayed by passion, it's not how I roll. Can anyone that hated BfC as much as I did recommend this movie to me? Does he discuss medical malpractice insurance as a contributing factor in healthcare costs?

Re:Sicko is BS

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like "to each according to his needs"?

Re:Sicko is BS

[TooMuchToDo]

How do you increase a scarce resource? Start offering incentives for students to get into medical/nursing school.

Re:Sicko is BS

[lawpoop]

Err man ... but the life expectancy in Europe is higher than in the USA ... if we don't care about dying and we don't spend as much money as Americans trying to get a cure how do you explain that? I think what grandparent is trying to argue that what we practice here in the US is heroic medicine. With our limited health care funds, we'd rather take care of major problems, like late stage cancer, or keeping someone comatose alive on a breathing machine, rather than simple, easy, obvious stuff, like yearly cancer screenings, which is cheaper and would lead to healthier people.

To use the car metaphor, we can't afford to do regular and preventative maintenance, but we love to do expensive repairs! And then we don't have any money left for maintenance.

Re:Sicko is BS

[dominion]

You're defending a review that actually states this:

how does he know 18 million people will die this year because they have no health insurance?

Where in the movie does Michael Moore ever say this? 18 million? You mean in ten years we've lose half of our population? I've watched the movie, this claim is never made.

The argument against universally funded health care, that it's not perfect, is such a poor argument as to be absurd. Of course it's not perfect. Of course there's problems. But ultimately, it is a better system, as has been proven time and time again, by economic analysis, by social analysis, by every complete study of the health of nations which includes every citizen of said nation.

And that's the best Kurt Loder can come up with. That Canada, Cuba, England, or France isn't perfect.

I've never been on the side of an argument where the detractors are so clearly bankrupt when it comes to valid arguments, whether moral, social, or economic.

Double Billing / Unbundling

[Llynix]

Fraud is very common, as is double billing or "unbundling" -- some procedures medically require others to be performed, so when the cost of the first is calculated, it includes the cost of the others. Unbundling is basically a sophisticated form of double billing where the the requisite procedures are billed on top of the procedure that required them. Most people don't fight this, thinking that the "big" procedure was just really expensive.

This has happened to me several times. Looking over my bill I noticed several procedures that were not performed. They 'might' have been performed for my particular problem but instead I got the normal 2 minutes with a nurse and 3 seconds with a doctor and should have only gotten charged for the visit. Also I was given sample medication then charged for them.

A quick phone call takes care of it, however as stated this apparently happens as often as the hospitals can get away with it. What bothered me is there didn't seem to be any sort of way to report my hospital for what I considered outright fraud.

Say what you want.. but our health care system sucks. Many people say socialized health care won't work because the level of care would drop. I'm sorry, but when you have no care whatsoever like most of us do, crappy care is better then nothing.

The US system is probably worse than you think...

[WIAKywbfatw]

That's a valid criticism, as long as you're comparing the US medical system to just that of Cuba.

Now compare the US model to that of its western, developed world counterparts. All of a sudden, the US model doesn't look so great, does it?

The US medical system is flawed. Yes, you have access to some of the greatest medical care in the world, but that is true if and only if you're able to pay for it. If you're not covered and you can't afford it then you might as well not exist.

Approximately 41-44 million Americans have no health coverage. That's about 15 percent of the population. Approximately 18,000 Americans die every year because they couldn't afford simple screening and preventive care for chronic diseases. Note, that's not because they couldn't afford an expensive treatment, it's because they didn't know that they had a serious illness until it was too late to do something about it.

To put that in context, six times as many Americans die every year that need not have died because of this one reason alone than died as a result of the attacks of September 11th, 2001. (Where's the "War on Illness"?) And that's the thousands more that wouldn't die if they had access to basic medicine and treatments that people in, say, Canada and Europe would take for granted.

Health insurance in the US isn't about providing patients with the best possible care. Instead, like all businesses it's about providing the maximum possible profit to shareholders, as required by law. As much as 30 percent of US private health insurance premiums is eaten up by overheads and profits. Medicare, the state solution, has overheads that amount to just one percent, and no shareholders to take a pound of flesh.

If the private sector solution is so efficient then why does it suck so much money out of the system?

15.4 percent of the US GDP is spent on healthcare. Healthcare expenses is the number one reason for personal bankrupcy in the US. Compared to their counterparts, Americans pay through the teeth for healthcare, yet the US is ranked only 37th (based on general health of the population, access, patient satisfaction and how the care's paid for) by the World Health Organisation.

By comparison, Canada spends less than 10 percent of it's GDP on healthcare, yet is ranked in the top ten. In actual terms, Canadians spend half as much per capita as Americans do (Canada's GDP/capita is a lot lower than it's southern neighbour's) yet get better overall care. Life expectancy in Canada is three years greater, both for men and for women, there are fewer infant mortalities, etc.

Don't get me wrong, there are things to be admired about the US. But, generally, healthcare provision is not one of them and neither is it likely to be for a very long time unless someone is brave enough to do something about it.

Yes, the US system might be better than Cuba's but, to be honest, that's of little consolation to the millions of Americans who literally can't afford to be sick.

Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[nbauman]

Here's a comparison of Canadian vs. U.S. health care from a peer-reviewed medical journal, by Gordon Guyatt, who is one of the world's top experts on comparing health care systems. The article points out that the U.S. health care system costs about twice as much per capita for the same or worse results.

http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/8/1

Open Medicine, Vol 1, No 1 (2007)

A systematic review of studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the United States

Gordon H. Guyatt, P.J. Devereaux, Joel Lexchin, Samuel B. Stone, Armine Yalnizyan, David Himmelstein, Steffie Woolhandler, Qi Zhou, Laurie J. Goldsmith, Deborah J. Cook, Ted Haines, Christina Lacchetti, John N. Lavis, Terrence Sullivan, Ed Mills, Shelley Kraus, Neera Bhatnagar

ABSTRACT

Background: Differences in medical care in the United States compared with Canada, including greater reliance on private funding and for-profit delivery, as well as markedly higher expenditures, may result in different health outcomes.

Objectives: To systematically review studies comparing health outcomes in the United States and Canada among patients treated for similar underlying medical conditions.

Methods: We identified studies comparing health outcomes of patients in Canada and the United States by searching multiple bibliographic databases and resources. We masked study results before determining study eligibility. We abstracted study characteristics, including methodological quality and generalizability.

Results: We identified 38 studies comparing populations of patients in Canada and the United States. Studies addressed diverse problems, including cancer, coronary artery disease, chronic medical illnesses and surgical procedures. Of 10 studies that included extensive statistical adjustment and enrolled broad populations, 5 favoured Canada, 2 favoured the United States, and 3 showed equivalent or mixed results. Of 28 studies that failed one of these criteria, 9 favoured Canada, 3 favoured the United States, and 16 showed equivalent or mixed results. Overall, results for mortality favoured Canada (relative risk 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.92-0.98, p = 0.002) but were very heterogeneous, and we failed to find convincing explanations for this heterogeneity. The only condition in which results consistently favoured one country was end-stage renal disease, in which Canadian patients fared better.

Interpretation: Available studies suggest that health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent.

Further reading on the Canada vs. U.S. comparison is:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/000 7.marmorsul.html
Canada's Burning!
Media myths about universal health coverage
By Theodore Marmor & Kip Sullivan

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

Here's a comparison of Canadian vs. U.S. health care from a peer-reviewed medical journal, by Gordon Guyatt, who is one of the world's top experts on comparing health care systems. The article points out that the U.S. health care system costs about twice as much per capita for the same or worse results. Well, it depends on what you mean. If you mean Canada has the same or better results for everybody, no, it does not. Indeed, for many people, it has significantly worse results, especially those in the upper and upper middle class, and that's the point: no one is willing to have their freedom taken away, and their taxes increased, in order to be significantly worse off, even if it benefits others. There's better solutions out there that don't harm a lot of people for the sake of improving the care of a lot of other people.

Which is, incidentally, why only one Democrat is for single-payer care, because the rest of them know it's a non-starter, and they want to win (whereas Kucinich knows he can't win).

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Pig Hogger]

Well, it depends on what you mean. If you mean Canada has the same or better results for everybody, no, it does not. Indeed, for many people, it has significantly worse results, especially those in the upper and upper middle class, and that's the point: no one is willing to have their freedom taken away, and their taxes increased, in order to be significantly worse off, even if it benefits others. There's better solutions out there that don't harm a lot of people for the sake of improving the care of a lot of other people.

Canadians have decided long ago that it is not right for a rich man to have better service when it means that everyone else will have worse.

Everyone has the same service; this guarantees that the rich will not gut the service.

This is called "social justice", something sorely lacking in the US.

Ever wondered why the crime rate is so low in Canada? It's not because guns are outlawed. No, it's simply because welfare helps ensure that someone that hit the bottom of the barrel will not have to turn to crime in order to survive.

Paying slightly more taxes than in the US is a very cheap price to pay to insure that I do not risk being mugged each time I walk home late at night.

And everyone is glad to pay those few extra tax dollars.

The "freedom" those measures take away would only benefit the top 0.01% of the population anyways.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[TapeCutter]

We also have humane and effective universal health cover in Australia and you can take out private insurance if you want a private room for mum and baby, silicone implants, ect. The idea that "world class" health care could bankrupt any family is a bipartisan "evil" in this country.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[larry bagina]

Ever wondered why the crime rate is so low in Canada? It's not because guns are outlawed. No, it's simply because welfare helps ensure that someone that hit the bottom of the barrel will not have to turn to crime in order to survive.

Bullshit. Montana, which has an ethnic makeup similar to Canada, has a lower crime rate than Canada does. Philadelphia, which has an ethnic makeup decidedly different than Canada has a much higher crime rate.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[nbowman]

Yes, if only we could segregate those people of different ethnicities, we would be safe. there are far more pieces of the equation that actually have something to do with the crime rate than some tenuous at best link to ethnicity.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[xjerky]

Well, it's not as simple as ethnicity. Our past ties to slavery still bite us in the ass, unlike Canada. But simply tossing more money at them isnt going to solve the problem.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[catchblue22]

The American health care system is hugely inefficient, in part because it devotes huge resources to deciding who to cover and who to deny coverage. Spending large amounts of money to figure out who is likely to get sick makes sense to improve the bottom line of individual companies, but overall it lowers the quality of care for patients by reducing available resources.

I live in Canada. I have quite a bit of experience with our health care system, having an elderly family member with cancer. I can only describe his care as excellent. I spent days in the hospital, and I got to observe in detail what went on there, and I cannot think of anything that could have significantly been improved.

That said, the quality of care has been declining recently. However, this is primarily due to cutbacks instituted by neoconservative leaning governments. They are deliberately starving the public health care system with the eventual goal of creating a parallel private system. The reasons they are doing this are largely ideological, in that they believe the private sector can do no wrong. It also seems likely to me that our government has been bought and paid for by private health care interests.

That said, our system is still quite good. Someone else I know is currently going through cancer treatment, and there isn't much I can see wrong with her care. Because her treatment was urgent, she didn't have to wait very long for her chemotherapy. But what is perhaps more important is that the treatment was received without fear of bankruptcy. We don't fear losing our coverage here. We don't wonder whether or not our claim will go through. We simply show up to the doctor or hospital and receive our care.

With the release of Sicko, be prepared to be deluged by propaganda against public health care. There is just too much money to be lost by the private health care industry for them to give up in this battle. Although Michael Moore tends towards bombast and exaggeration, his basic thesis is correct. The American health care system is deeply flawed, and other countries do a far better job of caring for their citizens.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

Well, it depends on what you mean. If you mean Canada has the same or better results for everybody, no, it does not. Indeed, for many people, it has significantly worse results, especially those in the upper and upper middle class, and that's the point: no one is willing to have their freedom taken away, and their taxes increased, in order to be significantly worse off, even if it benefits others. There's better solutions out there that don't harm a lot of people for the sake of improving the care of a lot of other people. Canadians have decided long ago that it is not right for a rich man to have better service when it means that everyone else will have worse. Nothing I said implied that's how it should be. I said the proper solution would be one that improves the care of those with poor care, without significantly adversely affecting the care of anyone else.

Everyone has the same service Yep, and it's a damned shame.

This is called "social justice", something sorely lacking in the US. Riiiiiiight. It is "justice" to take away someone's liberty and force them to have a reduced standard of health care. That makes perfect sense!

The "freedom" those measures take away would only benefit the top 0.01% of the population anyways. Not remotely. It's actually closer to about 30 percent, if not more.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to try reading the book The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy which compares Japan, Canada, and the USA. The conclusion of the book is that cultural issues are more important than laws. Canada isn't safer than the USA because of its gun laws; they have fewer people stabbed, fewere people beaten to death with hands and fists, just less violence. If it's not the laws, could it be... the culture? The ethnic composition? Read the damn book and find out.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

With the release of Sicko, be prepared to be deluged by propaganda against public health care. Good. It's a bad idea that should be fought against.

First of all, let's just note the fact that federalized health care is blatantly unconstitutional. No, I won't explain that in detail, because I am tired of explaining about enumerated rights and the Tenth Amendment.

Second, it takes away freedom (apart from Tenth Amendment rights). And yes, that matters. A lot.

Third, there's no evidence it is necessary. Yes, you can say the U.S. system has problems, but no one is saying it doesn't. It's a logical fallacy to point at the problems of the U.S. system and say it proves we need government controlled health care. The fact is that there are a lot of reforms that can drastically improve the system without government taking control of it, and given the second point above, we should ALWAYS attempt to solve problems without disturbing freedom FIRST.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Paradise Pete]

Montana, which has an ethnic makeup similar to Canada, has a lower crime rate than Canada does. Philadelphia, which has an ethnic makeup decidedly different than Canada has a much higher crime rate.

Are you saying that certain ethnicities are inherently more criminal?

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[gomoX]

federalized health care is blatantly unconstitutional Get over it. A constitution is a freaking book. It's not some sort of divinity. It's just law, and as such, it's good for trials and judges, not for arguments between people. That's the whole point of your beloved amendments: having the damn book say what smart people (people that didn't refute arguments by saying they were unconstitutional, but instead chose to question the limitations of The Book) thought it should say.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[kd5ujz]

Surly not, Africa is such a stable continent.........

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[madcow_bg]

Nothing I said implied that's how it should be. I said the proper solution would be one that improves the care of those with poor care, without significantly adversely affecting the care of anyone else. So what?! Having universal medical coverage does not rule out private healthcare. You can always pay for a better doctor. Anyway, did it occur to you that people with shitty health also have less money, and even better, are not insured because no company wants them? Tell me how is that fare?

Everyone has the same service Yep, and it's a damned shame. I see, just because you turned well, you want others to suffer? It is your f*ckin health, for christ's sake! It affects your basic human right to live!!! There is something wrong with your country, if you let even 1/3 of the stuff on that movie happen to real people. And I know it is so, because I have friends there.

This is called "social justice", something sorely lacking in the US. Riiiiiiight. It is "justice" to take away someone's liberty and force them to have a reduced standard of health care. That makes perfect sense! Who's liberty is taken when you pay taxes? Like the ones for public schools, libraries, roads? Why don't everyone just pave their own damned piece of road, and let everyone else suffer the consequences!

The "freedom" those measures take away would only benefit the top 0.01% of the population anyways. Not remotely. It's actually closer to about 30 percent, if not more.
Really? So, having 200$ less to pay for taxes is really, really worth it if you screw the 70% of the country, the poor ones. Well, good for you.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[tourvil]

First of all, let's just note the fact that federalized health care is blatantly unconstitutional. No, I won't explain that in detail, because I am tired of explaining about enumerated rights and the Tenth Amendment.

I agree, and what I don't understand is why the issue of universal/socialized health care is rarely suggested at the state level. Clearly there is some significant portion of Americans who are interested in seeing universal health care, or there wouldn't be a discussion. So why don't some of the states try it? But all discussion I've seen has been for or against implementing federal health care.

I watched Sicko, and if nothing else, it did get me thinking more about the issue of health care. I don't quite buy Moore's argument that we need federal health care, but I do believe it's a worthy debate to have at the state level. In the movie, he tries to sell us the idea of socialized health care by pointing to the other socialized services we enjoy: firefighters, education, police departments, etc. All of these serve the public good (in theory, if not always in practice), but these services are largely managed at the state or local levels. I think there could be room for health care in that list. At the very least, I believe it's a worthy enough issue to be on the table for debate.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[shark swooner]

Do you have any way to statistically describe these "many people" or are you just basing this on the premise that you could eventually find some individuals if you searched long enough?

Because you have things like infant mortality rate (worse in US), life expectancy (worse in US) but you might be able to find "many people" that died young in Canada! The difference is we can quantitatively describe infant mortality and life expectancy and compare them for different jurisdictions quantitatively, whereas "many people" having "significantly worse results" are specious weasel words with no objective, and therefore any, meaning.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Mr. Flibble]

Canadians have decided long ago that it is not right for a rich man to have better service when it means that everyone else will have worse.

Everyone has the same service; this guarantees that the rich will not gut the service.

As a Canadian, who has this same service, I have a problem with it.

The problem is that there are waiting lists for many health care services. What it amounts to is that if say, my mother is sick, and put on a waiting list - yet a private clinic has the space, I am FORBIDDEN from paying to help my mother. What this amounts to, is that someone who works hard all their life to aquire money is forbidden from using it to help their family. Do I think universal healthcare is a good idea and a right? Yes. Do I believe that it should be forced so that those who have the means and the funds to help their family should be denied that right? No.

This is why many Canadians who can afford it go to the states for certain procedures. The waiting lists can get in the way. While it is true that most procedures that are considered threat to life are generally fast, not all are. A friend of mine has been on a waiting list for gall bladder surgery for six months. With the money to pay, the only option is to go to the US for the operation as you can't jump the line here. You just have to sit and suffer. Is that fair to someone who has worked hard to aquire their money and status? Is that a fair picture of freedom to say "oh, you may be able to afford it, but we won't let you buy it."?

So, I believe that universal healthcare is a right - but if you have the funds to get faster or better service than the basic care, that should be available to you. To "level" the playing field, you make the lines longer... If my friend gets surgery in the US - then she gets what she needs - and there is one *LESS* person in the waiting line for gall bladder surgery in Canada - meaning someone here gets moved up the list. I see that as a good thing for both people.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Xtravar]

Some states do have their own form of health care aid / system. I know in Wisconsin we have BadgerCare for people who cannot afford private health care. It's not free, but it's highly discounted.

I also know that Massachusetts just implemented some sort of similar system, except they made it illegal to not have health care as well.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[timmarhy]

bullshit. welfare doesn't prevent crime, it merely allows the crooks to be better fed while they rob you. here in australia we have a great welfare system and plenty of area's are infested with criminals stealing everything not nailed down.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[msormune]

I hate to burst your bubble, but at least here in Finland just about everyone agrees higher taxes are justified on the basis of great public healthcare and education for everyone. No, I have no idea what you are talking about "worse results in upper and upper middle class". Maye they are secretly sorry not being able to buy a new BMW every year or something. Oh yeah, we don't need guns either.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Anonymous Coward]

Surly not, Africa is such a stable continent......... What they lack is an extraordinary powerful army, so that they can be stable at home, and then resort to violence in other countries of the world, invading here at a whim, bombing here and there, supporting rebels in a another place, while being assured to beat any other army of the world.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Surly not, Africa is such a stable continent.........

Right. And I'm sure that has so much more to do with their DNA than with, say, the fact that the Europeans came in and screwed them over for five centuries? And I'm sure it's also genetics that ensured that the most prosperous and stable countries are the ones which just happened not to have fallen to colonial administration?

Please. The only reason there's even a tenuous, spurious apparent link between ethnicity and crime is yahoos have used the differences in appearance caused by minute genetic variation to justify beating up on significant subsets of the human species.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Weedlekin]

"We also have humane and effective universal health cover in Australia and you can take out private insurance if you want a private room for mum and baby, silicone implants, ect."

That's the way it also works in a lot of European countries (but not of course all of them). Everyone pays for the state system from taxes (so rich people who never use it are paying far more than the poorer ones who do), but there are is also private healthcare funded by those who choose to buy insurance or pay for a one-off item such as "vanity" cosmetic surgery. There are two main advantage to a choice-based environment: (1) the state can concentrate its resources on those who actually need them; and (2) there is secondary set of medical services (beds, doctors, nurses, advanced equipment such as MRI) that the state can pay to use when required, but are entirely maintained at someone else's expense when the state doesn't need them.

(state system funded by everyone) + (private sector paid for by those who want to use it) > (state sector only) OR (private healthcare only)

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[jinxidoru]

Well, it depends on what you mean. If you mean Canada has the same or better results for everybody, no, it does not. Indeed, for many people, it has significantly worse results, especially those in the upper and upper middle class, and that's the point: no one is willing to have their freedom taken away, and their taxes increased, in order to be significantly worse off, even if it benefits others. There's better solutions out there that don't harm a lot of people for the sake of improving the care of a lot of other people.


Not true. I am one of those people who would receive worse care in Canada and I am totally for it. The fact is that the worse care is not bad care. The worse care is still quite good. In other words, true, I won't be able to move myself to the front of the kidney transplant list, or cut to the front of the line for a bipass surgery. No, I'll get it just as soon as everyone else. That certainly sounds fair to me, that just because I have been lucky enough to have money does not entitle me to live while others not as fortunate die. Seriously, our health care system is sick.

Your comment also fails to bring attention to the social benefits of socialized medicine. In the same way that public schools not only improve the life of one receiving an education, they also benefit society at large, public health-car provides benefits to society at large as well. One that was mentioned previously was crime (though I'm not necessarily convinced, it does have a ring of truth). There's also the benefit of fewer sick days because sickness is dealt with better. The list is quite large.

One other thing. I find it odd that the republicans (read: Christian Right) are the ones who are generally opposed to socialized medicine. Wasn't it Christ who taught the perfect example of self-less sacrifice for the betterment of society. All the while, us godless democrats are the ones calling for just that type of sacrifice. What's the deal with that?

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Anonymous Coward]

There's an even bigger problem. It's not that by paying you would "take away" the doctors from the poor, so they can serve you - the paying customer - faster or better.

By creating financial demand, you would create incentives for there to be more doctors, so actually everybody could be treated.

Price fixing has only ever resulted in one thing: shortages of the thing that was to be made affordable. Ironic, and sucks, but gotta live with reality.

Release the price controls and make treatment (more) profitable, and there are gonna be more doctors. I'm from Germany, and here we are starting to get real problems. Doctors are leaving, because they can't even keep their offices anymore. Bureaucracy and expensive machinery cost so much that government-fixed prices won't cut it. And in the hospitals, professionals work 30 hour shifts, get 8 hours of sleep and start their next 10 or so hour shift. I'm lucky I don't have to get surgery at such a hospital right now, that I'm healthy.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Anspen]

One big problem would be health care tourism. People with expensive illnesses would be likely to move to a state with free/cheap universal health care. Depending on the system they could even just visit the state. No state will therefore be too free with it's system.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Oligonicella]

"...television engineer, ... computer systems engineer, ... network engineer, senior software developer,..."

You worked in those fields without a high school diploma? Hard to believe.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

Indeed, for many people, it has significantly worse results, especially those in the upper and upper middle class

Care to backup that statement with facts? OK, I'll make it easy how about you just supply a single verifiable case where this is true. Don't even bother with "significantly" or "many people". Just ONE single case where some one has "worse results" in Canada because it uses social health care. BTW, I will not accept having to wait 4 weeks insteads of one day to have a mole removed as proof of "worse results". The results are the same, just requires a little patients.

Listen, really the only thing bad that can be said about any number of all the other western countries using social health care is there can be longer wait times. However, here is how I see it. If the choice is between: "I can have the procedure today, but some other people will be denied the procedure to make it happen" or "I'll have to wait a few weeks for the procedure, but everyone can have it". Well maybe it makes me a commie bastard, but I'll take option two.

BTW, social health care DOESN'T have long waiting times for emergency procedures. Its the elective procedures which have wait times.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Anonymous Coward]

GED and college later in life, maybe? Or more likely he's just a troll.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[grub]

Riiiiiiight. It is "justice" to take away someone's liberty and force them to have a reduced standard of health care. That makes perfect sense!

My "liberty" has never been in question. If I want an operation any faster and it's not an emergency I can always head to the US and pay the same price as any American. If I need the operation, I get it right away.

A friend of the family went to the hospital with chest pains about 4 years ago. He was in bypass surgery that night as most of his coronary arteries were nearly blocked. They didn't put him in a queue, which seems to be the big myth I hear from down south.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[grub]

Get over it. A constitution is a freaking book.

Actually Bush said It's just a goddamned piece of paper!" :)

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[grub]

Yeah I find that "worse results for upper class" comment a joke. If the results were truly so bad, why is the life expectancy here, and in other countries with evil socialized medicine, higher than the US?

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Pig Hogger]

Bullshit. Montana, which has an ethnic makeup similar to Canada, has a lower crime rate than Canada does. Philadelphia, which has an ethnic makeup decidedly different than Canada has a much higher crime rate.

I didn't know that Montana had 225,000 french people... Perhaps it is you who indulges in oxdung???

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the US one of the most prosperous and stable nations? Didn't we fall under the colonial administration of the British? I do agree with your overall point, however.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Pig Hogger]

Riiiiiiight. It is "justice" to take away someone's liberty and force them to have a reduced standard of health care. That makes perfect sense!

I will never stop at wondering why little people (surely you're not a zillionaire) will keep at protecting the filthy rich... The bourgeois mind control rays seem to be very potent down there...

Reality 101: the big filthy rich will keep insuring that you, the little guy, will **NEVER** be able to get richer. Stop dreaming about "hard work", it's all about connections.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Pig Hogger]

So what?! Having universal medical coverage does not rule out private healthcare. You can always pay for a better doctor. Anyway, did it occur to you that people with shitty health also have less money, and even better, are not insured because no company wants them? Tell me how is that fare?

Actually, the whole point of the Canadian system is to precisely prevent the filthy rich from having a separate but unequal system from the unwashed masses. Since everyone is **FORCED** into the same system, any politician who proposes to gut the system to give more to the rich gets quickly shunted out of the arena.

However, still all this doesn't prevent the filthy rich from going to seek health care that they pay from their own pockets elsewere, like the US, or (gasp!) even Cuba (Michael Moore didn't invent anything).

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Pig Hogger]

Do I think universal healthcare is a good idea and a right? Yes. Do I believe that it should be forced so that those who have the means and the funds to help their family should be denied that right? No.

The minute you start doing this, you enter the slippery slope of private health care like in the US. Because there will always be someone richer than you willing to sacrifice you hard-earned right to health-care to jump the queue in front of you.

The rich can wait, too. They're not more important than anyone else.

And if they're really much more important, well, they can take their own money and go elsewhere; it's a free country, after all.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Pig Hogger]

By creating financial demand, you would create incentives for there to be more doctors, so actually everybody could be treated.

Actually, the demand for more doctors is managed by the various medical colleges who artificially keep the number of doctors low (by lowering medical school admission, preventing foreign doctors from practicing and by prohibiting paramedics) in order to make sure the existing doctors's pay stays high.

And in some cases, the doctors's pay is so high that the various provincial insurance régimes will actually limit the number of procedures a doctor can perform.

The medical colleges are a big part of the doctor penury problem, and it is nothing but appaling that no government will step-in and rein-in the insanity.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Pig Hogger]

Losers like you make me sick. If you want health insurance, get off your ass and work for it.

I *DO* get off my arse, and I *DO* work for it. I pay for it through my taxes. The only difference is that it is not provided with a for-profit private company with 35% overhead, but by a governmental organization who only skims 3% for itself; that is, 97% of the money put into the system goes to actually care for people, and since 100% of the people contribute, 100% of the people are covered, and no one gets denied any treatment.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Scrameustache]

If you mean Canada has the same or better results for everybody, no, it does not. Indeed, for many people, it has significantly worse results, especially those in the upper and upper middle class, and that's the point: no one is willing to have their freedom taken away, and their taxes increased, in order to be significantly worse off, even if it benefits others. There's better solutions out there that don't harm a lot of people for the sake of improving the care of a lot of other people. What do you mean by "significantly worse results", exactly? What do you mean by "harm"?

You're implying that rich Canadians are being harmed by their healthcare system. I'm not rich, so I can't tell, but every time I've fallen and couldn't get up, I got quality care following a few hours of waiting patiently, unless it was an emergency, in which case I got quality care right away.

There seems to be this idea in the states that Canada's healthcare system is, somehow, bad. Who told you that and what made you think they weren't lying through their teeth?

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Warbothong]

If some US states started a healthcare system like we have here in the UK then it would probably not work. If I slice my hand off doing some DIY then I call for an ambulance and get taken to the nearest hospital, no matter where I am in the country. If I don't want to tell them who I am then I'll still get treatment, although then my medical records will not be available so it is a pretty stupid thing to do. If this was implemented at the state level in the US then those states with such a system, supported by taxes on those living in the state, would see massive expenditure as people from states all around who do not pay taxes to support this healthcare system come along and use it. To NOT let them use it would be unethical, since they could be in the state for a genuine reason and happen to need some healthcare. Making sure those who get such care pay the taxes for it just seems like a state-run health insurance company, rather than a National Health System. To eliminate this it has to be run in all states at once, and whilst this may be managed at the state level it would need some federal-based legislation to make states adopt it. If trials of this kind of thing go ahead per-state then it would be interesting to see figures of numbers of patients treated, and I guarantee those hospitals nearer state borders will have more patients treated than their local population would suggest, and also that they would treat more long-term illnesses such as cancer (where driving a distance for treatment is reasonable) than short-term like A&E (which by their nature strike unexpectedly and where quick treatment is important). Of course such figures could then be mutated by health insurance companies to show "Look! In areas with state-run health systems a higher percentage of the population gets cancer than anywhere else!" ("X causes cancer!" arguments, based on statistics rather than evidence, always manage to get into the tabloids), although many would pay health insurance anyway for emergencies, but use neighbouring state's systems for lack of hassle (Sicko is more about those with insurance not getting what they payed for, rather than those without insurance at all). This would benefit the insurance companies since they get their steady subscription coming in, but don't have to pay for a lot of the treatment.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[timeOday]

I agree, and what I don't understand is why the issue of universal/socialized health care is rarely suggested at the state level.

Define "rare:" California would be the fifth state, not the fourth, to try near universal coverage. (Besides Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont, Hawaii has also tried.)

I'm glad the states are taking the lead on this, but I don't think they can succeed alone because there are open borders between states. The needy will simply flock to whichever state has the best health care. The same could be somewhat true on a national level, but only somewhat... you can't be "deported" from Kansas to Arkansas.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Scrameustache]

I don't understand is why the issue of universal/socialized health care is rarely suggested at the state level. Well I'd imagine that would be because you don't understand what "universal" means. If you did you'd understand why it's not being suggested for a small subset of the population rather than the population at large.

That is all. You may now resume your "state's rights" constitutional conversation :)

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[timeOday]

no one is willing to have their freedom taken away, and their taxes increased, in order to be significantly worse off, even if it benefits others

OK, nice theory. So where are all the countries who adopted universal health care and then went back? Among dozens of democratic countries (Canada, Europe, Australia...), none have chosen to scrap it. What are you basing your opinion on?

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[ptbarnett]

Reality 101: the big filthy rich will keep insuring that you, the little guy, will **NEVER** be able to get richer. Stop dreaming about "hard work", it's all about connections.

As long as you project that attitude, it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Take that chip off your shoulder, stop spending every last time on overpriced coffee, CD's and various other toys, and you'll discover that you can get rich(*) in an average working lifetime.

I've done it, by spending substantially less than I earned, paying off my credit cards every month, buying cars with cash, and not taking out a second mortage on my house to go on vacation.

(*) My definition of "rich" is the ability to maintain an acceptable standard of living on the income generated by assets. Your definition may be different than mine -- and that's probably part of your problem.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[yada21]

That's what happens when you elect a socialist government who somehow think that letting Italian criminals, Lebanese islamists and other assorted nair-do-well's in ahead of civilised English speaking people is somehow equal to giving the finger to the Queen of the Pommy's.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Omnifarious]

I see, just because you turned well, you want others to suffer? It is your f*ckin health, for christ's sake! It affects your basic human right to live!!! There is something wrong with your country, if you let even 1/3 of the stuff on that movie happen to real people. And I know it is so, because I have friends there.

There is no basic human right to live. There is a basic human right to not have things taken away from you by violence, but that's not the same thing at all.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I do not doubt that the US health care system is really awful in many respects. The solution of socialized medicine does not necessarily follow from this observation though.

Who's liberty is taken when you pay taxes? Like the ones for public schools, libraries, roads? Why don't everyone just pave their own damned piece of road, and let everyone else suffer the consequences!

Taxes are collected through threat of violence. This threat is a quiet threat that is not usually overtly stated, but it is there all the same.

For the most part, my tax money is thoroughly and completely wasted. The government is generally extremely inefficient at turning tax money into useful services. This is because government is inherently more interested in the interests of wealthy and powerful people than it is in the interests of individuals. The more resources government has at it's command, the more it will cater to the interests of the wealthy and powerful because they have more to gain by influencing it.

So really, your solution of using tax money and funneling it through the government to somehow come out as a raised health care standard for most people is doomed by a flaw in your premises.

What will result is that poor people may (or may not, likely not in our country since we're not Canada) see an increase in health care quality. Middle and upper middle class people are likely to see a marked decline. The very rich will see no change at all.

So, you want to use the healthcare system to contribute to the shrinking middle class.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely, and it's shocking to me that a gladly almost union-free country as the US (apart from teachers and public transport, the two US things that are probably worst off in the Western world) allows doctors to artificially keeps their earnings high.

People get sick and they want to get cured. Unless government steps in, there has never been a reported case of doctors earning not enough, seriously. Why the F* AMA? Why does a medical education cost 100s of thousands of bucks? It's totally obvious that such practices WILL create an affordability problem for a country.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[kencurry]

One big problem would be health care tourism. People with expensive illnesses would be likely to move to a state with free/cheap universal health care. Depending on the system they could even just visit the state. No state will therefore be too free with it's system. It would be very easy to deal with this. Require a minimum residency status, say 2 years, to get full coverage.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[gkhan1]

Listen, kid, if you don't know anything about law, don't try to act as if you do. publicly funded is not unconstitutional. How do you explain social security or medicare? Why are these federal programs legal, even if you count the Tenth Amendmendt? I know the answer, but I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader. Suffice to say that you are so wrong, it's not even fun.

As for your other points, why the hell aren't you raising up a stink about the fire department? Why aren't you angry that YOUR tax-dollars are being used to put out OTHER peoples fires! They should have bought insurance so they could pay the firefighters, dammit! They're taking away your freedoms, man!

Socialized medicine does not take away any freedoms at all, in fact it gives people more freedom. You're an idiot, and you need to go away.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[BgJonson79]

Easy. Federally-funded health care in the US is Unconstitutional. The Constitution doesn't say the gov't can do it, so they can't.

I wish more people understood enumerated powers better. It would greatly relieve the number of arguments that we all have here.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

I was going to respond to you, but you are attacking me for things I never even said or intended, so I am not going to bother. Cheers.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[BgJonson79]

Actually, he didn't say it couldn't be changed. The method of changing it is easy. It's just practically difficult. The document, though, is supposed to put a limit on gov't powers and guarantee individual rights.

If people really want it changed, just get 2/3 of the country to agree with you and you're good.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[yada21]

And I'm sure that has so much more to do with their DNA than with, say, the fact that the Europeans came in and screwed them over for five centuries?

They must have had some weaknesses - otherwise instead of getting screwed over, they'd have kicked the invaders out.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

Riiiiiiight. It is "justice" to take away someone's liberty and force them to have a reduced standard of health care. That makes perfect sense! My "liberty" has never been in question. If I want an operation any faster and it's not an emergency I can always head to the US and pay the same price as any American. Yes, and? How is that not taking away your liberty, since you can't get it done in your own country? That is precisely what's happening. You might think that's acceptable; surely, we do not and cannot have perfect liberty. We have to have a balance; the problem is, it is important to balance it in favor of individual liberty as much as possible, and this isn't that.

A friend of the family went to the hospital with chest pains about 4 years ago. He was in bypass surgery that night as most of his coronary arteries were nearly blocked. They didn't put him in a queue, which seems to be the big myth I hear from down south. No, we don't think everyone has to wait in line for months, but it does happen an awful lot. It rarely happens here: only when you need to see a specific specialist who is in high demand.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[BgJonson79]

If it's publicly, federally funded but the Const. doesn't say you can do it, it's Unconst. Medicare and SS are both Unconst. But nobody has challenged them because of the standing issue. Then Tenth Amendment is clear. Of course, if we wanted to add the amendment tomorrow, I bet $5 it'd pass easy.

BTW, fire depts are local, not federally funded. The argument isn't over local funding, it's over federal funding. Unless you're aware of a federal fire service that can come visit us here in rural NH.

As for freedoms, if the gov't requires me to be insured and I don't want it, they're taking away my freedom to be uninsured. Whether that's a good idea or not isn't up for anyone but ME to decide. Unless you're a tyrant.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

Riiiiiiight. It is "justice" to take away someone's liberty and force them to have a reduced standard of health care. That makes perfect sense! I will never stop at wondering why little people (surely you're not a zillionaire) will keep at protecting the filthy rich... I will never stop at wondering why any people think it is OK to take someone else's rights away, just because it doesn't hurt themselves.

Some of us actually believe in liberty. Yes, the rich are a minority. Our republican form of government and the Bill of Rights exists to PROTECT minorities from the tyranny of the majority. And some of us believe in standing up for that principle, because if one minority's rights are trampled on, then eventuall no minority rights will be respected.

Reality 101: the big filthy rich will keep insuring that you, the little guy, will **NEVER** be able to get richer. Stop dreaming about "hard work", it's all about connections. Heh. The history of this country quite clearly proves that to be wrong. I'd wager that many people in this discussion have improved their wealth through hard work, or have parents who have. You're the one dreaming, here.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

Absolutely, and it's shocking to me that a gladly almost union-free country as the US (apart from teachers and public transport, the two US things that are probably worst off in the Western world) allows doctors to artificially keeps their earnings high. So you don't understand freedom? Well, we've got more work to do!

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

federalized health care is blatantly unconstitutional Get over it. A constitution is a freaking book. It's not some sort of divinity. It's just law, and as such, it's good for trials and judges, not for arguments between people. False. The Constitution is the law of the land, a contract between the people and its government, and it is the only means by which our rights can be protected. Sure, you can amend it, but until you do, advocating for ignoring the Constitution in ANY respect is advocating for the dissolution of ALL my rights.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

Get over it. A constitution is a freaking book. Actually Bush said It's just a goddamned piece of paper!" :) Actually, no, he didn't. That's a myth. There is no source who backs that up, and several who were there who say it never happened. Sorry.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Pig Hogger]

As long as you project that attitude, it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Here is the "magic thought" at work! Ever since communism fell, we are deluged by those liberals who worship the free market and keep claiming that hard-work is the only way to move ahead, all said from the top of their connections.

No matter how hard one works, one won't get ahead the well-connected guy.

One who keeps denying it is in a state of delusion.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

Oregon also tried, and many other states are thinking about it.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

I don't understand is why the issue of universal/socialized health care is rarely suggested at the state level. Well I'd imagine that would be because you don't understand what "universal" means. If you did you'd understand why it's not being suggested for a small subset of the population rather than the population at large.

That is all. You may now resume your "state's rights" constitutional conversation :) Sorry, but it is YOU who don't understand what it means. A state's population, in regards to domestic issues, is not a subset at all. The Constitution says quite clearly -- according to the people who wrote it -- that this is so, and that it is the state who will be concerned with ... well, I'll let Madison say it, in Federalist 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The reasons for this are varied, but the most important reason is obvious, and anyone concerned not just with individual liberty but democracy should care about this deeply: the more local a decision is made, the more power the voters have to affect that decision. Any state can have universal health care if it wants it. Any state that doesn't shouldn't be forced to. What could possibly make more sense?

Sure, if you believe it's a natural or Constitutional right to have health care, then every state should be forced to have it. But there's no evidence that this right has ever existed, and it violates our right to democracy to have it forced on us except through democratic means.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Pig Hogger]

Some of us actually believe in liberty. Yes, the rich are a minority. Our republican form of government and the Bill of Rights exists to PROTECT minorities from the tyranny of the majority. And some of us believe in standing up for that principle, because if one minority's rights are trampled on, then eventuall no minority rights will be respected.

And the majority also has the right to be protected from minorities, too.

When a minority uses it's economic clout to gut the majority's access to healthcare, it is the **DUTY** of the government to step-in and protect the people.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest using paragraphs next time.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[EdwinBoyd]

When you make the issue personal like that it obscures the underlying issue. If you've got more money than me than it's understood that you can leverage this to your benefit. This isn't skipping the line at a popular club or slipping a few bills to get a seat in an otherwise 'full' restaurant though. With health care you're not "jumping the line"; you're endangering someone else's welfare for the chance to benefit your own.

Of course when it is your family you're willing to walk through broken glass and damn the consequences. The Canadians understand that this is distasteful and have repeatedly chosen not to partake in it.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[ChronosWS]

I love how people compare Canada to the US, as if there was really that much commonality to compare. Yes, they live on the same continent. Yes, many of them speak English. But they are a tenth our population with massive amounts of land too. They are far more socialist than we are, and don't have the same history of freedoms as we do.

Social justice, as most people seem to think of it, usually means that those who produce the most valuable commodities for society (being defined as that which society is willing to pay the most for) should instead continue to produce at the same level but receive less than market value for it. This is used to subsidize those who produce commodities which are less valuable to society (using the same definition.) The only people who are interested in this arrangement are those who would be subsidized by it (i.e. those who in the end don't have to pay for it.)

So is it any wonder that those of us who bust our asses providing what society deems valuable question the motives of those who wish to take it away to further their own aims, no matter how noble they cloak the propoganda? I am not productive so that my neighbor can dine on pizza all day every day knowing that my hard work will pay for his coronary bypass procedure. Sorry dude, I am NOT going to give up my good healthcare just because someone else wants a piece of it.

As for the 'fear' of being mugged, that doesn't wash with me either. I don't believe paying more to government solves crime. Opening up opportunities for people before they become criminals does. Our system isn't perfect at this - none are - but it's a damn sight better than a lot of places and we don't have to tear down the 'haves' in order to give the 'have not's' the opportunities they need. Think harder about solutions, don't go the easy route of taxing everyone to death.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

Listen, kid, if you don't know anything about law, don't try to act as if you do. publicly funded is not unconstitutional. Heh. Um, I do understand a great deal about law, and that you think I said "publicly funded is unconstitutional" shows that you don't. At least, you are ignorant in this area. What I said is that FEDERAL funding of something that is not an ENUMERATED (or implied) power of the federal government is unconstitutional. Which is, of course, what the Constitution says.

How do you explain social security or medicare? Simple: they are, quite clearly, unconstitutional.

Why are these federal programs legal, even if you count the Tenth Amendmendt? Because progressivism in the early part of last century, borne out of attitudes shaped by reconstruction, the advance of science, and a newfound resurgence in social activism, set us down a path of basically ignoring the Constitution.

Unfortunately, they are so ingrained into the fabric of our nation that not even this conservative Supreme Court would undo it. As Judge Robert Bork said, "No judge of whatever disposition would, pace Senator Kennedy, plunge the nation into chaos by dismantling government as it exists today." The job of the court is not merely to uphold the law, but also to keep our nation stable (which is why it took so long to outlaw certain forms of segregation), so we won't see any dismantling of these clearly unconstitutional programs any time soon.

Suffice to say that you are so wrong, it's not even fun. Shrug. The Constitution is quite clear, and so are the words of the people who wrote it. Try on this speech from James Madison:

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may a point teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare. ... I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America ...

As for your other points, why the hell aren't you raising up a stink about the fire department? Why would I? What argument did I make that would apply to the fire department? (Hint: none at all!)

Why aren't you angry that YOUR tax-dollars are being used to put out OTHER peoples fires! They should have bought insurance so they could pay the firefighters, dammit! They're taking away your freedoms, man! The only freedom I mentioned was the Tenth Amendment, and since I pay for my fire department from my local property taxes, it's got nothing to do with the Tenth Amendment.

You should have read and understood a lot more before you entered into this discussion.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[drsquare]

Ever wondered why the crime rate is so low in Canada? It's not because guns are outlawed. No, it's simply because welfare helps ensure that someone that hit the bottom of the barrel will not have to turn to crime in order to survive.

Britain has a bloated, generous welfare system whereby if you play it right you don't need to work a day in your life, but we still have terrible crime rates, with constant stabbings, shootings and anti-social behaviour.

People don't commit crime generally because they need the money, it's because they're bored, greedy, lazy, or just psycopathic. Giving them welfare just makes them worse as they have more time on their hands.

I think if welfare was cut to force people into jobs, there'd be much less crime. After all you can't go out and mug an old woman if you're working a 12 hour night shift can you?

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

I hate to burst your bubble, but at least here in Finland just about everyone agrees higher taxes are justified on the basis of great public healthcare and education for everyone. No, I have no idea what you are talking about "worse results in upper and upper middle class". I don't know about Finland. The comparison was to the Canadian system, where not only are the wait times for many treatments DRASTICALLY increased (by orders of magnitude, talking months instead of days or weeks), but options for treatments are scaled back as well.

Oh yeah, we don't need guns either. Shrug. Do you need hammers? A gun is just a tool. If I want to kill a bad person, a gun is the most effective tool for the job. I don't NEED a gun, I could kill him in other ways. I also could hammer a nail with a screwdriver if I had to.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

Do you have any way to statistically describe these "many people" or are you just basing this on the premise that you could eventually find some individuals if you searched long enough? It's simple fact. When compared to the Canadian system, many of us who currently get pretty much any health care we need within days or weeks would often have to wait much longer for many of those treatments.

Because you have things like infant mortality rate (worse in US), life expectancy (worse in US) but you might be able to find "many people" that died young in Canada! Shrug. I never said the U.S. system could not, or should not, be improved, and in fact I said precisely the opposite. But you can improve mortality rates and life expectancy without making MY health care worse (which it absoultely would be under a Canadian-style system).

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever since communism fell...

Ahh...your true colors shine. You are a communist. Why don't you live in Cuba or China?

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

Indeed, for many people, it has significantly worse results, especially those in the upper and upper middle class, and that's the point: no one is willing to have their freedom taken away, and their taxes increased, in order to be significantly worse off, even if it benefits others. There's better solutions out there that don't harm a lot of people for the sake of improving the care of a lot of other people. Not true. I am one of those people who would receive worse care in Canada and I am totally for it. OK, fine. MOST people are not so willing.

The fact is that the worse care is not bad care. Do you have kids? I doubt it, judging from that statement.

Your comment also fails to bring attention to the social benefits of socialized medicine. I don't see any overall benefits to socialized medicine that cannot be achieved in other, better, ways.

One other thing. I find it odd that the republicans (read: Christian Right) are the ones who are generally opposed to socialized medicine. Wasn't it Christ who taught the perfect example of self-less sacrifice for the betterment of society. This is a commonly expressed fallacy. Christ never said the agent of charity should be the government, and indeed, strongly implied the opposite, for of what benefit to your own soul is "sacrifice" if it is involuntary, taken you by force from the government? Yes, we should sacrifice of ourselves, which is why Christians (and other religious people) generally give more to private charities than other groups do. Christians want everyone to sacrifice for those in need, but as a Christian, I want people to do it of their own free will.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever heard of guns?

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

Indeed, for many people, it has significantly worse results, especially those in the upper and upper middle class Care to backup that statement with facts? OK, I'll make it easy how about you just supply a single verifiable case where this is true. Don't even bother with "significantly" or "many people". Just ONE single case where some one has "worse results" in Canada because it uses social health care. BTW, I will not accept having to wait 4 weeks insteads of one day to have a mole removed as proof of "worse results". The results are the same, just requires a little patients. So you won't accept actual evidence of my claim as evidence of my claim.

BTW, social health care DOESN'T have long waiting times for emergency procedures. Its the elective procedures which have wait times. Not quite true. First, not all emergencies have short wait times, though most do. There are, as anyone who's spent much time in medicine knows, different notions of what an emergency is. I had a nasty sudden headache last year that knocked me off my feet, literally. Worst pain in my life. Obviously, I thought it might have been a burst blood vessel in my brain. I wasn't symptomatic of that, but not all cases are. Since I was showing no symptoms, was it an emergency, even though it was possible I might have had an aneurysm? I had an MRI and catscan done at the emergency room, and they found nothing, so I was OK. But if someone decided it wasn't an emergency, and I wasn't OK ... that's a problem.

Also, no, it is not "elective" procedures that have wait times, it is most "non-emergency" procedures. Those are completely different things.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

Some of us actually believe in liberty. Yes, the rich are a minority. Our republican form of government and the Bill of Rights exists to PROTECT minorities from the tyranny of the majority. And some of us believe in standing up for that principle, because if one minority's rights are trampled on, then eventuall no minority rights will be respected. And the majority also has the right to be protected from minorities, too. Everyone's rights are protected by the Constitution.

When a minority uses it's economic clout to gut the majority's access to healthcare, it is the **DUTY** of the government to step-in and protect the people. Be sure to let me know when that happens so I can support the government doing something about it.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Scrameustache]

I don't understand is why the issue of universal/socialized health care is rarely suggested at the state level. Well I'd imagine that would be because you don't understand what "universal" means. If you did you'd understand why it's not being suggested for a small subset of the population rather than the population at large. Sorry, but it is YOU who don't understand what it means. A state's population, in regards to domestic issues, is not a subset at all. The Constitution says quite clearly I'm not talking about what constitutions say. I'm talking about the reality, the population of one state is not independant from the population of the next state over, movement between states is free and people do move from one to another.
If you only have some states with free healthcare, people will live where taxes are cheaper until they get sick, and then move to leech off the system when they get sick.

That's why it has to at the federal level.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Anonymous Coward]

Federally-funded health care in the US is Unconstitutional. The Constitution doesn't say the gov't can do it, so they can't.

There's this thing called Congress, look it up. Congress writes the law, the President signs it. Sometimes, the President vetoes the law. In those cases, Congress has the ability to override his veto, providing they have enough votes.

A law can be challenged, and the Supreme Court has the ability to declare a law Unconstitutional.

How do you think Social Security came into being, you think James Madison wrote it in the Constitution?

I wish more people understood enumerated powers better. It would greatly relieve the number of arguments that we all have here.

Tell me about it.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no basic human right to live. There is a basic human right to not have things taken away from you by violence, but that's not the same thing at all.

There is no such thing as human rights. That's just an idea. Someone made it up. At best, "human rights" can be considered a 'game rule' of the various blends of democracies that exist around the world. But none of these so-called rights actually exist in the physical world.

So you're correct that there is no right to live. But there's no right not to have things taken from you either. You have no rights, at all.

The question is, do you have power? Do you have the power to make other people think you have rights? Do you have the power to make other people realize that trying to take things from you will result in bad things happening to them?

In Canada, many people gathered together and joined their political power to write laws to take money from everyone to create their medical system. In the U.S., rich people used their economic power to bribe congressmen to create the U.S. medical system.

Now one, or both, or neither, of these system may or may not violate your personal ethical or moral standards. But your personal standards are shit. No one cares. Unless you have the power (political, economic, persuasive, or brute force) to force those standards on others, what you think is utterly irrelevant.

And by "you" I mean every single person on the damn planet.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see what you say when the insurance company finds an excuse not to pay for some expensive procedure.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[rtb61]

You know what you are right, these empty headed fools would love the Roman system. One acient Roman with a gang of slaves would look for fires and when there was a building on fire, he would offer to buy it for substantially less than the real value of the building, if the person sold, he got the slaves to put out the fire, if they did not, he quite happily watched it burn to the ground, capitalism and the free market at work.

Perhaps it should be extend to the ambulance service for life saving emergencies, when a person is dying of a coronary surely there should be no harm in demanding they sign over their house else you will leave them to die on the street, or for the police force to do the same, why surely there is nothing wrong with a police office demanding your credit card prior to preventing a mugger from shooting you.

Honestly trying to convince these individuals of the value of human life is pointless, all the can see is the interference in their ability to lie, cheat, steal, exploit, deceive, anybody and everybody for their own personal selfish gain, they are as valueless as they perceive others to be, they are completely devoid of the meaning or value of life. Just like google they will say or promote, or advertise or market anything as long as there is a profit in it for them.

Trying to explain to these idiots that the reason government services or welfare etc. were put in there in the first place was because the capitalistic free market system was failing and the people of those times, implemented those system, to fix the problems that were happening in their day, and they worked.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[larry bagina]

Montana is 92% caucasian. Alberta is 88% caucasian.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[tourvil]

I stand corrected then. In the 3 states I've lived in - Illinois, Missouri, and Alabama - I haven't heard much if any talk of state level universal health care. Though I have heard of states discussing coverage for the uninsured, I haven't heard any talk about taking the system away from the insurance companies, which is was I think of when I hear socialized or universal health care.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Anonymous Coward]

YOU don't. In a free country, nothing would prevent, say, me from becoming a doctor WITHOUT AMA approval and open up a cheaper clinic. I suspect that some regulations somewhere forbid that.

Regulations != freedom, unless you mean the freedom to bribe politicians and to buy laws that make everybody else unfree.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[florescent_beige]

Thats a very perceptive observation, maybe more than you know.

Canadian universal heath care began in a single province, Saskatchewan, under Tommy Douglas.

This was circa the Roosevelt New Deal era, so times were different then. But I'm like you, I wonder why some state, like Vermont for example, hasn't taken steps in this direction.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Toonol]

I will never stop at wondering why little people (surely you're not a zillionaire) will keep at protecting the filthy rich...

Does it boggle your mind that whites can stick up for blacks, or men for women? Maybe there's a more important principle than just fighting over your particular group's slice of the pie.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is socialized healthcare even mentioned in the constitution? Oh, the constitution doesn't mention anythingf socialized? Then according to the ninth and tenth ammendments all socialism is unconstitutional. If you want the government to provide such services then ask that it be ammended in the constituton, otherwise it will remain unconstitutional. The only reason the healthcare costs are so high is government involvement.
___________________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

So you won't accept actual evidence of my claim as evidence of my claim.

Of course I will. Your claim was "for many people, it has significantly worse results". A result is the end state or consequence of a series of actions. So unless you can show proof of a case where the end result was different because a delay in reaching the final result, then any delay in reaching the result is a non-issue to your original claim. If you wish to state a different claim, please feel free.

But if someone decided it wasn't an emergency, and I wasn't OK ... that's a problem.

Of course it is. Bad medicine can be practiced in any system and it always has been and sadly always will be a problem. Look at these Google results of how much worse than this happens all too often in America's private health care system. Neither a private or social health care system will ever get rid of bad medicine or too long of wait periods. However, until I see evidence (and I have done a fair bit of research on this) that social health care leads to more cases of "bad medicine" I will continue to find the social impact of denying care based on social status to be an unacceptable situation.

Very good catch about "elective" vs. "non-emergency" procedures though. That is true and I should have worded my original post better.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

I don't understand is why the issue of universal/socialized health care is rarely suggested at the state level. Well I'd imagine that would be because you don't understand what "universal" means. If you did you'd understand why it's not being suggested for a small subset of the population rather than the population at large. Sorry, but it is YOU who don't understand what it means. A state's population, in regards to domestic issues, is not a subset at all. The Constitution says quite clearly I'm not talking about what constitutions say. I'm talking about the reality, the population of one state is not independant from the population of the next state over, movement between states is free and people do move from one to another. And ... ? How does that mean we are all one population and not distinct ones, for the purpose of government health care? You could say the same thing about the European Union, yet they don't have a single health care plan for the entire union there, either.

If you only have some states with free healthcare, people will live where taxes are cheaper until they get sick, and then move to leech off the system when they get sick. Only if the states allow that. No reason why they have to.

That's why it has to at the federal level. No, it isn't, and no, it doesn't. It is illegal and cannot be allowed unless the Constitution is modified first, and the Constitution should not be modified because there is no reason this can, or should, be at the federal level.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

YOU don't [understand freedom]. Huh. Do you have a single example of me not understanding freedom?

In a free country, nothing would prevent, say, me from becoming a doctor WITHOUT AMA approval and open up a cheaper clinic. Sure. But what's that got to do with me?

That is, how could you possibly get, from anything I have ever said, that I support what you are decrying? Indeed, I mentioned that one of my ideas to reduce costs is patent reform; another is more deregulation of WHO can offer health services, so we can have more competition and therefore lower costs. You're attacking the wrong person here ...

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Hatta]

Exactly, and see how good the Native Americans are doing these days.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[vux984]

No, we don't think everyone has to wait in line for months, but it does happen an awful lot.

Yeah, it happens an awful lot because the hospitals keep treating the people who NEED immediate surgery, while they keep queuing people who don't. You know so that the person who needs it first gets it first. Its true that additional funding for healthcare would help alleviate the queues, and I'd like to see taxes diverted from less important projects to health care, especially -preventative- care. And to be fair, some great strides have been made in this area.

It rarely happens here: only when you need to see a specific specialist who is in high demand.

Of course, you don't count anyone who can't afford care as 'waiting', and the price for care is set based on supply and demand. That sort of conspires to keep the lines short for these 'counting purposes' don't you think?

Consider anything where people lined up -- for Nintendo Wii, for opening night movie tickets for huge titles like LotR, for Tickle Me Elmo, etc, etc. Get rid of the lines by just letting the market set the price, allowing it to rise until demand matched supply. The lineups would "disappear", and anyone willing to shell out the bucks can walk right up. Same goes for health care -- except that the people going without aren't magically cured - they still need treatment. They just aren't in the queue anymore.

So now they aren't 'waiting', and the queues are nice and short. USA FTW!! But how exactly is that 'better'?

The bottom line is that Canada provides better overall care to more of its citizens at a lower total cost.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Hatta]

You just have to sit and suffer. Is that fair to someone who has worked hard to aquire their money and status? Is that a fair picture of freedom to say "oh, you may be able to afford it, but we won't let you buy it."?

Is it fair to someone who has worked hard all their lives just to put food on their table? Is that a fair picture of freedom to say "oh, we could have operated on you today but someone richer is more important"? You'll just have to sit and suffer.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

So you won't accept actual evidence of my claim as evidence of my claim. Of course I will. You said you wouldn't. Please make up your mind.

Your claim was "for many people, it has significantly worse results". A result is the end state or consequence of a series of actions. So unless you can show proof of a case where the end result was different because a delay in reaching the final result, then any delay in reaching the result is a non-issue to your original claim. A delay IS a difference in the end result, quite clearly. Maybe it is not an important difference to you. I asked someone else who made a similar claim, saying he wouldn't mind the delays and so on: do you have kids? Because maybe I can personally wait weeks or months to get in to see a doctor because of some digestive issue, but I will not wait to get in to see a doctor for my child's same issues.

I could give anecdotal evidence of where delays HAVE caused specific problems; I've seen it before, and it's obviously true. But the delay itself is, to me, a problem by itself, and certainly is a "difference" in result.

But if someone decided it wasn't an emergency, and I wasn't OK ... that's a problem. Of course it is. Bad medicine can be practiced in any system and it always has been and sadly always will be a problem. Sure, but you claimed "social health care DOESN'T have long waiting times for emergency procedures." I didn't disagree with that flatly; I said "not quite true," because, of course, it depends on who is defining "emergency." I realize you were just dismissing the myth that all procedures in Canada are delayed (a myth I never expressed), but I don't want a new myth, that if it is an emergency there's never long waiting times, gets spread, either.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Bodero]

it is not provided with a for-profit private company with 35% overhead, but by a governmental organization who only skims 3% for itself

Apparently you've never stepped foot into the DMV, or a post office. Government is the antithesis of frugality and efficiency.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Mr. Flibble]

Canadians have decided long ago that it is not right for a rich man to have better service when it means that everyone else will have worse.

Everyone has the same service; this guarantees that the rich will not gut the service.

But you are missing what I am saying with that. I am *OK* with someone who has more money than me being more "important" in that context. After all, that is what money really is - more power in the form of trade stored as what we call "money". Again, as long as there is a BASIC level - a ground level of healthcare - then what is wrong with someone being able to pay more for above and beyond? Why can't someone pay extra to get more?

Imagine if everyone was given a car via taxes. Everyone gets the same car, and everyone is allowed the same car. Now, the rich person pays the same taxes as everyone else - and pays into the same system. Thus, supporting the ownership of cars for everyone. Now, if the rich person wants a BETTER car than what is government mandated - they have already paid for the basic car, but don't want it. What is wrong with them buying a Ferrari as opposed to the goverment car? In my mind, nothing.

Again, as long as the basic standard is held to the current level, I have no objection with someone who wants to pump more money into the system. After all, this just means that MORE money ends up in health care, and that the less wealthy people have shorter lines to obtain the same level of health care as before. Everyone wins this way. A slippery slope argument is a logical fallicy though.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Mr. Flibble]

With health care you're not "jumping the line"; you're endangering someone else's welfare for the chance to benefit your own.

Actually, by jumping the line, you have freed up someone else a place in that same line that was occupied. By paying more for services, you encourage more people to take jobs to become doctors - and thus more doctors enter the marketplace. This means wait times for health care, and available doctor time per paitent goes up.

So, personal issues aside - more doctors and more money entering the system == a good thing.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[grub]

My "liberty" has never been in question. If I want an operation any faster and it's not an emergency I can always head to the US and pay the same price as any American.

Yes, and? How is that not taking away your liberty

Taking away my liberty would be the government preventing me from crossing the border to spend my money on elective surgery. They don't. If it's an emergency or life threatening I'm in right away. If it's some unnecessary or non-life threatening procedure I can still head south and pay whatever it is you pay. Truthfully I don't think I know anyone who has gone to the US for a procedure. I read anecdotal stories of a friend's cousin's brother in Canada who did though...

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[grub]

There's been a few sites mentioning 3 people (GOP members) being present in the meeting where Bush was supposed to have said that. Here's one where the fellow said he spoke to them

Regardless, I don't see any actual denials of him saying it. Perhaps my google skillz need work...

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[grub]

Whoops. Should have previewed!

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Mr. Flibble]

You miss my point. If there is a basic level - the same as we have now. Then I have no problem with someone paying more. If everone gets the same government mandated meals on their table, to the same level so they don't starve I have no problem with someone paying MORE to get a more exotic meal on their table.

I am NOT suggesting the abandonment of health care. I am suggesting that the status quo be maintained at the current level. However, someone wishing to inject more money above and beyond that into the system should be allowed to do so. I am suggesting something that results in BETTER health care for everyone.

I don't see how people can object to a better health care system.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

A delay IS a difference in the end result, quite clearly. Maybe it is not an important difference to you.

OK, the above really seems to be our disagreement. I grant that a delay may certainly cause hardship or extended discomfort (physical and/or emotional). However, I still don't see how interm "feelings" effect the end result. I think we could probably basically agree on that at least from a physical stand point. Now there may be lingering bad "feelings" about having to wait for a procedure which if included as part of the end result could be considered in fact a different end result. I was only speaking of the end physical result.

Listen on the consitutional grounds you've mentioned on other posts, I agree. However, I also disagree in part. Before I get to the part I disagree with, let me first state what I think "should" happen. First, I do NOT think there should be federally mandated social health care even though I think it is a good idea. I do however think there should be a federal social health care system and each state can choose to either opt-in or opt-out. I personally would like to live in a state that would choose to opt-in and I do belive it would result in vastly improved health care (including issues you raise about hardships in delays, etc) for the vast majority of the people. But that is just my feeling and I think it should be deicded at the state level. Certainly each state could do this itself, but having 50 different agencies doing the same thing is just wasteful, which is why I think it should be a federal agency (with opt-in, opt-out options at the state level).

Now to the slight disagreement in constitutional grounds. I've seen you in other posts talking about how Medicare and Medicaid, etc is unconstitutional based on the 10th amendment. To simply read the amendment, that seems a true statement. However, at least the way I took your writing it seems it was stated as a legal fact and that is where I guess I have my problem. The constitution itself as a whole does allow a system of interpretation and judgements and it clearly defines whos responsibility to make that legal judgement. Thus far the judical system has NOT rules such programs/laws unconstitutional and so according to the constituion itself they are therefore NOT unconstitutional (at least yet). It may be your opinion that they should be, but until they are successfully challanged and found to be they are not.

In general I think we probably actually agree on most of this accept perhaps if social medicine is good or not. However, this is where I probably differ a bit from your view. I consider myself a constitutionalist, but not perhaps a "strict" constitutionalist. I do belive in the "living document" theory. It should not be static and must evolve. For example, for roughly the first 100 years after the bill or rights was passed the courts took the strict reading of those 10 (or 9 depending how you look at it) amendments and routinly rules they didn't apply to state or local goverments. So while the federal goverment couldn't restrict your right to freedom or religion, press, to bear arms, etc any state or local government could. Strictly speaking the consitution is a federal document and restricts what the federal government can do so the courts using a strict reading decided this meant it didn't apply to other lower governments and thus allowed them to restrict these things. Now over time that reading became more liberal and it was decided that in fact it did apply to all government and this "evolution" is something I'm very happy about.

OK, I've actually rambled a bit here and I'm not sure where I was going with it ;-)

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[jinxidoru]

I don't see any overall benefits to socialized medicine that cannot be achieved in other, better, ways.

Ok, what other ways? If there's another way great. I don't care about the system, I care about the results. Socialized medicine seems to give good results for the costs it requires, far better than our current system. If you can tell me of another system that provides great results for the same cost or less (cost meaning not just money of course), then great.

OK, fine. MOST people are not so willing.

That is because they are selfish. I hope that will change one day. Call me an idealist if you must.

Do you have kids? I doubt it, judging from that statement.

You are right, I do not have children yet. Hopefully, when I do, I will not lose my humanity, nor think my children are more deserving than those of a poor family. Granted, maybe I will. But if the cost of progeny is my humanity and empathy, then I'd rather remain celibate.

This is a commonly expressed fallacy. Christ never said the agent of charity should be the government, and indeed, strongly implied the opposite, for of what benefit to your own soul is "sacrifice" if it is involuntary, taken you by force from the government? Yes, we should sacrifice of ourselves, which is why Christians (and other religious people) generally give more to private charities than other groups do.

I am very inept at explaining logical fallacies, but I trust that if you look at this previous statement within the argument I presented, the fallacy should be quite self evident. If it is, I will make an attempt at explaining the probelm.

Well, you've changed the subject here. I'm not saying that Christ would necessarily be in favor of socialized medicine. What I am saying is that Christ taught self-sacrifice, and your original argument was that people aren't willing to accept worse care just so others can receive better care. Also, if I vote for a single payer system, that's pretty damn voluntary if you ask me.

Christians want everyone to sacrifice for those in need, but as a Christian, I want people to do it of their own free will.

Hell, you could fertilize an entire farm with all the crap you're shoveling with that last sentence. The Christian Right is all about taking away people's free will as long as those people aren't themselves. Christians don't want to be forced to give their money to help the poor, but they have no qualms forcing others to follow their beliefs by force. If Christians really believe that you should do what is right of your own free will, then why pass laws preventing abortions? Why pass laws preventing gay marriage?

The truth is, the Christian Right is more than thrilled to repress people's free will as long as it doesn't involve touching their own wallet. If that's Christ-like, then you and I have been reading from different Bibles apparently.

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's..."

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

Anyway, I don't know that we'll ever agree on this but it's been a pleasure. You certainly do make logical points and well thought out agruments which can be all to rare ;-) I'm already late for a beach party, so gotta run but it's been a good disagreement ;-)

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Rich0]

My "liberty" has never been in question. If I want an operation any faster and it's not an emergency I can always head to the US and pay the same price as any American. If I need the operation, I get it right away.

Yes, but if you did the same in Canada you and/or your doctor could be arrested for it. If somebody offered private insurance in Canada they would definitely be punished. If the system works so well, then why make it illegal not to use it?

And if Moore gets his way you wouldn't be able to travel to America and pay the same price as any American - at least not in the same way that you can today.

I've heard wildly diverging descriptions of the state of care in Canada. My guess is that the level of care varies significantly - either by location, or maybe by demographic (maybe young working-class people get better care than those who are scheduled for death).

The thing I don't like is the illegal-to-just-pay-for-your-own-care bit. If the system were so great, they wouldn't have to outlaw the competition. If something is really a better product I won't have to be forced to buy it...

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[nietsch]

You sir, are an egoist asshole. You derive pleasure form seeing other people suffer and are willing to pay for that privilege.
One would hope that switching to a single-payer system as used in Canada or lots of countries in Europe would eliminate pricks like your from society, that your would die a horrible painfull death because you were denied the liberty to pay for a gold-plated treatment instead of the one every one else gets. But alas, life doesn't work like that, even over here were have a plenty supply of pricks just like you.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[jadavis]

[The Constitution is] good for trials and judges, not for arguments between people.

The Rule of Law is an argument in and of itself. Not everyone believes in the Rule of Law, and it's legitimate to question whether the Federal government is the right level of government to institute socialized health care.

chose to question the limitations of The Book

Exactly. If you want socialized health care, you should be fighting for an amendment to the Constitution to achieve your goal.

If we don't get an amendment first, all of our other constitutional protections are weakened.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[nomadic]

I will never stop at wondering why little people (surely you're not a zillionaire) will keep at protecting the filthy rich... The bourgeois mind control rays seem to be very potent down there...

The brilliant way they've done it is convince people they're already rich. Like 20% of the country think they're in the top 1% income bracket. There are countless people on slashdot who are convinced they've made it to the top, like their $100,000 or $120,000 or $150,000 a year is somehow an indicator of wealth, instead of a joke in the eyes of people who really have money. Health insurance is a perfect example of how you separate the wealthy from the merely comfortable. Making $150k a year, have $500,000 in home equity, and another $500,000 in the bank? It can be wiped out in a month if you need lifesaving medical care that your insurer decides not to cover.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[grub]

And if Moore gets his way you wouldn't be able to travel to America and pay the same price as any American - at least not in the same way that you can today.

Where does he say that? (I did see SiCKO and that wasn't in there)

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

It rarely happens here: only when you need to see a specific specialist who is in high demand. Of course, you don't count anyone who can't afford care as 'waiting', and the price for care is set based on supply and demand. That sort of conspires to keep the lines short for these 'counting purposes' don't you think? Straw man. Again, I've said several times that we can and should improve the care of others; my point here is that we should not decrease the care of a few in order to do it. Unless your argument is that it is not POSSIBLE to increase the care of others without decreasing the care of a few, then you have no point here.

The bottom line is that Canada provides better overall care to more of its citizens at a lower total cost. And some people get WORSE care. You care more about "overall," but to most Americans, it is not acceptable to harm the few for the sake of the many, if there are other alternatives.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

Taking away my liberty would be the government preventing me from crossing the border to spend my money on elective surgery. Yes, and taking away your liberty is ALSO the government preventing you and your doctor from contracting for care in your own country, outside of the government system. This is, quite obviously, true.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

There's been a few sites mentioning 3 people (GOP members) being present in the meeting where Bush was supposed to have said that.
Here's one where the fellow said he spoke to them
link Right. Just like Judith Miller's sources who assured us that Iraq had WMD.

I categorically reject anonymous sources. Maybe they are telling the truth, but why on earth would ANYONE ever believe it, when we have so many examples of them lying, and we are incapable of checking it out for ourselves? The only time most people ever believe anonymous sources is if the so-called sources are saying something they WANT to believe. It's a sham.

Regardless, I don't see any actual denials of him saying it. Perhaps my google skillz need work... I've seen them, but it doesn't matter enough to find them again; since there is no positive reason to actually believe the story, I don't need to provide reasons to disbelieve it: the fact that there is not a shred of evidence backing it up is reason enough.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

A delay IS a difference in the end result, quite clearly. Maybe it is not an important difference to you.

OK, the above really seems to be our disagreement. I grant that a delay may certainly cause hardship or extended discomfort (physical and/or emotional). However, I still don't see how interm "feelings" effect the end result.

I don't understand how they are not PART of the end result. I lost the better part of the use of my wrist for a few months while going through the process for surgery (damaged cartilage); in Canada, it would have likely been significantly longer. Less time holding and playing with my children, less work getting done (I could still do my job, but not other things around the house, and hobbies, and playing the guitar, and so on). You may think those experiences lost are irrelevant, but if so, then how is ANY end result relevant?

And again, this only gets far worse with children.

I do however think there should be a federal social health care system and each state can choose to either opt-in or opt-out.

Ability to opt out is good, though it is still blatantly unconstitutional for it to exist in the first place.

Now to the slight disagreement in constitutional grounds. I've seen you in other posts talking about how Medicare and Medicaid, etc is unconstitutional based on the 10th amendment. To simply read the amendment, that seems a true statement. However, at least the way I took your writing it seems it was stated as a legal fact and that is where I guess I have my problem.

It IS a legal fact.

The constitution itself as a whole does allow a system of interpretation and judgements and it clearly defines whos responsibility to make that legal judgement. Thus far the judical system has NOT rules such programs/laws unconstitutional and so according to the constituion itself they are therefore NOT unconstitutional (at least yet).

No, that is a common misunderstanding; it's not how it actually works. What is "constitutional" is not what the court says. They get to say how the law should be interpreted (for now), but that doesn't mean their ruling is constitutional.

Let's take the example of Brown. v Board of Education. Before that decision, the legal precedent from the Supreme Court was that separate but equal WAS Constitutional. Was it wrong for people to criticize it as unconstitutional, until the precedent was overturned? Of course not. As Justice Felix Frankfurter once said, "The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it." Nor, I'd add, what the court has NOT said about it.

In general I think we probably actually agree on most of this accept perhaps if social medicine is good or not. However, this is where I probably differ a bit from your view. I consider myself a constitutionalist, but not perhaps a "strict" constitutionalist. I do belive in the "living document" theory. It should not be static and must evolve.

Then we do not at all agree.

For example, for roughly the first 100 years after the bill or rights was passed the courts took the strict reading of those 10 (or 9 depending how you look at it) amendments and routinly rules they didn't apply to state or local goverments. So while the federal goverment couldn't restrict your right to freedom or religion, press, to bear arms, etc any state or local government could. Strictly speaking the consitution is a federal document and restricts what the federal government can do so the courts using a strict reading decided this meant it didn't apply to other lower governments and thus allowed them to restrict these things. Now over time that reading became more liberal and it was decided that in fact it did apply to all government and this "evolution" is something I'm very happy about.

Well, no, you're actually making my case for me: we did not have those rights

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[FLEB]

I think the main argument against a dual system is that the cost-proscribed, state-run side would tend to have worse care and facilities. The private-practice side would be able to charge a premium for their premium services, and the resulting higher incomes and better facilities would siphon off the better doctors from the state-run system, leaving the state-run system with the sub-par left-overs who couldn't make the threshold of private practice.

Although there could be further rate-cap regulation (for private practices) or incentives (for public doctors) to make the public-care career more attractive, there really is no way to equalize both sides-- overregulation of private practices would make them the undesired and poorly-staffed ones, while underregulation would do it to the public system.

Now, I'm still personally up in the air in the universal healthcare debate (I live in the US, without it)-- both sides tend to have good arguments, and both sides have different clear advantages and detriments. I think that, more than anything, a privately-funded healthcare system (perhaps with some sort of "health-Welfare" padding) could work well in theory, but the closed-loop game of leap-frog among healthcare providers and insurers has just spiralled the costs and expectations into a stratosphere that they would have to come down from in order for any system to be effective.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[ptbarnett]

No matter how hard one works, one won't get ahead the well-connected guy.

Connections help. But, everyone has connections: your friends, the people you went to school with, or the people you have worked with. In my experience, the last ones have been the most important, but they don't do you any good unless you have a good reputation among them.

No one is going to recommend you for a job (or even refer you for an interview) if you haven't earned their respect at some point in the past. And, a bad connection is worse than no connection at all: it will get you black-balled before you ever had a chance. If you have always sat around and whined about how the deck is stacked against you and used that as an excuse for slacking off, then it has indeed been a self-fulfilling prophecy.

One who keeps denying it is in a state of delusion.

The only delusion here is your inability to look in a mirror and see your real problem.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[grub]

pfff. No. It's eliminating the excess profiteering by middlemen HMOs (20-30% admininstrative overhead?! Ridiculous.) Oh, there are private clinics here by the way, don't say there aren't. In fact there's one just 3 blocks from my house which does cosmetic and plastic surgery. I'll take a picture for you if you'd like. It's not like we're bound to doctors and can't visit others (unlike the HMO system which in many cases makes you go to their own)

Say what you will about socialized medicine but the man who brought it to Canada, Tommy Douglas was voted as the Greatest Canadian of all time in 2004. Must mean a lot of us appreciate what we have.

If you really think the "right" to not help your citizens trumps the right to universal care then you're part of the problem.

Too fucking funny.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

I don't see any overall benefits to socialized medicine that cannot be achieved in other, better, ways.

Ok, what other ways?

I've discussed some of them in other comments.

I don't care about the system, I care about the results.

Not to be overly dramatic, but that attitude has given us the worst crimes of the history of the world. The system is what protects our rights, and if we ignore the system to get "results," that's a very bad thing. That's why so many people are angry at the perceived affront to Fourth Amendment rights represented by various Bush administration policies.

OK, fine. MOST people are not so willing.

That is because they are selfish.

Riiiiiight. It is "selfish" for me to not want reduced health care quality. How does that make any sense?

I hope that will change one day. Call me an idealist if you must.

Idealism is useless if it is not grounded in realism. Feel free to dream about what may be possible, but there's no point if you don't work toward what IS possible.

Do you have kids? I doubt it, judging from that statement.

You are right, I do not have children yet. Hopefully, when I do, I will not lose my humanity, nor think my children are more deserving than those of a poor family.

It's not about thinking your kids are "more deserving." It is about the fact that you, and you alone, are responsible for their well-being; while you wouldn't actively cause harm to someone innocent for the benefit of your children (and neither would I), you almost surely would do whatever you could to provide them with the best health care and education, and wouldn't find it remotely acceptable to reduce their level of care to the level of everyone else.

That IS a major part of what it means to be human: having kids, and providing for their needs. How this could be described as "losing humanity" is entirely beyond my comprehension.

This is a commonly expressed fallacy. Christ never said the agent of charity should be the government, and indeed, strongly implied the opposite, for of what benefit to your own soul is "sacrifice" if it is involuntary, taken you by force from the government? Yes, we should sacrifice of ourselves, which is why Christians (and other religious people) generally give more to private charities than other groups do.

I am very inept at explaining logical fallacies, but I trust that if you look at this previous statement within the argument I presented, the fallacy should be quite self evident.

I made no logical fallacy. Sorry.

Well, you've changed the subject here.

No, I didn't.

I'm not saying that Christ would necessarily be in favor of socialized medicine. What I am saying is that Christ taught self-sacrifice, and your original argument was that people aren't willing to accept worse care just so others can receive better care.

Yes, and? What did I say that you think Christ would disagree with? Christ didn't say, "sacrifice your health care so others may have health care." There are other things I can sacrifice for the health care of others besides my own health care, such as money and time.

Also, if I vote for a single payer system, that's pretty damn voluntary if you ask me.

Fine, then I won't ask you, I guess. Your vote is voluntary, of course, but your vote is to involuntarily force ME to participate in that system. In this country, we have a republic instead of a democracy BECAUSE we want to guard against such tyrannies of the majority, taking away the rights of minorities.

Christians want everyone to sacrifice for those in need, but as a Christian, I want people to do it of their own free will.

Hell, you could fertilize an entire farm with all the crap you're shoveling

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

Enjoy. I am going to go see Ratatouille.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

You sir, are an egoist asshole. Yes, I am an egoist, absolutely. I am not an egotist ... at least, not to the same degree.

And I am not an asshole, I am a dick. (cf. Team America)

You derive pleasure form seeing other people suffer and are willing to pay for that privilege. That's not remotely true, and nothing I said could possibly have rationally led you to this conclusion.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[HanzoSpam]

Canadians have decided long ago that it is not right for a rich man to have better service when it means that everyone else will have worse.

So help me out here - is it also not right that a rich man have a better house or a better car if he can afford them? And how does a rich man's paying for superior health care mean everyone else will have worse? If a rich man buys a Porsche, does that force me to buy a Kia?

This is called "social justice", something sorely lacking in the US.

I agree it's sorely lacking in the US, particularly the kind I have in mind. We could use lots more of it. See my sig....

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[VJ42]

And ... ? How does that mean we are all one population and not distinct ones, for the purpose of government health care? You could say the same thing about the European Union, yet they don't have a single health care plan for the entire union there, either. Actually, it's not that simple; there's an agreement between member states of not just the EU, but the entire EEA that means citizens of one country will get free or reduced cost health care in another. This means that if I, as a UK citizen, use the healthcare system in France, the French can claim the money back from the UK government. This system is now known as EHIC. but (from the link)

EHIC won't cover you if getting medical treatment is the main purpose of your trip. You are advised to take out comprehensive private insurance for visits to all countries, regardless of whether you are covered by your EHIC.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Anonymous Coward]

People don't commit crime generally because they need the money, it's because they're polish, muslim, albanian, or just plain old niggers.

Fixed it for you.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[edittard]

Having universal medical coverage does not rule out private healthcare.

Not directly. But it rules out those with influence and money caring much whether it works or not, since there's an alternative available for them.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you'd like to explain why the nig-nogs didn't invent them first. My theory is that they're dumb thick lazy watermelon munchers, do you have a better one?

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Anonymous Coward]

And Alberta is 100% full of drug abusing, alcoholic, oil workers. The crime rate in Alberta is nothing to be proud of. But it's only one tenth the population of Canada, fortunately...

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[timeOday]

Personally I doubt the insurers can be eliminated from health care in the US, they're too entrenched. I think it more likely something like the California plan will be implemented on a national level.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Rich0]

Moore advocates a single-payer system. Under such a system you AREN'T ALLOWED to pay for medical care. You might be able to get care in the US, but you'd probably get something comparable to something you'd get in Canada anyway.

I think we're just miscommunicating. Your point was that in Canada you still have the option of travelling to the US for care and so you did have that freedom. My point is that if the US becomes the same as Canada then you won't actually have that same freedom. You could travel here, but you wouldn't be able to pay for the best care possible.

Right now a Canadian with a billion dollars cash could walk into any hospital in the US and get immediate service with the best physicians available - without any regard to medical need. A US citizen with a billion dollars could not go to Cananda and do the same - they might be able to get care, but they would be prioritized as any other person. In Canada all care is need-based, while in the US it is based purely on willingness to pay (although insurers add a level of need-based rationing). In Canada it is illegal for a doctor to accept cash to give priority treatment. In the US it is not.

Now, you can argue whether the US system is equitable. On one hand it is - the system treats all people with the same amount of cash to spend equally. On one hand it isn't - the system treats different people with the same problem differently. You can argue pros and cons to each form of equality - they accomplish different things and if you consider both fully I don't think it is necessarily obvious which is the better system.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[vux984]

Unless your argument is that it is not POSSIBLE to increase the care of others without decreasing the care of a few, then you have no point here.

At any given price point, yes, that is the tradeoff. Only if you put more money into the system it is possible of increasing the care of some without decreasing anyone elses care.

In Canada, for overall care to increase, taxes have to increase. Obviously there must be a balance between taxes and care.

In the US how does overall care improve? More people have to have more money to afford care. How exactly is that going to happen? And if it does happen, wouldn't prices just go up?

And some people get WORSE care.

Unfortunately yes.

You care more about "overall,"

I care about myself.

Why should I care more about the rich elite?

Why should anyone, except of course the rich elite?

If everyone simply thinks about *themself* then the Canadian system would get more votes, because it benefits more people. Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work?

but to most Americans, it is not acceptable to harm the few for the sake of the many, if there are other alternatives.

Oh Really?

Why is that?

That American's have a system that favors the few over the many simply represents a good con job by that few. Its no coincidence that the country is run by the same elite group that benefits most from the current system.

Its right out of Orwell or Huxley... the proles and the gamma's... the elite tell them the system is for their own best interests, and they beleive it... despite being little more than slaves.

I think if 'most american's' were actually properly informed of what their situation is and what it would be under each system, most american's would choose a Canadian style system in their own self-interest.

In a system 200 people eat caviar, 2000 people eat mcdonalds, and 20,000 people don't eat. And you propose a system where 22,200 people all have to eat mcdonalds what do think is going happen? 2000 people will vote depending on whether they think they are close to joining the 200 or closer to joining the 200000. The 20000 hungry votes for the new system - they benefit. 200 against it - they don't.

The only reason this hasn't happened in america is that 200 control the media, politics, and everything else, and have convinced the 20000 that 'socialized' health care won't work or simply refuse to discuss it at all. And since they run the country if they don't talk about it, it doesn't get talked about.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Abcd1234]

Yes, but if you did the same in Canada you and/or your doctor could be arrested for it. If somebody offered private insurance in Canada they would definitely be punished. If the system works so well, then why make it illegal not to use it?

Umm... it's not illegal, dumbass. As an example, private health clinics deliver a variety of services in Alberta.

See, apparently what you don't understand is that the Canada Health Act makes it illegal to *not* provide coverage to all Canadian citizens. However, that does not preclude private, for-profit clinics from existing.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[grub]

Sorry, yes, you're right on the money about miscommunication. I realized (as I was upstairs cutting up veggies for the bbq!) that I was probably in error. Come back downstairs and ta-da! There's your reply correcting me.

I'm not saying that the .ca system is necessarily the best but it does guarantee quality care for everyone regardless of income. Most of the horror stories I hear about it come from US media (big surprise there).

Anyhow, have to run. It's Canada Day and we're having a family bbq here. Cheers!

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[gomoX]

Hey, I'm all for sticking to the system and the Constitution. Still, the fact that socialized health care is unconstitutional is not proof that it is somehow inherently bad, which was my point.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[gomoX]

I don't think you should ignore a constitution. But I also don't think that you should discard socialized health care just because a piece of paper written eons ago instructs you to do so. Being unconstitutional is not a reason why you shouldn't have federalized health care: it's a reason why you should give a constitution amendment a thought.

In fact, many constitutions in the world dictate that the state is the ultimate responsible entity when it comes to the people's safety and education. If you can't afford private sector health care or education, the state has to provide you with a free (except for taxes, obviously) alternative.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[gomoX]

My point was that unconstitutionality is not a real argument against anything except for a constitution amendment. Sure, you have to follow The Book (that's why it's there), but the fact that a constitution bans something just means that some guys, at some point, thought it was bad. It's not a real argument.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Emetophobe]

I'm a Canadian citizen, and as far as I know, our health coverage is at the Provincial level... For example I carry an OHIP card in my wallet (stands for Ontario Health Insurance Plan).

This site explains the benefits of Canadian health insurance to "newcomers": http://secure.vec.bc.ca/health-care-canada.cfm

The Canadian government sets health-care standards for the whole country while the provincial ministries of health run the health care system. In general, Medicare is paid for through taxes. Three provinces (British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario) however, charge premiums.

So it's up to the individual provinces to run the health care system, which explains why I have an Ontario Health Insurance Plan card and not a Canadian-HIP card.

In general, the Ontario health care system is very good. I'm well aware of the system since I've required treatment on several occasions over my life time. One thing I find lacking is mental health professionals (I suffer from chronic depression, anxiety, stress, etc..) and I have trouble finding good care in my area (I could drive to Toronto, but that's 30-45min each way). Also, there has been recent government cutbacks (no more free eye exams for example). Things like prescription drugs and dental aren't covered either, but luckily my mom works at a company that provides dental and drug coverage to make up for that.

Overall, I'm happy with most of the services provided. I've had some serious stomach issues over the last 7 years and I've required several tests (endoscopes, ultrasound, etc..). The average wait times for these tests was 1-3 months. I've also had MRIs and CAT scans for a seperate head issue and the wait time for those was around a month (since it wasn't a serious problem). So ya, wait times could be better. But since I wasn't dying, it wasn't critical and people with more serious issues got priority over me.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Emetophobe]

(state system funded by everyone) + (private sector paid for by those who want to use it) > (state sector only) OR (private healthcare only)

I'm not so sure about that. There's already doctor and specialist shortages here in Canada in the public health sector, the last thing we need is more health care practitioners leaving for the private sector. All that would do is reduce the level of care delivered in the public sector while people who could afford it would get better care in the private sector. That goes against everything (most) Canadians stand for, in that everyone has the right to the same level of health care, rich or poor. I really hope the Canadian government and individual provinces fight off companies that seek to profit off of peoples health. Privatizing health care will only hurt the public system in the long run.

On a side note, that's exactly what happened to public schools here in Ontario after the government started funding Catholic schools, the quality of public education went down hill. Why the hell do private catholic schools get government funding? That money would be better served going to help public schools. Hopefully they stop funding catholic schools in the near future (http://www.thestar.com/article/223079)

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Raven_Stark]

Something the rest of the world needs to understand about Americans is that we are incredibly stupid and lazy. Americans think in binary: Vote yes or vote no. We won't vote for universal health care and then keep on the government's ass to make sure it is implemented in a rational way. Most likely it will be the most expensive (per capita) health program on earth, cost more than we presently pay, and we will on average have worse health care. We will bitch and moan about it in public forums, like /., and talk radio, but we won't do anything to improve the system. The right will say it is socialism so it can't work, end of thought. The left will say it doesn't work because the right prevents them from throwing enough money at it. Instead of becoming more useful, it will become yet another bloated bureaucracy that serves no one but government.

If a small business becomes bloated and inefficient and doesn't serve its customers, it goes out of business. What incentive does government have to keep lean, efficient, and in service to us? Us riding its ass. Iraq War, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Homeland inSecurity, all well hated and bitched about, but not enough people get mad enough to see them fixed or eliminated. Instead we worry about celebrity nipple and beaver shots and answer Winston Churchill when Jay Leno asks us what general lead our side of the cotton picking Revolutionary War.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[kocsonya]

> The Constitution doesn't say the gov't can do it, so they can't.

I'm not familiar with the details of the US Constitution, but it makes one awe the forsight of the Founding Fathers that the Constitution must have an item about landing men on the Moon, for the government did it (from taxpayer's money, too).

It is sad that they forgot about that bit with regards to providing universal, affordable and quality health care and education for the population, but such oversight is probably excusable if one takes into account the mental effort needed to predict the above mentioned moon landing back then.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

pfff. No. It's eliminating the excess profiteering by middlemen Sigh. You can claim all you want about how it is more efficient, but you cannot reasonably justify the claim that single-payer health care doesn't take away liberty. I won't bother to discuss this with someone who is so ignorant or dishonest as to make that claim.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

And ... ? How does that mean we are all one population and not distinct ones, for the purpose of government health care? You could say the same thing about the European Union, yet they don't have a single health care plan for the entire union there, either. Actually, it's not that simple; there's an agreement between member states of not just the EU, but the entire EEA that means citizens of one country will get free or reduced cost health care in another. Sure, but that's beside the point, which is that each country has a different program for their own population. That it is extended to offer SOME coverage to other populations only emphasizes my point.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

I don't think you should ignore a constitution. But I also don't think that you should discard socialized health care just because a piece of paper written eons ago instructs you to do so. Being unconstitutional is not a reason why you shouldn't have federalized health care: it's a reason why you should give a constitution amendment a thought. I already said that: feel free to try to amend the Constitution.

Now, I'll still be against it, because I've already mentioned some other reasons to be against it, and I have many more. But at least then, if it gets passed via amendment, it won't damage my OTHER rights, so that would be a silver lining.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

Unless your argument is that it is not POSSIBLE to increase the care of others without decreasing the care of a few, then you have no point here. At any given price point, yes, that is the tradeoff. Only if you put more money into the system it is possible of increasing the care of some without decreasing anyone elses care. Well, sorta, but yes, which is why almost all Democrats -- John Edwards, surprisingly, is the most honest one here -- propose doing just that, because they know that decreasing care for people is a non-starter.

However, that said, no, there are other ways to increase care without decreasing it for anyone or increasing money put in, by decreasing costs, which can be done in many different ways.

In the US how does overall care improve? More people have to have more money to afford care. How exactly is that going to happen? And if it does happen, wouldn't prices just go up? It depends. It's actually impossible to predict; however, it is likely that prices would go up, but only because the care is getting better. For constant level of care, no, prices go down, because more and more people are getting it and the costs to provide it come down over time. Just like when flat-planel TVs dropped in price drastically over the past few years. (Assuming, of course, there's some level of patent reform.)

I care about myself.

Why should I care more about the rich elite?

Why should anyone, except of course the rich elite? Shrug. I care about everyone.

If everyone simply thinks about *themself* then the Canadian system would get more votes, because it benefits more people. Well, no. The question is whether it benefits a MAJORITY of people, and I doubt that it would. Most Americans already get good health care, and a government plan probably wouldn't cost any less than what they are paying now, and indeed might cost a lot more.

Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work? Yes, which is why it is a good thing we don't have a democracy, but a republic. Read Federalist 10, if you have the time: we have a republic specifically to prevent the people from trampling on the rights of a minority.

but to most Americans, it is not acceptable to harm the few for the sake of the many, if there are other alternatives. Oh Really?

Why is that? Because we believe in liberty.

That American's have a system that favors the few over the many simply represents a good con job by that few. When did I say the system should favor the few over the many? I said the inverse: that it should not HARM the few for the sake of the many.

I think if 'most american's' were actually properly informed of what their situation is and what it would be under each system, most american's would choose a Canadian style system in their own self-interest. I think you're wrong. Indeed, you look at the polls, and you ask people, "do you want universal health care?" and a majority says yes. But when you actually INFORM them of the consequences, the details, the numbers are reversed.

In a system 200 people eat caviar, 2000 people eat mcdonalds, and 20,000 people don't eat. Of course, that odd analogy is not remotely representative of anything in the U.S. If you mean "caviar" as the best health care possible, and "mcdonalds" as the lowest possible while still having it, and "don't eat" as, of course, no health care ... the numbers would actually be about 2,000 eating caviar, 15,000 not eating, and 23,000 eating at McDonald's, and 60,000 eating at the Olive Garden. And what those 60,000 are most afraid of is being forced to eat at McDonald's.

And you propose a system where 22,200 people all have to eat mcdonalds what do think is going happen? I propose no such thing. I propose we help more people who can't eat get to eat at McDonald's, and more people who eat at McDonald's get to eat at Olive Garden, by lowering costs for everyone, and without forcing anyone to get worse care than they get now.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Rich0]

Umm... it's not illegal, dumbass. As an example, private health clinics deliver a variety of services in Alberta.

Can you actually pay the doctors at that clinic for service. The website you referenced indicated that private clinics can provide services "under the auspices of the Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan or through contracts with health authorities".

That means that they're just a subcontractor for the national insurance program.

By private I meant a place where if I have $10,000 I can ask for an MRI - even if there is nothing at all wrong with me and I just feel like blowing my cash. You can do that in the US - not that most people would want to.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Rich0]

I've got a few coworkers in Montreal and I've never heard bad things. That is of course the problem of anecdotes - you can find horrible examples in any system but it usually isn't terribly informative. One thing I have heard is that the care drops as you age in Canada - but what do I know? :)

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Abcd1234]

Can you actually pay the doctors at that clinic for service.

Well, if you'd scrolled down to the bottom, you'd see this:

Albertans also have the right to visit a physician or the private clinic of their choice. However, opted-out physicians and their patients are not eligible for reimbursement under the Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan.

In other words, you can receive services from a private clinic, but you are responsible for the bill.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Abcd1234]

And if you're wanting specific links, you can find private clinics online. In particular, there are a number of private MRI clinics in Alberta, many of which have been in operation for a number of years.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Anonymous Coward]

Ofcourse, what this poster meant to say is that in Australia we have universal health care in that if you have something not considered "elective" (that is, something which won't kill you in the next few weeks) - you get treatment. Otherwise, you sit on a waiting list for over 2 years.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[unclem0nkey]

First off, it appears from the study in your parent post that it wouldn't be a poor conclusion that health care in canada is better for a majority of the population. You claim that upper middle class would be significantly worse off in canada, but don't give references to that claim.
Second, so you say its OK to harm all the people who would benefit from a social health care system in order to retain people's freedom of choice? Taxes aren't the only way that people can lose freedoms: the market can do its fair share and it can do it much better. Sure, you can go without insurance but you'll be in big trouble when something out of your control happens to you, and most people aren't crazy enough to risk that. Health care costs can be *so* high that lack of insurance can ruin a person financially. Seems like some choices are lost there. Never mind the people who can't even afford insurance so don't have any choice there.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[ncc74656]

Canadians have decided long ago that it is not right for a rich man to have better service when it means that everyone else will have worse.

Everyone has the same miserable service; this guarantees that the rich will not gut the service.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

First off, it appears from the study in your parent post that it wouldn't be a poor conclusion that health care in canada is better for a majority of the population. I don't see how the study supports that conclusion, so I'd disagree that such a conclusion would not be poor. The study looks at overall health of the nation, not specifically at the large majority who already get good (though expensive) health care.

You claim that upper middle class would be significantly worse off in canada, but don't give references to that claim. I don't need to: I gave an argument. I noted the fact that the upper middle class who right now has more options, would have less options. That may not seem significant to you, but it is to them.

Second, so you say its OK to harm all the people who would benefit from a social health care system in order to retain people's freedom of choice? No, I do not. Why do you think that I do say such a thing?

Taxes aren't the only way that people can lose freedoms: the market can do its fair share and it can do it much better. Unfortunately, of course, it's not the market that makes it so people don't get health care, it's the government, via industry regulation. Also, I didn't mention taxes.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

Taxes aren't the only way that people can lose freedoms: the market can do its fair share and it can do it much better. Unfortunately, of course, it's not the market that makes it so people don't get health care, it's the government, via industry regulation. Also, I didn't mention taxes. Er, I mean, I didn't mention taxes as the way in which freedom is lost. That was a separate item: "no one is willing to have their freedom taken away, and their taxes increased, in order to be significantly worse off ..."

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[fyngyrz]

Where is socialized healthcare even mentioned in the constitution?

I believe you'll find the counter argument is based right here:

Article 1, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"

If you're going to argue against it, that's what you have to address. You can't just say there is no such charter in the constitution, because it appears that there may be.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[fyngyrz]

First of all, let's just note the fact that federalized health care is blatantly unconstitutional.

Would you at least, for my benefit and others who do concern ourselves with the constitution, outline why you consider that article one, section eight, first paragraph, would not be considered to authorize federalized health care?

I'm all for constitutional adherence, and I can see a lot of risk in assigning any more of the health care system to the feds, but it seems to me that the general welfare of the US is predicated directly upon the health of its citizens, just as it is their education, ability to conduct commerce, travel, and so on. And you say?

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[grub]

Sigh. You can claim all you want about how it is more efficient, but you cannot reasonably justify the claim that single-payer health care doesn't take away liberty. I won't bother to discuss this with someone who is so ignorant or dishonest as to make that claim.

Do you feel your liberties are being violated because you have a single-payer military or fire department?

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Rich0]

Then what was this court case about?

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

Would you at least, for my benefit and others who do concern ourselves with the constitution, outline why you consider that article one, section eight, first paragraph, would not be considered to authorize federalized health care? The first paragraph of Article I, Section 8 is explaining what is to follow. It is not a grant of authority to do whatever may be done with money, it is explaining that the purpose of the money is to spend on those basic categories, and then it goes on to say specifically what those enumerated powers are.

As James Madison said:

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.

I also am partial to this particular rant he gave to the legislature:

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may a point teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare. ... I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America ...

Of course, much of what Madison talked about has been done today. They do pay for teachers, they do (thanks to Bush's NCLB) take care of education; they do pay for the poor; they do pay for roads other than post-roads; they do pay for and regulate police forces. Some may say that's fine, but James Madison, who WROTE the Tenth Amendment and much of the Constitution, said no, it is very much against the Constitution. I say, as James Madison did, that we have subverted the very foundations of the limited government we established, and I will do whatever is in my power to prevent us from subverting it further.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[thesandtiger]

I'm curious about this - what do you mean you are forbidden from helping her? What consequences would there be for her and for you if she were to ask to be taken off the waiting list and you were to pay for her to go to a private clinic? I don't know anything about the Canadian system other than the broad strokes.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

Sigh. You can claim all you want about how it is more efficient, but you cannot reasonably justify the claim that single-payer health care doesn't take away liberty. I won't bother to discuss this with someone who is so ignorant or dishonest as to make that claim. Do you feel your liberties are being violated because you have a single-payer military or fire department? Do you think that is a rational analogy?

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, let's just note the fact that federalized health care is blatantly unconstitutional. No, I won't explain that in detail, because I am tired of explaining about enumerated rights and the Tenth Amendment.

Then maybe you'll explain why federalized highway systems are blatantly unconstitutional. Better stay off the interstate, or you're anti-American, right?

If we can have taxpayer funded universal highway maintenance, why not taxpayer funded universal health care?

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Abcd1234]

I take it you don't understand that a) healthcare is under the purvue of the provinces, and that case was specifically in regards to Quebec, and b) the province lost the damn case. Honestly, all you did was prove my point for me. At what point are you simply going to admit you were mistaken?

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[unclem0nkey]

I don't see how the study supports that conclusion, so I'd disagree that such a conclusion would not be poor. The study looks at overall health of the nation, not specifically at the large majority who already get good (though expensive) health care.

Overall health of a country translates to care the majority receives. It would be hard to conclude otherwise. First off Canada is easy because it's indiscriminate, so everyone receives the same care. Now the US. Lets say the majority of people (the upper 70%) receive better care than Canada. So if we were to give the lower 30% zero care that might bring the US below Canada if the majority care was marginally above Canada. This would ensure it integrates to something under Canada. However, the upper 30% (you claim) receives better care than the majority, which would raise the overall care a bit. Also the lower %30 don't necessarily get zero care. It would be hard to fudge the statistics to get it work out right, but it's possible. It would be easier to conclude that the majority in the US receive less care than Canada and that the overall care in the US is worse.

I don't need to: I gave an argument. I noted the fact that the upper middle class who right now has more options, would have less options. That may not seem significant to you, but it is to them.

You equate choice to better care. Is that really what happens in reality? You seem sure, but you would need to compare statistics between both Canadian and US upper middle class citizens and compare the care they really do receive.

No, I do not. Why do you think that I do say such a thing?

If you refuse health care to those who can't afford it for the sake of "freedom", you *are* harming people.

Unfortunately, of course, it's not the market that makes it so people don't get health care, it's the government, via industry regulation.

The market does in many ways decide whether people can get health care: if you can't afford it, you can't get it. Does a lower class citizen have the choice to have the best care? You get what you can based on how the market decides prices. Deregulation doesn't get rid of this, and the government doesn't cause it.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Mr. Flibble]

Private clinics are very rare here, and there is a push on to prevent them from being opened at all.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[p0tat03]

Riiiiiiight. It is "justice" to take away someone's liberty and force them to have a reduced standard of health care. That makes perfect sense!

Riiiiiight. Because might makes right, and you have the "liberty" to entice skilled doctors away from those who need them, simply because you have access to more money.

Face it, a two-tier system works on paper, but we all know it won't fly in real life. You'll end up with the exact same problems you have now - poor people get substandard care from substandard physicians, while rich people get expensive excellent care from excellent physicians.

So now instead of having no surgery at all, you get to be operated on by a newbie with a twitchy scalpel hand. I'm not sure if that's really better than what we have now.

You have the liberty to demand a higher level of health care, but you do not have the liberty to deny others access to something so fundamentally necessary as their well being. If you ask me, between the liberty of life, and the liberty of going to a better doctor, one clearly trumps the other.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[jadavis]

Still, the fact that socialized health care is unconstitutional is not proof that it is somehow inherently bad, which was my point.

True, I just wanted to clarify.

Personally, when considering a policy that's unconstitutional, I would reexamine the policy and see if there might be another policy that does fit within the constraints of the Constitution. For instance, it's worth considering state-level socialized health care in lieu of federal health care. If there is no other good option, I would then consider an amendment.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Pig Hogger]

Imagine if everyone was given a car via taxes. Everyone gets the same car, and everyone is allowed the same car. Now, the rich person pays the same taxes as everyone else - and pays into the same system. Thus, supporting the ownership of cars for everyone. Now, if the rich person wants a BETTER car than what is government mandated - they have already paid for the basic car, but don't want it. What is wrong with them buying a Ferrari as opposed to the goverment car? In my mind, nothing.

(Cars make me puke, so I will change "cars" to "health-insurance")

What is wrong is that those who can afford a better health-insurance will see no point in paying for the less-rich, so that they will lobby to have their taxes reduced, to the point of completely gutting the health-insurance the less-rich get.

Prevening the rich from having better health-insurance makes sure the less-rich don't get shafted.

But it seems the notion of shafting the less-rich is deeply ingrained in the United States...

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Pig Hogger]

Apparently you've never stepped foot into the DMV, or a post office. Government is the antithesis of frugality and efficiency.

Apparently, you never stepped into a USMC base or a USN warship. Government is far more efficient than private enterprise.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[BgJonson79]

NASA can be viewed as a defense expenditure, which the gov't is required to do.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[BgJonson79]

Most of the things the Congress does now bust the 10th Amendment.

I'd argue that a good 75% of the non-defense budget is made of up things that the Const. doesn't enumerate as federal powers.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Pig Hogger]

The only delusion here is your inability to look in a mirror and see your real problem.

Ah, yes, the "personal responsibility" thing... A favourite of the rich to enable them to blame the poor for their poorness so they can sleep at night...

Sorry, buddy, but up here, we don't believe in personal responsibility. We do believe in the community responsibility, though.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Pig Hogger]

Everyone's rights are protected by the Constitution.

And only the rich can afford to have them enforced...

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

Overall health of a country translates to care the majority receives. Not remotely, no. :-)

First off Canada is easy because it's indiscriminate, so everyone receives the same care. Now the US. Lets say the majority of people (the upper 70%) receive better care than Canada. So if we were to give the lower 30% zero care that might bring the US below Canada if the majority care was marginally above Canada. This would ensure it integrates to something under Canada. However, the upper 30% (you claim) receives better care than the majority, which would raise the overall care a bit. Also the lower %30 don't necessarily get zero care. It would be hard to fudge the statistics to get it work out right, but it's possible. No, it's very easy, though first you need to come up with a "health care quotient." Let's say that 100 is the best care possible, and 0 is merely government-mandated emergency care. Let's say the top 5 percent in America gets an average of 95, and and the bottom 15 percent get an average of 5 (since there are charities and other free clinics available). The other top 25 percent gets 80. And another 15 percent at the bottom gets just minimal insured coverage, say, 25.

So somewhere in there we need to figure out where Canada and the other 40 percent of Americans fit in. If Canada is a 60, that means the 40 percent of Americans could fall anywhere from 60-80 to disprove your claim. If Canada is a 70, then that 40 percent could be 70-100.

It doesn't take much imagination here. Of course, I don't know where the majority sits here, and that's the point: that study doesn't say.

It would be easier to conclude that the majority in the US receive less care than Canada That claim is not backed up by any data I've seen.

You equate choice to better care. Is that really what happens in reality? For some people, sure. Absolutely. I know scores of people who shopped around for different doctors and treatments trying to solve problems, and eventually did. It happens all the time. And even if you don't think it would help you, the point is whether *I* want choice, because what we are talking about here is perceptions and how people will vote.

No, I do not. Why do you think that I do say such a thing? If you refuse health care to those who can't afford it for the sake of "freedom" When did I ever say that? (Hint: I didn't.)

you *are* harming people. Well no, that's not true. There is no right to health care, and not providing something to someone that they have no right to is not causing them harm. That's question-begging: you are assuming a claim (health care is a right) that I categorically reject.

Unfortunately, of course, it's not the market that makes it so people don't get health care, it's the government, via industry regulation. The market does in many ways decide whether people can get health care: if you can't afford it, you can't get it. Sure, and people cannot afford it primarily because of government regulation, which has driven up the price.

Does a lower class citizen have the choice to have the best care? Of course not; why should they? I don't have that choice either, and I am certainly well above the lower class.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

Then maybe you'll explain why federalized highway systems are blatantly unconstitutional. Better stay off the interstate, or you're anti-American, right?

If we can have taxpayer funded universal highway maintenance, why not taxpayer funded universal health care? Hm. My Constitution reads, The Congress shall have Power ... To establish Post Offices and post roads.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Pig Hogger]

Canadians have decided long ago that it is not right for a rich man to have better service when it means that everyone else will have worse.

Everyone has the same miserable service; this guarantees that the rich will not gut the service.

Fixed that for you.

Hey! Look! A dogmatic conservative that misquotes (and out of context, too)!!!

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[fyngyrz]

That's exactly what I was looking for; thank you. I'll be tucking the references away; it always helps to have explicatory commentary from an author of the document.

Now: What about states providing healthcare, for instance by collecting a tax similar in intent to worker's compensation, such that people's healthcare is paid for? This, then, would be a power devolved upon a state, pretty much as per the constitution. In this way, the middleman (insurers) is done away with, as well as a good deal of the official paths for profit motive from people's misfortune.

Do you object to that kind of plan?

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[dangitman]

Health care can also be viewed as a defense expenditure, and it makes a lot more sense than saying a trip to the moon has anything to do with defense. A healthier population is more able to defend itself. What the hell does taking a joyride to the moon have to do with defense? Shit, our biggest enemy is not terrorists or other countries, but our unhealthy lives and broken healthcare system. It's pretty much the most serious war America is involved in - so healthcare is naturally a part of defending the American people from peril.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

Riiiiiiight. It is "justice" to take away someone's liberty and force them to have a reduced standard of health care. That makes perfect sense! Riiiiiight. Because might makes right, and you have the "liberty" to entice skilled doctors away from those who need them, simply because you have access to more money. Yes. That is what liberty means: the freedom to do what you want. The doctor wants to go to the highest bidder, that is his right.

Face it, a two-tier system works on paper, but we all know it won't fly in real life. I don't want a two-tier system. I do not want any government-provided health care, at all. It's not necessary and it causes more problems than it solves.

You have the liberty to demand a higher level of health care, but you do not have the liberty to deny others access to something so fundamentally necessary as their well being. If you ask me, between the liberty of life, and the liberty of going to a better doctor, one clearly trumps the other. Live free or die.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

Everyone's rights are protected by the Constitution. And only the rich can afford to have them enforced... Non sequitur.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

What about states providing healthcare, for instance by collecting a tax similar in intent to worker's compensation, such that people's healthcare is paid for? This, then, would be a power devolved upon a state, pretty much as per the constitution. In this way, the middleman (insurers) is done away with, as well as a good deal of the official paths for profit motive from people's misfortune.

Do you object to that kind of plan?

Yes, but for different reasons. And it depends on whether this plan would be a fallback, or whether it would replace private insurance. And it depends on whether privately funded health care would still be legal.

There's just so many details and I have various problems with them, in different ways. For example, the Massachusetts health care plan makes it required for every resident in the state to have health insurance. I see that as absolutely unconstitutional: it's a tax on being alive. If I want to not have insurance, that is my right as a human being.

Then there's Quebec's law (which was overturned in 2005, I believe) which went the other way, and made it illegal to privately fund medically necessary health services, on the grounds that the government, and no one else, should do it. I see that as a fundamental violation of human rights, too: as long as the product or service itself is not illegal (and certainly, the health care is not illegal, only the method of payment), then I should be able to acquire it, should I have the means.

And then there's normal single-payer which takes the place of almost all health care plans, and I object to that as well, but not as the above for reasons of fundamental liberty. I do believe there is a liberty component, of course, but my concerns are far more practical. Medicine, unfortunately, is not always an exact science: sometimes you need to shop around to find someone who has the best treatment for you, and that can be, of course, seriously complicated in single-payer, since I don't have the opportunity to go to another payer. There are other similar examples, but the point is that most of these are practical matters for which solutions are possible, but in my opinion solutions are easier to come by in a free market system with true competition (which we do not have right now, so it's a poor basis for comparison).

What I would be most inclined to favor is the other option I mentioned, which is a fallback program for those in true need, with regular means testing and so on, though you are talking about doing away with insurers, so I don't believe this is what you are referring to. And frankly, no, this coverage would not necessarily be the same quality of care I have available to me. But I am not sure why it should be. As I've said before, I don't see "the best health care possible" as a right anyone can claim, because "the best health care possible" necessarily has a huge associated cost. On what basis are we saying that this is a right? I don't see it. People keep saying it, but I have no idea where they got the idea.

Back to your question: the problem is not middlemen. The problem is not insurers. The problem is not profit motivation. The problem is that none of these things are properly mitigated by a true market system. Capitalism is not bad; capitalism unchecked by true competition is bad. We need to remove a lot of the regulation. We need to make it easier to open up new clinics. We need to reform patent law. We need to ENCOURAGE profit by introducing MORE competition, and resulting in LOWER prices.

At the same time -- and this is what really kills me -- we do need tougher enforcement of the regulations we do have. All this talk about insurance companies screwing people ... we could fix that problem without doing away with insurers, because they are breaking the law and we could better enforce the law. When Enron screwed us, few people said "we need to get rid of the energy market and bring it all under government control." W

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[thesandtiger]

I'm not sure how that equates to forbidding you from paying for your mother's health care. You said you were forbidden - which would mean to me that if you did do it (or tried to) you'd be breaking the law or otherwise subject to some kind of penalties. What are those penalties?

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Anonymous Coward]

Bhwaahahaha. Ahhhh, thanks for the laugh.

Canadians have decided long ago that it is not right for a rich man to have better service when it means that everyone else will have worse.

Everyone has the same service; this guarantees that the rich will not gut the service.

Except, of course, that the health care varies from province to province on how much people pay into it, what they get out of it, and even the levels of income that require payment "assistance".

Except, of course, for the people whose employers opt into extra insurance programs that pay above and beyond what the public system does.

Except, of course, for politicians, police, fire, workers compensation claimants, etc that get jumped to the front of the exceedingly long waiting lists.

Except, of course, if you need medication....which is only covered by the system if you're a welfare recipient. Or if your private extra insurance pays for it.
Otherwise it's out of pocket.

Ditto dental.

Ditto eyecare.

Aaaand then there's the fact that the rich man you're talking about has options of private clinics and/or the US he can use (and usually does so he doesn't have to spend time in the ward with the plebs, and he avoids those wonderful waiting lists).

Now, what was that about the vaunted "everyone is equal" system we have? Funny, seems pretty unequal to me.

This is called "social justice", something sorely lacking in the US.

Actually it's a crock. The only "justice" involved is that of the wealthier population keeping the sheeple in a state of religious fervor about the "incomparable Canadian system" being more equitable and the US system being so horrible so they're content with their miserable lives. I see you've fallen for it pretty hard.

Ever wondered why the crime rate is so low in Canada? It's not because guns are outlawed. No, it's simply because welfare helps ensure that someone that hit the bottom of the barrel will not have to turn to crime in order to survive.

Hehe. And where do you live again? Middle of nowhere New Brunswick?
Come on out to Vancouver sometime....I'll take ya on a tour of the downtown eastside. Just don't park in the area, wear jewelry, or show any money. Dress down.
Or, if ya prefer, I'm sure I can scrounge up someone to show you around Jane and Finch in Toronto. Kevlar is the preferred style of jacket.
Lower crime my ass. Canadians are just better at pretending it's not there and confining it to certain areas and our cities are quite a bit smaller in population.
BTW, you ARE aware that there is welfare in the US too, right?
Neither country pays out enough to welfare recipients to keep them from knocking off that corner store or mugging grandma on pension check day.

Paying slightly more taxes than in the US is a very cheap price to pay to insure that I do not risk being mugged each time I walk home late at night.

And everyone is glad to pay those few extra tax dollars.

Got news for ya bucky....not all Canadians are "glad to pay those few extra tax dollars".
Especially when it's a bit more than "slightly more" AND the dollar doesn't stretch nearly as far here as the US.
For the Americans reading this......the average Canadian spends more than 6 months a year working to pay nothing but taxes.
In BC, 40% of the total provincial budget from ALL sources of revenue, tax and otherwise is spent on health care.
That vast amount is spent on health care, and we still have waiting lists of 18 months for procedures, going to emergency can mean a wait of 12-18 hours.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

YES! No.

Is it "justice" to take away someone elses life in the name of your pocket-books liberty? Why are you asking that question, since none of it applies to what I am talking about? Very curious. I certainly never defended my right to take anyone else's life (except in self-defense, or in defense of another, where a life is directly threatened), and the only liberty I was talking about in this context had nothing to do with any pocket-book.

That's a straw man logical fallacy.

I am in this middle that is being more and more screwed right now in ways you cannot even imagen and being pushed to the bottom. I make $46k a year. I am $3000 away from being able to be on Medicade for my wife, my company offers no insurance and I have two children with another baby on the way. Maybe I fucked up and my wife did by having another kid. You know what? Its not the fucking poor kids fault that now her normal doctor which takes medicade wont even see us without an extra $1250 out of pocket up front. Guess what? I don't just have 1250 laying around. I tried to work out a payment plan. $700 up front. No. $800. No. $900. No Before we got married she could just walk right in and get first class service. Now we get married as (as some on the right would say is the only proper way to raise a family) and she can't even get an OB exam. You know what happens when my family of four gets sick out of the blue in the winter? We get fucked! It happend last year. Being set back $800 in medical costs in one month blows dude. Yawn. This, of course, is also a straw man, because you are attacking the status quo as an argument to me, but I am not defending the status quo. So this argument you are constructing has nothing to do with my argument.

This is just fucked. There is no other way to look at it. So? Why do you (apparently) think the only way to deal with the problem is government-run health care? It's obviously not true.

Why does every man woman and child not have basic dental? Shrug. Why should they? I've never seen a rational argument for it, other than "I just think they should." Fine, and I think everyone man woman and child should have a GameBoy.

I'd pay more in taxes for that. Good for you.

What about eye glasses and contacts? What about them?

Why don't we give LASIK to every poor underclass person that cannot afford it? Feel free to do that yourself.

We as a socity could and we could share the costs. Feel free to give to charities that would do this, then.

We already do it for the GODDAMN ROADS, WE ALREADY FUCKING DO IT FOR DEFENCE. IT ALREADY DO IT FOR POLICE. These are basic fucking services and we all sholder the costs. That's because it's the only reasonable way for those things. Quite obviously, there are many other ways to handle medical care.

The middle and rich shoulder more, AS THEY SHOULD THEY HAVE MORE TO LOSE! No, what you mean is, "they should pay more because they are a minority and we have the power to take it from them." Pretty tyrannical and authoritarian of you, dontcha think?

Just think about it. Then do something to change it. I do. I work with elected officials to actually reduce costs for families. What do YOU do?

Don't play devils advocate, you cannot win here. Perhaps that's true, but only because you're not making an actual argument, so there's nothing to defeat.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[ncc74656]

I will never stop at wondering why little people (surely you're not a zillionaire) will keep at protecting the filthy rich...

Perhaps because I've never gotten a job from poor people? Perhaps because rich people aren't trying to vote themselves more of my money?

No matter how hard one works, one won't get ahead the well-connected guy.

Isn't envy one of the seven deadly sins? Oh wait...you're one of those godless communists, so sin is a foreign concept to you. Alles klar. You should try putting in an honest day's work sometime, instead of whining that someone else has a dollar or two more in his pocket than you do.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Anonymous Coward]

Newsflash: Your framers weren't supergeniuses from the future. A large chunk of your constitution is plainly retarded and inadequate to the task of running a modern country.

It doesn't matter. The rest of the industrialized world will go on enjoying our healthcare. and feeling bad when we see our American friends posting on LJ getting shafted YET AGAIN over some health issue.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[ncc74656]

My point was that unconstitutionality is not a real argument against anything except for a constitution amendment.

Coming from a resident of a South American banana republic, your post explains much about your situation. Your logic is inverted.

That x is unconstitutional is a sufficient argument against it, seeing as how we're a nation of laws (not men, unlike most countries south of the border) and the Constitution is the highest law there is. If you think x is right, but the Constitution stands in the way, the proper response is not to ignore it or to go marching in the streets about how it's not "fair," but to amend the Constitution. Fortunately, the amendment process is difficult enough that it hasn't gotten loaded up with fad-of-the-week amendments...only 27 ratified in 200+ years, out of who knows how many (hundreds? thousands?) proposed.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[ncc74656]

If we can have taxpayer funded universal highway maintenance, why not taxpayer funded universal health care?

Hm. My Constitution reads, The Congress shall have Power ... To establish Post Offices and post roads.

It's also worth noting that the interstates (at least) were presented as being, at least in part, for national-defense purposes (moving troops and equipment around the country, etc.). It may have been a fig leaf of an excuse, but at least it was an attempt at proving that it was within the Constitution.

The Evil Party has gotten rather brazen in recent years; they're not concerning themselves with constitutionality at all, but instead are pushing us ever closer to that tipping point where the majority votes to out-and-out steal from the minority. They're demonstrating the dangers of mob rule, and the reason why I could never be a democrat (either little-D or big-D, as if there's any difference).

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Weedlekin]

"There's already doctor and specialist shortages here in Canada in the public health sector, the last thing we need is more health care practitioners leaving for the private sector"

Shortages in the state sector can be caused by many factors that have no bearing whatsoever on whether things would be better or worse with a parallel private system. It could for example be due to the fact that the Canadian education system isn't producing enough doctors, or that they don't like the deal they get from the state medical service, so they move to the nearby US where they can earn a lot more money for less hours. By contrast, some European countries with parallel state and private medical sectors produce far more doctors and nurses than they have jobs for, resulting is situations where (for example) Spanish nurses often work in the UK state sector, which has a shortage of qualified nursing staff, whereas their own country has a surplus.

"All that would do is reduce the level of care delivered in the public sector while people who could afford it would get better care in the private sector."

This hasn't been the case in Europe, where many doctors (especially specialists) work for the state sector while also doing private consultations to supplement their income. It makes a career in medicine more attractive, and helps to keep those who choose it in their own country instead of having them emigrate to somewhere that offers them a better deal.

"I really hope the Canadian government and individual provinces fight off companies that seek to profit off of peoples health. Privatizing health care will only hurt the public system in the long run."

If there are staff shortages, then it's already suffering from problems that some of the European countries with both types of healthcare don't have. As I said before, the fact that the state system is already less than ideal doesn't prove that things would be worse if people were given a choice of whether to use it or not.

"On a side note, that's exactly what happened to public schools here in Ontario after the government started funding Catholic schools, the quality of public education went down hill."

Correlation does not imply causality. The UK for example has a private education sector that existed _long_ before there was a state one, yet that didn't prevent the state sector from becoming pretty good. It's crap now, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of private education -- it's due the fact that successive UK governments have paid state-sector teachers badly, and progressively eroded their ability to discipline pupils, so the few good people who opt for a career in teaching don't last very long. I have a friend in the UK who, after spending three years teaching, said "If I'd wanted to work with a load of obnoxious little shits who behave as they please, I'd have got a job maintaining sewers and earned a lot more money".

"Why the hell do private catholic schools get government funding?"

I don't know, and I don't agree with it either. Not because they're Catholic, but for the simple reason that private schools are companies that should be run like other companies, i.e. they either make money from their product, or go broke and shut down.

"That money would be better served going to help public schools"

The experience of most countries that have tried it seems to indicate that simply throwing lots more money at state systems that aren't working well doesn't improve them in any measurable way, irrespective of the fact that the people within them inevitably blame their poor performance on a lack of funding. From what I've seen after living in several countries, the major difference between private and state schools isn't funding, but the fact that they have the luxury of selecting their pupils, and can permanently eject unruly, disruptive ones who prevent teachers from doing their jobs effectively.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[uhlume]

Ethnic makeup? How the fuck do you get "ethnic makeup" from a discussion of poverty and crime rates?

Disgusting racist motherfucker.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[TapeCutter]

"That's the way it also works in a lot of European countries (but not of course all of them)."

I don't know if it applies to all EU countries but when on vaction in the UK last year I needed to see a doctor. No appointment, waited half an hour, but the surprising part was the consultation and meds were "free". Apparently the two governerments have an arrangement to look after each others tourists.

I think it's great you can buy extra cover eg: over here dentistry is not a "universal right" (yet). You don't need perfect teeth but you do need anti-biotics for something as mundane as an abses on a tooth. You don't need an army of administrators to keep track of "who gets how much of what and why", if everything is "free". A much smaller group of forensic accounts can be employed to keep the health providers honest. Speaking of MRI's we had a shitload of them over here when they were still reasonably novel bits of equipment, there was some sort of tax rebate for private clinics to invest in them. Hey presto - MRI's (and accountants) all over the place (prevention is cheaper than cure).

Disclaimer: I'm an old fart who (as a child) did not have a good experience with the "pay or die" system this country had up until the mid 70's. I suffered from childhood asthma that was consistently diagnosed as bronchitis untill I was about 13-14 (oddly enough this correct diagnosis coincided with the introduction of universal health care). I think the asthma thing is genetic since my son had it as well and both of us had an allergic reaction to pickled onions (a bit of trivia that for some reason facinated specialist). His asthma unfortunately was more severe than mine, he once stopped breathing a few minutes after arriving at casualty (scary shit). Under the old system his health care costs would easily have bankrupt me as a young dad in a "dead end" job.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Weedlekin]

"I don't know if it applies to all EU countries but when on vaction in the UK last year I needed to see a doctor. No appointment, waited half an hour, but the surprising part was the consultation and meds were "free". Apparently the two governerments have an arrangement to look after each others tourists. "

All EU citizens have a right to state healthcare when visiting any other EU country, but whether those from outside the EU have the same privilege usually depends on whether there is a specific agreement between the two nations. AFAIK, there's no requirement for any EU country to treat people from outside the EU itself, although they will usually do so if somebody has a non-trivial problem.

"I think it's great you can buy extra cover eg: over here dentistry is not a "universal right" (yet)."

Dentistry seems to be an exception everywhere!

"I'm an old fart who (as a child) did not have a good experience with the "pay or die" system this country had up until the mid 70's"

I'm 47 myself, but had the good fortune to grow up in the UK (although I left about 20 years ago) during the 1960s, when their state healthcare system was superb, and everything including dentistry was free (it still is technically, but dentists who take "national health" patients are rarer than Australian virgins).

"I suffered from childhood asthma that was consistently diagnosed as bronchitis untill I was about 13-14 (oddly enough this correct diagnosis coincided with the introduction of universal health care)."

I did too. Mine was correctly diagnosed under the old but effective Brit. national health system (as opposed to the current notably less effective one), and I received free treatment. Interestingly, the doctor told my mother (I was about 3 years old at the time) that it would very likely begin to abate when I reached puberty, and disappear when I became an adult, and this is exactly what happened.

"Under the old system his health care costs would easily have bankrupt me as a young dad in a "dead end" job."

This is obviously the reason why many Canadians are so defensive about their state healthcare system, and resist the idea of having any form of supplementary private medicine whatsoever. People who've had unpleasant experiences with something tend to polarise in the opposite direction, whereas those of us who've been spoilt by tandem systems for decades are pretty comfortable with the idea of everyone paying for state healthcare, while the ones who can afford it also support a private medical infrastructure that the state can pay to use if it needs to.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Anonymous Coward]

The crime rate in Canada is 7761 per 100,000, the crime rate in the US is 3906 per 100,000. Last time I checked 7761 was higher then 3906. Try using Wikipedia before making outrageous claims, or were you just talking about homicide rates. Because the US has a higher homicide rate, but overall crime rates suggest that the US style of free markets and democracy allow people to live in a society with less crime, even after vast welfare reforms that you apparently don't like. By the way just in case you don't believe that free markets work you might want to read some census data: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG791.cfm

One of my favorite parts: "The average "poor" American lives in a larger house or apartment than does the average West European (This is the average West European, not poor West Europeans). Poor Americans eat far more meat, are more likely to own cars and dishwashers, and are more likely to have basic modern amenities such as indoor toilets than is the general West European population."

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[BgJonson79]

Interesting view.

Of course, in this story, nobody has even asked me if I think the Amendment for UHC is a good idea :-)

As for the moon and defense, if you don't have access to space or items and people in space, you've already lost.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[gomoX]

Huh? Did you even read anything of what I wrote? /me checks out http://alfter.us/

Oh, I get it now.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Anonymous Coward]

What it amounts to is that if say, my mother is sick, and
      put on a waiting list - yet a private clinic has the space, I am
      FORBIDDEN from paying to help my mother.

Interesting... Asuuming the law uniformly applies to all people up there in the great white north, you apparently have private clinics that EVERYONE is forbidden to pay for.

So what gives, are they charity clinics? If so, the no problem for Mom. Is it because of the waiting list? Take her off the list then and go private.

It makes no sense that there are private clinics and there is no way to use them

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Anonymous Coward]

no one is willing to have their freedom taken away What freedom are you talking about?

The "freedom" to not be able to change jobs because no potential employers provide health care that will take good enough care of you?

The "freedom" to travel an extra 40 miles to a hospital your insurance company has made a deal with, instead of the one just down the street?

The "freedom" to never start your own business because a pre-existing condition means no individual insurer will accept you?

The current health care system is anti-freedom and anti-free market. Being required to have sufficient insurance limits mobility, a core value of a free market. I don't understand people that aren't interested in making sure that everybody has the freedom to choose any job or health care they want without having to worry about the costs of their care.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[vecctor]

just because I have been lucky enough to have money I think many of the people you disagree with would also disagree with the word "luck" in this statement. You know, they might think they actually earned the money by working hard when maybe they didn't have to (in school, work, etc) and now have gotten their just rewards over those who didn't do those things. For most people, money didn't come magically down from the sky and just happened to fall on them. They worked hard for it.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Its a basic service. Just like police, just like fire, just like the patent office, just like the post road. You know the founding fathers never thought of the internet so because its not in the constitution we should not have universal access to it....right....like we have universal access to the roads we should have the same access to the Net and Basic health care. Its a cost socity should share and distribute equally. Just like education, and 1000x other things the government does for the general welfare. You could argue a lot of those should go away. I might agree, but in this case I would trade almost all of the crap added on under the title General Welfare, for basic, simple, universal healthcare.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Pig Hogger]

Oh, sorry that you can't elaborate your argument further.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[phlinn]

They prevent you from going to someone in your own country who has the proper skills to trade your money for a procedure you want. Like it or not, that is an infrigement of your liberty. Why do they have the authority to force the doctor to not take private funds? Why do they have the authority to prevent you from offering money for better treatment?

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[phlinn]

To deny someone the ability to entice a doctor with cash interferes with the doctor's rights. Of course, the legally enforce cabal known as the AMA contributes to the problem, by drastically reducing the supply of medical services. That's a problem caused by the government, not by the rich having money. In a truly free system, the AMA and a number of other organizations would exist, with the only legal enforcement being fraud if you falsly claim to be a member, or to have a certification from some particular group. But that would cut into their profits, and doesn't mesh with thier paternalistic instinct to protect people from themselves. For example, the resistance to making statins available OTC.

There are not enough medical services available to treat everyone for everything. Rationing based on willingness to pay is NOT any less moral than any other rationing system.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[phlinn]

Here's the problem. The sole named source for the claim that Bush said that is Doug Thompson of CHB. Every other mention of that eventually goes back to the same source. He claims three unnamed individuals provided the information. Given the unreliability of CHB in the past, including making up sources out of whole cloth, it's not really a credible claim.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[grub]

Do you think that is a rational analogy?

Absolutely.

The fire department is paid for by your taxes. Their services are available for anyone living in a cardboard box to a $5M mansion. See Pudge, your government has taken away your liberties by forcing this on you! You should have the right to buy fire department coverage from the Kaiser Permanente Fire Department or the Blue Cross FD! When the call comes in, an operator at Kaiser would look at your coverage and tell the fire department how much of the house to save. It's the American Way and your liberties are safe whilst your house burns to the foundation!

heheh man this is too funny.

Same as the military; your taxes are paying for them. Why not go back to having militia everywhere? Hire the best guns for your money. Not many rational people would argue that the Military is glorified welfare (both for the poor and industry) anyhow.

Now, of course, I've taken this to a stretch. But in reality the fire department will gladly come to your home, save your life by dragging you out and get you to a hospital. The hospital will then gladly toss you to the curb after doing the bare minimum if you don't have insurance. It seems so ass-backwards to put the value of things above that of citizens' lives.

Anyhow, we're talking ideologies and those aren't easy to sway. Perhaps we could tackle religion next! ;P

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[grub]

The government does NOT prevent me from making an appointment with whatever specialist I want to see to have a procedure done. Unlike the HMO system where they can dictate what specialists you get to see.

The only 'liberty' being hurt is the profiteering by the middle-man and HMOs. Doctors here make good money.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

Oh, sorry that you can't elaborate your argument further. Do you know what "non sequitur" means? It means I am saying you were saying something completely irrelevant. There is no argument for me to make against something that is beside the point, other than to point out the fact that it is beside the point.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[grub]

Yeah, I was googling around trying to prove or disprove the quote and I came across something about this. As much as I'd like it to be true, it appears to be another unverified rumour. I haven't seen anything where Bush actually denies saying it, though. Presumably he'd want to deny claims of him saying something so caustic.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

Yes. Its [sic] a basic service. Just like police, just like fire, just like the patent office, just like the post road. No, it's not.

You know the founding fathers never thought of the internet [sic] so because its [sic] not in the constitution [sic] we should not have universal access to it....right Correct, the federal government should not provide universal access to the Internet.

....like we have universal access to the roads we should have the same access to the Net and Basic health care. Also, universal access to GameBoys.

Its [sic] a cost socity [sic] should share and distribute equally. No, it shouldn't.

Just like education, and 1000x other things the government does for the general welfare. Most of which are blatantly unconstitutional, because "general welfare," as James Madison made clear, was not a blank check for the federal government to ignore the fact that it is a limited government of enumerated powers; it was merely a brief summary of powers to be listed later in Article I, Section 8, which includes the post-roads and patent office, but not fire or police.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

no one is willing to have their freedom taken away What freedom are you talking about? The freedom to make medical decisions for yourself, including who to have as your insurer (if anyone), how much you are willing to pay, and so on.

The "freedom" to not be able to change jobs because no potential employers provide health care that will take good enough care of you?

The "freedom" to travel an extra 40 miles to a hospital your insurance company has made a deal with, instead of the one just down the street?

The "freedom" to never start your own business because a pre-existing condition means no individual insurer will accept you? Hm. You obviously don't understand the concept of freedom. In fact -- and this is really not at all debatable -- you always have the freedom to change jobs, to not travel 40 extra miles, and to start your own business.

Also, you do not understand anything I've said, because my argument has never been that the current system is good, so attacking the status quo has no impact on my argument, which is that we can and should reform the system without a government takeover (indeed, that we should have LESS government involvement).

The current health care system is anti-freedom ... False.

... and anti-free market. Very true, which is why almost all of my ideas for reform are about reducing government regulation and control in order to increase the effect of market forces to reduce costs and improve care (as well as, naturally, availability).

Being required to have sufficient insurance limits mobility, a core value of a free market. Most states in this country do not require you to have health insurance, and I absolutely oppose all such requirements.

I don't understand people that aren't interested in making sure that everybody has the freedom to choose any job or health care they want without having to worry about the costs of their care. I don't understand people who think our decisions should be divorced from the costs of those decisions.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[lubricated]

or he's merely pointing out how correlation doesn't imply causation. How about the correlation between crime rate and distance from the equator.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

Do you think that is a rational analogy? Absolutely. OK. I don't.

The fire department is paid for by your taxes. Local taxes, of course, not federal. And, the fire department is necessary to protect MY home from being destroyed by YOUR fire. Which is why I still favor the CDC's existence.

See Pudge, your government has taken away your liberties by forcing this on you! Yes, it has. I never said otherwise. I just said the analogy was poor, because there are important differences as to why the violation of my rights in forcing me to pay for the fire department is justified, that do not apply to universal health care. Another is that most of us don't really care about choices taken away by the existence of the fire department, because how many choices do you really need? They come, they put out the fire.

You should have the right to buy fire department coverage from the Kaiser Permanente Fire Department or the Blue Cross FD! Of course you should. And you do.

Same as the military; your taxes are paying for them. Why not go back to having militia everywhere? Um, we still do. We have both, as the Constitution explicitly allows.

Hire the best guns for your money. Shrug. You can do that in addition, if you wish. Many have. Indeed, even the government does.

Not many rational people would argue that the Military is glorified welfare (both for the poor and industry) anyhow. Agreed. So I am not sure why you brought it into the discussion.

Now, of course, I've taken this to a stretch. But in reality the fire department will gladly come to your home, save your life by dragging you out and get you to a hospital. The hospital will then gladly toss you to the curb after doing the bare minimum if you don't have insurance. False. If this comparison is to work, the fire department saving your life, then it has to be compared to the hospital saving your life: and hospitals are required to attempt to save your life, regardless of ability to pay (unlike fire departments, which have no such legal obligation).

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[grub]

Interesting. Here the fire department has to try until the ambulances get there then they pass you off. In fact they're part of the same department now to weed out administrative overhead.

Anyhow, Ithink I'm probably not clear on what exactly it is that you mean by lost liberties; is it that you think I can't pay a doctor here out of my own pocket (which isn't really the case, there are private clinics)? Or that I'm somehow restricted in who I can see (again, not at all the case)? Or does it come down to being taxed for something I may never use (which is where I was thinking of the fire department above)?

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[phlinn]

The HMO doesn't dictate what you can do, it limits what they will pay for you to have done. You're still free to go to any doctor you wish and pay for services. Since you claimed that you have to leave the country to pay for those services, that is an actual restriction. The HMO not acting on your behalf in the way you want isn't. One is explicitly preventing you from acting, one is choosing not to help you do something you'd like to without actually preventing it via force. There is a difference.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[phlinn]

Not necessarily. Since it's only been on the net, not in any MSM source, he may think it's best to not say anything about it and draw more attention to it. No idea if that's the actual reason, but it's a plausible one I think.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

Anyhow, Ithink I'm probably not clear on what exactly it is that you mean by lost liberties; is it that you think I can't pay a doctor here out of my own pocket (which isn't really the case, there are private clinics)? Or that I'm somehow restricted in who I can see (again, not at all the case)? Or does it come down to being taxed for something I may never use (which is where I was thinking of the fire department above)? It depends on the specific plan, of course. Single-payer plans, by either forcing you into their plan (by outlawing private care, as Quebec tried to do) or at the least by drastically increasing (doubling, if not more) your cost if you opt-out, explicitly or effectively take away many choices. Doctor choice is one thing (though again, it depends on the plan), but more important is the general category of treatment options. I can right now shop around for an insurer that will cover, say, alternative or experimental treatments that others won't. And obviously, the government-run plan cannot cover EVERYTHING, because then it would be abused. So I lose that freedom of choice to pick an insurer (or to pick NO insurer).

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[AK Marc]

Local taxes, of course, not federal. And, the fire department is necessary to protect MY home from being destroyed by YOUR fire. Which is why I still favor the CDC's existence.

So taxes are evil if done by the feds and fine if done locally? Not to mention that you like having your freedoms removed if it is something you want, but against it if it is something you don't want. You trade your freedom like everyone else, yet get into the "what about my freedom" whine when it is something you don't like. That's what I call a hypocrite. But I'm sure you'll justify it in some other irrational manner.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[grub]

Oh the services are available here, if it's just elective surgery and I'm put in a few-week queue I can opt to go to the US. Not worth it, the care there is expensive I hear. :)

I've read of HMOs restricting specialists. Maybe because some cost more than others, I don't recall the reason.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[ptbarnett]

Sorry, buddy, but up here, we don't believe in personal responsibility. We do believe in the community responsibility, though.

That's worked real well for you, hasn't it?

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[pudge]

Local taxes, of course, not federal. And, the fire department is necessary to protect MY home from being destroyed by YOUR fire. Which is why I still favor the CDC's existence. So taxes are evil if done by the feds and fine if done locally? I never implied anything of the sort. Way to ignorantly walk into the middle of a discussion! What I meant was that the fire department is properly a power reserved to the state, and that as per the Tenth Amendment, it is -- like universal health care -- illegal for the federal government to control it. Not evil, illegal.

Although there are practical problems with it too, of course, which is WHY it is illegal. Most importantly, if the federal government controls something, then YOU have less control over it. The more local the decision is made, the more power you have to effect change. The more free you are.

Not to mention that you like having your freedoms removed if it is something you want, but against it if it is something you don't want. You trade your freedom like everyone else, yet get into the "what about my freedom" whine when it is something you don't like. That's what I call a hypocrite. Do you have a single example of that? I doubt it. But feel free to back up your claim. Go ahead.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[dangitman]

As for the moon and defense, if you don't have access to space or items and people in space, you've already lost.

Come again? What threat has landing men on the moon protected us from? I don't remember the invasion of moon men. Sure satellites have useful military purposes, but how has manned space travel or Mars probes helped us in Iraq? Can you cite any wars that we have won because of manned spaceflight?

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[BgJonson79]

You're thinking too short-sighted. Don't all the futurists and physicists and wicked smaht people think we need to colonize other planets/ areas/ moons/ etc. in the event that the Earth gets all screwed up, either from ourselves or something else? If all we've got is Earth and that goes away, we're hosed.

Oh, we made the Soviet Union spend more money than they had on space related programs, help shorten the Cold War a bit.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Omnifarious]

There is no such thing as human rights. That's just an idea. Someone made it up. At best, "human rights" can be considered a 'game rule' of the various blends of democracies that exist around the world. But none of these so-called rights actually exist in the physical world.

I'm going to have to go read my John Locke so I have some good arguments to borrow, but my general feeling is that your relativist arguments about this are a complete load of BS.

Certainly whether or not humans rights are protected or not depends on how much people are willing to stand up for an ideal, but I think the ideal itself has a firmer basis than the random opinions of a bunch of people. If might or majority opinion makes right, then we might as well tear up the constitution right now. Most people would prefer it not be adhered to.

In the U.S., rich people used their economic power to bribe congressmen to create the U.S. medical system.

I don't believe this is an accurate description of the current patchwork of local laws and employer sponsored insurance that we currently have.

And besides, what makes you think that's not exactly what will happen when Democrats start pushing for some kind of nationalized health care system? If you don't think that, you are seriously deluded. One of the chief reasons I do not support Hillary for president is the illegal smoky back room in which she crafted the Clinton health care initiative with the aid of all the major insurance companies.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[BgJonson79]

It may be inadequate for running a modern country (though I don't think so), but that's why it's so easy to change. Well, the method is very easy. All you have to get is a supermajority of the Congress and States to agree with you. Simple.

And, logically speaking, anyone over 18 that has anything bad happen to them is their own fault. They haven't taken the initiative to kill themselves and because of that, their healthcare problems are their own damn fault. WTF should they have to pay for me, or me for them?

Yes, that's what happens with private insurance. But in that case, we're all volunteers and not forced (taxes -> IRS -> police with guns) to be insured. Also, wouldn't that mean people could tell me I couldn't smoke because it's costing them money? Sounds like a great way to restrict freedoms to me.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[fyngyrz]

Very interesting, thank you.

In the USA, I see multiple sets of cascading problems.

One has nodes at lawsuit/tort law, liability insurance for medical professionals and institutions, and what I consider to be unacceptably harsh conditions involved in learning medicine, resulting a scarcity of what the law would consider qualified professionals. These all contribute enormously (and unnecessarily IMHO) to base costs.

Another set has nodes at uninsurables (for instance, someone who has been diagnosed with diabetes... they can't get insurance at any rational cost), at scammers (naturopaths to chiropractors to new-agerery to colloidal silver hawkers to GNC stores), at the insurance industry's unwillingness to take on or incorporate higher risk situations into the general pools, and at the actual inability for a very large percentage of the country to afford major medical costs of any kind.

While I agree with you that healthcare is not a right, either in the sense of a constitutionally enumerated or even derived right or in the sense of an abstract human right, I think it can be accurately described as a need and in that sense, it is very nearly universal, so much so that I am comfortable just saying "health care is a universal need."

Under the present circumstances, in addition to being a universal need, healthcare is extremely expensive, far beyond the ability of the majority of individuals to cope with the costs of any sudden serious medical service. I could sit in judgement of why this is so, but I think that is somewhat pointless at this juncture.

The fact is, if your average citizen was suddenly handed a diagnosis of breast cancer, the thirty grand we were just billed for my sweetheart's radiation, remote housing, radiology and path studies, lumpectomy and follow-ups would take said citizen from the knife-edge of a month to month budget right into bankruptcy, presuming they could not afford insurance. And this was something that they had an established procedure to deal with, involved only about an hour of surgery, and 6 weeks of ten minutes a day of 20+MeV radiation therapy. Imagine the bill if we were trying to deal with a metastasized cancer, or if her diabetes had caused some kind of serious complications. Insurance? Not an option. Deb is a diabetic.

Then there is well-care. We (Deb, they're mine by osmosis) have three boys, aged 30, 26, and 20. When the 30-year old was born, Deb was making about $5.00 an hour. Having the kid was $250 to the doctor, and $250 to the hospital for a normal birth. When the 26-year old was born by complication-free cesarian, she was still making $5.00 an hour, but the doctor got $1200, and the hospital about $2400. When the 20 year old was born, also by complication-free cesarian, she was making $5.50 an hour, the doctor got $5000, and the hospital got $5000. All three births were in Wyoming. Those bills were all paid without insurance, because Deb is a diabetic, and basically uninsurable. But they were paid; while these were unplanned and attempts were made to avoid them (she was on birth control all three times) pregnancies are never actually accidents — if you don't want a kid, simply don't have intercourse, it is totally avoidable — and Deb is a responsible human being.

So on the one hand, we have need, and on the other, we have costs not really coming from medical care, but out of the legal system and out of the insurance industry on two levels. People get sick and care is strongly desired for entirely understandable reasons - physical distress isn't something easily mediated by trying to rationalize your position. Most people can't afford such care on a sudden basis, and we really don't know who will need what, clearly some people get all the way through life without any incidents at all, while others fall ill or become injured repeatedly. Pooling finds from everyone such that as fate lets us know who is actually going to need the care seems to me to be a rational, reasonable

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Mr. Flibble]

It is not that it is illegal per say - but the SERVICE is almost so. So, basically you can't pay for service in Canada if you want to, because the option barely exists. You must go through the system. There is only one private clinic in the entire city of Vancouver as far as I am aware. As you might guess, it is busy. People are also angry that it exists at all, which confuses me.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[uhlume]

The comment to which he was replying wasn't making a simple correlation claim, so that explanation doesn't wash.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Rich0]

You are correct that I did not understand that healthcare is under the purvue of the provinces. I was apparently correct that it was the intent of the Quebec government to ban private health care.

According to the article the state doesn't seem to like the ruling and is looking for ways to work around it.

In any case, we both seem to be in agreement that even a nation which has public healthcare should allow its citizens to arrange private care, and that would be my main point.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[jinxidoru]

I think many of the people you disagree with would also disagree with the word "luck" in this statement. You know, they might think they actually earned the money by working hard when maybe they didn't have to (in school, work, etc) and now have gotten their just rewards over those who didn't do those things. For most people, money didn't come magically down from the sky and just happened to fall on them. They worked hard for it.

Ahh, one of the pernicious lies of American capitalism: work = prosperity. There is a relationship. Everything else being equal, yes, a person who works harder is going to generally do better, but everything else is not equal. We are all born into different situations. I was born into a household that had sufficient means to which I was able to attend school. I learned to program a computer when I was 10 because my parents had the means to purchase a computer for the family (but not the means for it to be a good computer). My family had the means for me to attend high school rather than go out and work to support the family. I never studied in school, I was simply born with a high IQ. I don't know how a high IQ is attributable to my working hard. There is element after element outside of my control which has enabled me to be a successful person. Granted, there was a base level of work that was necessary. I couldn't just sit around watching TV all day, but there was a lot more necessary. And actually, what have people like Paris Hilton done to deserve their riches? Nothing, that's the answer. The hardest workers I've ever met have almost invariably been the poorest. I have known quite a few illegal immigrants. I will never work as hard as they do on a daily basis, and yet they will never have as much as I have. No, the simple truth is that output does not imply input in the United States.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[thesandtiger]

Okay, now I get you - and yeah, that does suck, but that's "difficult," not "FORBIDDEN."

I live in the US, and have pretty good insurance, but I needed a treatment where, even with my insurance, it would have cost over $60,000 out of pocket. Instead I went overseas and got equally solid treatment (and a MUCH more congenial recuperative environment as well as VASTLY superior nursing care once I'd left the hospital) that wound up costing a bit under $20,000 including air-fare and accomodations etc. Medical tourism might be the way to go for your mother - either to the US if you can afford it or somewhere with more sane prices if not.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[vecctor]

People like Paris Hilton are outliers - and not in great abundance. They wouldn't be affected whether you taxed them more or not.

The illegal immigrant thing is irrelevant, as they are not citizens and wouldn't (or rather shouldn't) be privy to a national benefits system. They work in the manner they do because they don't have a choice (being illegal means you have less options . . as it should since they are breaking the law).

Aside from that, scarce resources can only take you so far on the excuse train. The fact is, massive program exist to help disadvantaged people get out of ruts. One of my roomates in college was black, and was on a full ride scholarship to my school because of it. He didn't work hard and eventually just dropped out while people like me who worked through school could have used that free ride and would have used/appreciated it rather than waste it. So he couldn't even conjure that "base level of work" (as you put it) even with everything else being handed to him. If I didn't work hard whilst in high school / college (both academically and job-wise) I wouldn't have what I have - so you can't tell me it was just handed to me and I should be thankful.

The intelligence thing is a non-starter as well. You bring up your own anecdotal evidence, but I have plenty of my own. People that were way smarter (naturally talented / "born with it") than me, everything came easy, but pissed it away because they were lazy. Some of them went to drugs, and are in ruts, others just kind of coasted through life and don't take responsibility. Likewise, I know people that aren't as naturally quick/smart as I am, but know far more and are more capable because they applied brute force learning (massive studying). Intelligence is not sufficient.

Likewise hard work alone is not sufficient, as you stated. You have to think ahead. Working hard physically at a dead end labor job is of course not going to amount to much, but nobody is fooled into thinking it is, and you can apply that work ethic to getting some education and working your way up - even with few means.

Likewise, the number of teens that have to drop out of school "to support the family" is low to non-existent this day and age. Any family at that level is already paying little to no taxes and is eligible for public assistance in so many ways its silly; their kids have the opportunity to go to school if they have the desire. You just have to have the ambition and work ethic to do so, and many don't. It is of course somewhat easier for some than others, but it is not totally outside one's control as you claim. People are not doomed from birth (what a defeatist attitude) and favorable initial circumstances are not a panacea for success.

I occasionally read the blog of a guy who was born to a single-parent welfare home who is now the CEO of his own software company (Stardock, if you know them).

Sadly, excuses have become the norm so people don't have to take responsibility for their lives. Our circumstances do not totally define us - what we do with them has a big impact.

Regardless of what you are I think, I was simply playing devils advocate and pointing out other people's thinking. When one thinks as you do, of course the answer is as you say - but many people do not. I saw many people that replied to other pieces of your post, so I didn't address them, but thinking life is all luck just stuck out at me from the rest.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[vecctor]

Pure coincidence - I happened upon this post just now that expresses the same sort of thing, with a different point:

http://www.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=153749

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure health care was cheaper before government regulation, but you were also more likely than not to find a quack. Rising life expectancies since the enactment of anti-quackery regulations suggest that while the cost might have gone up, the cost/benefit ratio has improved.

Plus, France and Canada aren't exactly bastions of free-market liberalism.... Is there any historical example of free market healthcare showing improvements over regulated health care?

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[dangitman]

Don't all the futurists and physicists and wicked smaht people think we need to colonize other planets/ areas/ moons/ etc. in the event that the Earth gets all screwed up, either from ourselves or something else? If all we've got is Earth and that goes away, we're hosed.

But taking a joyride to the moon hasn't done anything at all to advance our technology or methods for colonizing other planets. It was mostly for political propaganda.

Oh, we made the Soviet Union spend more money than they had on space related programs, help shorten the Cold War a bit.

Talk about damning with faint praise!

What if shortening the Cold War actually enabled our enemies? Gave them more time to regroup and whatnot? It's quite likely that the collapse of the Soviet union actually gave weapons and encouragement to our current terrorist enemies, and eliminated a major enemy of theirs that distracted them from attacking the US. If it had gone on for longer, our enemies might be even more screwed. In fact, your comment basically says that space travel was bad for the defense of the Soviet Union. It could have easily been America sending ourselves bankrupt on space programs. This is all very sketchy - some vague unintended effects as justification, without any real evidence of the space program actually helping to protect America in concrete ways.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Abcd1234]

You are correct that I did not understand that healthcare is under the purvue of the provinces. I was apparently correct that it was the intent of the Quebec government to ban private health care.

According to the article the state doesn't seem to like the ruling and is looking for ways to work around it.

What's especially interesting about that case is that the ruling was based on the idea that, because a) the Quebec Charter of Rights lists healthcare as guaranteed, and b) the public system has failed to provide service to some individuals, that c) banning private delivery violated the charter. What this implies is that, if the public system were overhauled to fix it's deficiencies, then perhaps the ruling could be overturned (though Quebec looks like it may just use the oh-so-evil not-withstanding-clause).

Regardless, it is vital to note this is purely an issue within Quebec, which happens to be one of the most left-leaning (aka, "socialist") provinces in the country. In Canada, the provinces have a great deal of autonomy on how they deliver healthcare services. However, in order to receive federal transfer payments (basically, federal healthcare subsidies), they must meet the requirements outlined in the Canada Health Act, which, among other things, states that:

"the health care insurance plan of a province must be administered and operated on a non-profit basis by a public authority appointed or designated by the government of the province;"

Note, this does not ban private clinics. It only states that the province must provide a public, non-profit health insurance system.

Of course, if a province had the necessary funds, they could forgo transfer payments entirely and implement a private system, however there would likely be no public support for such a move.

In any case, we both seem to be in agreement that even a nation which has public healthcare should allow its citizens to arrange private care, and that would be my main point.

I would generally agree with that, in principle. IMO, the key is that a public system must be available to ensure universality of care.

However, that's not to say such a system is flawless. A parallel, private system may draw personelle and resources away from the public system with higher salaries, more cutting edge facilities, etc, thus harming the public system. Of course, it's unclear if this truly happens in practice, but it is a risk.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[fimbulvetr]

Interesting to see that someone is stupid enough to entertain differences between the USMC and say, GSA/PBS.

I highly doubt that the USMC is the epitome of frugality, but it's hard not to see the DHS (or any number of other places) bleeding money out of their assholes.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[Rich0]

However, that's not to say such a system is flawless. A parallel, private system may draw personelle and resources away from the public system with higher salaries, more cutting edge facilities, etc, thus harming the public system. Of course, it's unclear if this truly happens in practice, but it is a risk.

Such a course of action is not only possible, but very likely given the tendency of legislative bodies to impose rules and not spend the cash needed to implement them. I'm not sure I'd necessarily consider it a flaw, however - it is just competition. If a public system wants to maintain resources it has to spend money on them competitively. Of course, in the long term public care loses out if it doesn't spend enough whether or not there is competition with private care, because there is always competition with the rest of the economy. It is just more obvious when all the doctors go to work at the private hospital.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[big_paul76]

Can anybody tell me why americans resist a canadian-style system? Seriously, do you like wondering if your chemotherapy will require you to sell your house? Do you like having to wonder if your insurance company will drop you now that you've had a heart-attack? For every dollar spend on healthcare, canada spends 5-10 cents. The US system spends at least 25 cents (depending on who's numbers you believe). So why does anybody who doesn't work for an insurance company support this? And, besides, what's so great about devolving powers to the state level rather than the federal, anyway? All of the big projects get done by way of federal funding anyway.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[jinxidoru]

I love this, you criticize me for being anecdotal, then proceed to provide anecdote after anecdote. Are you honestly claiming that people born from affluent families do not have a higher chance of success in life? Are you completely unaware of an almost endless amount of statistical data backing up the fact that who you are strongly affects who you will be? Even the very fact that one works hard while another is lazy has so much to do with both nature and nurture. I most be misunderstanding you, because you cannot possibly believe that. You cannot possibly be ignorant of the facts. I love how you summarily dismiss every example I gave as anecdotal, outlier, or irrelevant. Then you go on to give a whole list of anecdotes of your own. A better resource for you would have been to quote some studies rather than just some dude you know. I can clearly do the exact same thing in the opposite direction. Your simple anecdotal evidence is worth zero, zilch, nada.

They work in the manner they do because they don't have a choice

Thank you for corroborating my point. Their circumstances are such that they have no choice but to work hard, ridiculously hard.

People like Paris Hilton are outliers - and not in great abundance. They wouldn't be affected whether you taxed them more or not.

Are you serious? Socialites that ride their lives on their parents coat-tails are the outliers. I can give you a list of people who have succeeded by little action of their own simply because their parents are filthy rich. I'm sure you could if you stopped for a moment and thought about it. Hell, we have one as our president right now.

but thinking life is all luck just stuck out at me from the rest.

I apologize if that is the impression I gave. I can see how my previous post could be construed as to mean just that. No, I am not a Calvinist, I do not believe in predestination. But I do believe that our current situation is strongly affected by the circumstances into which we are born. Basically it all comes to down to a confused syllogism. A implies B does not mean B implies A. So, I will accept that the harder you work the more successful you are. Therefore, work => prosperity. Unfortunately, many people make the logical fallacy of flipping the syllogism. They take the previous syllogism to mean that prosperity => work, but you just can't do that. In other words, dog => animal is true but animal => dog is not. I hope you see the logical fallacy. And I wish I could remember the name for this type of logical fallacy. Let me tell you why I referred to this lie as "pernicious." I have seen so many examples of people taking the assumption that prosperity => work and resolving that it's people's own damn fault that they have problems. We shouldn't help them because they F'd up their own lives. I just can't in good conscience live with that world view.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[jinxidoru]

Wow! It must be awesome living in a world completely unfettered by the bounds of logic and evidence.

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[vecctor]

I wasn't criticizing your use of anecdotal evidence, per se. I took your use of it to to mean you think it as good enough, and so figured I would throw in my own, to provide opposite examples. (hence me saying "I've got plenty of my own")

I also clearly acknowledged the correlation between "who you are and who you will be" that you bring up with this statement:

It is of course somewhat easier for some than others, but it is not totally outside one's control as you claim. So yes, you misunderstand.

As for my corroboration of your one point there, I also mentioned a reason why and also why its outside the discussion (you may have read that, but just wanted to make sure because you didn't quote it). Plus I was talking about one specific group, not broadly.

I think I made it pretty clear that I was not subscribing to that A/B fallacy you describe (which, btw, could be considered "Affirming the consquence" ? idk, I don't remember them all). I stated very clearly that it is not "the only thing that matters" (which is the "prosperity => work" as you put it) but I take issue with saying "it doesn't matter at all" or that "circumstances are all that matters" (which is what my points were specifically to refute - they weren't to imply anything more). That was all I was saying, and really as far as I want to go with it here, as this could quickly wend off into a discussion of the broader generational view, making a better life for your family/posterity, "the American dream", etc. that I don't really want to get into.

Just for the record, I don't subscribe to the "its all their own fault" pet peeve that you explain as causing your feelings, so there is no need to paint my comments with that brush. I think giving to people that are genuinely in need of assistance is good. For example, I had no problem with that roomate I described getting assistance, but I would be lying to say it didn't annoy me that he threw it away a gift that I was paying for out of pocket. "Give a man a fish" and all that, I guess.

But playing devil's advocate again, "its not their fault at all" could be seen as a total abrogation of personal responsibility. People blaming everything on their circumstances is as much a pet peeve for some as blaming it all on their actions is for you. A balance is definitely in order. For example, the welfare program where I live has a large job/work component to actually help people take care of themselves rather than just straight support. Additionally, I imagine that the sentiment you hate isn't necessarily (or wholly) because of the fallacy you described - I bet a lot of it is reactionary (e.g. seeing people in the inner city with fancy clothes/cars/phones and then seeing their community leaders complaining how poor they are and how there is nothing they can do about it). Just bringing up an another possibility (not advocating anything). If you ever search my posts, (no reason to :-) but just saying) you'd find that is mostly what they are - bringing up other points of view on minor parts (mostly because the shear bulk of posts on /. ensures the salient points are already dealt with, so I don't bother with taking them up).

Re:Here's the facts on Canadian health care

[jinxidoru]

I guess we agree, for the most part, in that case.

Not Even that Evil

[twitter]

Dreamchaser says and asks:

They are offering companies a PR service. I hope you're not saying that it's wrong to counter propaganda?

I'm not sure what they are doing is worse than any other advertisement. In fact, the Google way of advertising depends on a kind of community feedback that Google won't really sell. All they have to offer is relevance and the right place for the health care industry to try to put their weasel words. We can be sure that the only help Google will provide in the writing of those weasel words is a link to the forum shit storm that's about to erupt or a report of what's there. There, insurance companies and other "victims" of the truth will learn exactly what people think of them. If they are lucky and relevant, a Google adword might appear in the same forums. This is no more dirty than selling any other advertising space to insurance people. What's more, the insurance company can do all the research on their own if they want - anyone is free to Google the answer.

"Issue management" sounds sinister, and it would be if they let it mess with their core services. As it is, it's just an advert everyone is going to ignore while they Google the truth. If Google ever messes up their search engine, they are doomed.

Re:Not Even that Evil

[Seumas]

I'm sure they'd gladly advertise anything Michael Moore wanted to pay for, too.

And really, I don't see what the whole hype nor all the concern is about. Really, did you need some entertainment-oriented Michael Moore documentary to tell you that the health care system is generally fucked?

Just a quick observation...

[catdevnull]

Google is a large corporation trying to make lots of money on adverstising and promoting their clients--other corporations and businesses. This is business--big business. If you think these guys are sitting around like a bunch of disenchanted college sophomore lefties discussing ways to fight the establishment and spread egalitarianism throughout the known universe, you're wrong.

Google ain't the Peace Corps. They are trying to make a big, fat profit just like Exxon-Mobil.

All of those amenities at the Googleplex are there to help the Googlies feel better about how they're making their money--good, bad, or ugly.

Translation: Google will be your Propagandist.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Translation: Corporations of the world, Google will be your Propagandist if you pay us.

Google is EVIL.

Keh

[mpeters13]

Think what you will of Michael Moore. At the end of the day, there ARE people getting screwed by the healthcare system, whether you want to believe it or not.

Nice whitewash

[Anonymous Coward]

If it were anyone at all other than Google you'd be howling for blood and spelling their names with dollar signs. But it's Google, so it's all OK. Nothing to worry about.

"rationing"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you can also remove the extremely high percentage that we're paying for health care advertising, marketing, and administrative costs. Not to mention insurance company profits. The way to make US health care both cheaper and better is a single payer system. Do you know how much it costs providers to deal with all the different forms and codes for all the different insurance companies? Or buying TV ads to push one unneeded medication over another? We're wasting billions of dollars on this stuff, money that would be better spent keeping everyone healthy.

An HMO IS "rationing"! Having no insurance means you don't even get a "ration". "Rationing" is a scary buzzword (like immigration "amnesty") used to manipulate the ignorant.

He shouldn't have mentioned Cuba...

[Anonymous Coward]

...so that morons like you couldn't ignore all the other countries that have socialized health care in your arguments. Including Canada, GB, and France.

Then you wouldn't have the excuse of just saying how bad Cuba "obviously" is, because in the US "everyone knows that." Not like you actually proved anything you said. But you still got (Score:3, Insightful).

Re:Opposing Moore is evil? Not.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

BITE.

Funny. Pat Robertson said the same thing. He called Michael Moore a fat slob, and asked how could we take him seriously when he doesnt even take care of himself. I saw it with my own eyes. A supposed man of God, calling another human being a fat slob just to discredit him. How much more godly can you be? :)

Re:AN EASY WAY TO THE SOLVE THE COST PROBLEM

[soccer_Dude88888]

Help the U.S.A. rid of NIGGA! HEIL HITLER!!!

Thanks for Reminding me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone have a list of 'SiCKO supporting' podcasts?

Because it is propaganda

[JacksBrokenCode]

Why are we so quick to label Michael Moore's films as propaganda?

Because more often than not, Moore doesn't think that the facts are strong enough to stand on their own in support of his arguments. He feels a need to show only 1 side of issues, and more disturbingly he's been known to fabricate "facts" to make his points.

Moore's position seems to be that the end justifies the means. It's ok for him to lie & falsify information because at the end of the day he's trying to make a difference "for good". Unfortunately, his tactics aren't any different than the very people he lambasts so he's a hypocrite and his work is propaganda.

When Moore starts creating legitimate documentaries with a more objective point of view and lets the facts speak for themselves, people will stop labeling him a propagandist.

I think the biggest reason...

[Kjella]

...that universal healthcare works so much better than individual insurance is that it's really hard to determine treatment quality for an individual - each case is unique with its own development, own medical history and quite often we just don't understand why some patients recover so well or poor, or in extreme cases live and die. Often there's some religious or emotional answer given instead. If you got stuck in an operation queue for a month, did it kill you or did it make no difference? It's quite impossible to say. That means that in the US model, an insurance company is out to give you as little and cheap treatment as they can get away with, without being provable malpractise.

On an aggregate level though, it's easy to see what kind of healthcare we provide. We can make up statistics which show how we're doing for the people overall, and we can make socialeconomic considerations on whether to improve them. In short, we can say "If we could cut waiting lines by X%, recovery rates would improve by Y% and we'd recover Z% because people are shorter on sick leave. The US can make those statistics, but not govern by them. You instead go by rules like "If we replace this with inferior treatment, our costs will be cut by X% while our malpractise/wrongful death costs will increase by Y% (where X > Y). The best hospital case is the one you dropped like a hot potato, refused to insure and so left in a ditch. Here the best case is to pick them up, get them to change their lifestyle so they won't burden our system later. Basicly, the more likely you are to need help the less likely you'll get it.

Some of the arguments I hear are quite ridiculous, like if healthcare was free then people would abuse it. Look, you don't go doing extreme sports and go through all the trauma, pain and lengthy recovery just because it's free. The average guy would rather not have to deal with doctors and nurses and hospitals any more than they need to. Nobody asks for a mentally or physically son or daughter so they can have their life upended, no matter if we donate money for equipment and accessibility tools like guide dogs, hearing aids, wheelchairs, ramps and whatnot. Some people just got a big "fuck you" in the lottery of life, which society should work to undo.

Yes, some people are probably going to end up in healthcare because of their own lifestyle and/or stupidity. But it's not certain the guy who died of a stroke in his 50s is more of a burden than the 90yo slowly dying, in fact I've read some material to the contrary. Elderly people are notoriously expensive to treat, they're frail and often have complex health issues which makes them hard to treat with high risk of causing new issues and are slow to recover. Nursing homes for elderly which have trouble getting out of bed, clothing themselves, feeding themselves, going to the toilet, personal hygiene etc. quickly drain much more resources that younger people who usually either recover or die. In fact, that's likely to be the biggest problem with an aging population here in Europe, but it sure doesn't get easier the American way.

Re:I think the biggest reason...

[Billly Gates]

This is more of a problem with countries with free healthcare. Bearocrats and beancounters decide based on cost as well. As someone who has worked in both private and public I can say the public sector is the most cheap as they are not accountable like they are in the free market.

Re:I think the biggest reason...

[Big Hairy Goofy Guy]

Some of the arguments I hear are quite ridiculous, like if healthcare was free then people would abuse it.

This isn't ridiculous. This is an obvious statement of (pragmatic) reality.

Look, you don't go doing extreme sports and go through all the trauma, pain and lengthy recovery just because it's free. The average guy would rather not have to deal with doctors and nurses and hospitals any more than they need to.

And yet, doing extreme sports doesn't strike me as a major cause of preventable health issues in the US. But smoking, not exercising, eating X , or NOT eating Y, drinking alcohol (no wait ... in moderation it's good for you), not getting enough sleep, driving carelessly (or over the speed limit)...

Where X is some food compound (like fats, no wait ... it's hydrogenated fats, no wait ... it's carbohydrates, no wait ... it's high GL carbs) and Y is some other food compound (like omega-3 oils, no wait....)

I could go on, but maybe I should just say that the list of common, every-day choices people make when they are young and "don't want to deal with doctors" that affect their health care when they get older strikes me as more relavent than "extreme sports". But even that is a red-herring, as young people don't consume as much health care (in terms of cost) as older people, as you point out.

Nobody asks for a mentally or physically son or daughter so they can have their life upended, no matter if we donate money for equipment and accessibility tools like guide dogs, hearing aids, wheelchairs, ramps and whatnot. Some people just got a big "fuck you" in the lottery of life, which society should work to undo.

And again, this doesn't seem like the driver of costs in the US health care system. But let's say you were to make wheelchairs and hearing aids free, to help solve this big "fuck you" lottery? You know what I think I'd see? I'd see wheelchairs instead of grocery carts abandonded alongside the bustop and in alleys. I'd see hearing aids instead of cigarette butts in the gutters, as people cracked them open for their batteries. I don't even what to think about what would happen if guide dogs were free. I see what happens now to dogs (they're free to a good home at the pound) and it's enough to make you weep -- and for me it's enough to hate my fellow person, and I like cats better.

And I'd ask why don't you see this as abuse of the health care system.

You know, I think if you wanted people to be wasteful of gasoline, you could make it free even though no one reallly enjoys dealing with pumping gas. And if gas where free people would abuse gas. People would drive SUVs where it makes no sense to do so, or high performance sport cars for the daily commute, and public transport numbers would plummet. But if you want to make sure only people who REALLY need to use gas are the ones who do, you'd make it really expensive, and then only the richest people who absolutely need gas would be sure they could get what they "needed", while the ordinary joe would always be worried about it.

Which has nothing to do with creating a health care system that works. Just like ignoring the very real, and pervasive element of abuse is going to do NOTHING towards creating a health care system that works.

Re:I think the biggest reason...

[Kjella]

And again, this doesn't seem like the driver of costs in the US health care system. But let's say you were to make wheelchairs and hearing aids free, to help solve this big "fuck you" lottery? You know what I think I'd see? I'd see wheelchairs instead of grocery carts abandonded alongside the bustop and in alleys. I'd see hearing aids instead of cigarette butts in the gutters, as people cracked them open for their batteries. I don't even what to think about what would happen if guide dogs were free.

You're taking this to the point where it's hard to take you seriously, particularly since reality contradicts you. No, you don't get them the for free because you said you want a dozen. You get one for free after a doctor has made a claim that you have a medically valid reason to get one, and that application has been reviewed by the department responsible for handing them out. In general, there's very little abuse of this part of the system, there are two things which suffer abuse and that is disability support (cash) and drugs that drug addicts want to purchase.

Try faking being legally blind to your eye specialist, or fake a neurologist into believing you can't feel your legs. Chances are you'll be outed like a fraud before you even pass the initial examination with a general practitioner. When you get it, it's because you need it and you're not very likely to turn around and sell it second-hand. Not to mention that something like a wheelchair is typically tagged as being issued by the government and not for sale. Not that there's much of a market for second-hand wheelchairs or hearing aids to begin with, or you'd see burglars steal them from the elderly, which they don't.

I'm not sure what you think, do you think we're complete morons? In the US they just ask "Can you pay for it?", but we didn't replace that with a free buffet. We replaced it with "Do you need it?", where your medical condition and not your wallet decides if you get help or not. Yes, overall there's some arguments here and there over what should get covered or not, but definately not worse than over what the insurance should cover and not in the US. I get really frustrated with people that

Re:I think the biggest reason...

[MPAB]

I'm a doctor in Spain, a country with a socialized medical system perhaps second only to Cuba. There's a big chance of abuse just where it can do the biggest harm: AT THE ER.

Every night I get at least 20% of PERFECTLY SANE PEOPLE, distracting my time away from those in real risk of dying. And they show up at the minor heartburn or muscle cramp because they are "paying taxes and deserve treatment". Of course, being sane they can do the noisiest racket in order to be treated first.

There's also lots of people arriving to the ER with their grandparents just before Xmas or New Year's Eve and saying with a menacing grimace: "I think he should stay ... don't you think? God forbid something happened to him after you sent him home".

And perhaps the biggest problem with socialized medicine are the queues. Waiting lists of a year and a half for surgery on people that cannot afford private medicine because a big chunk of their salary goes to Social Security whether they like it or not. And, yes, the Ministry of Health sued Burger King over a Whopper commercial. When the state wants to cut the spending on people they just reach out to other facets of our lives. And that tends to spiral.

Re:Mod Parent Up!

[larry bagina]

All of the reviews of Die Hard 3 are that it kicks ass. That doesn't mean it's factual. Michael Moore's facts are looser than goatse man's asshole.

Re:Pfft

[Adambomb]

Just one calorie. Not evil enough.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

+5 Faggot

excellent comment

[circletimessquare]

in which case, the usa should study this chart (life expectancy by country) and simply copy whatever system is in place in the countries with the longest lived citizens

the usa will be achieving a great victory in its war against mortality by adopting whatever system prevails

and it seems to be the very countries where mortality isn't given as much credence as it is in the usa

so there you go

Re:excellent comment

[evilviper]

simply copy whatever system is in place in the countries with the longest lived citizens

Except death rate can be significant affected by diverse factors, some of which may be impractical to try and control such as lifestyle, and others of which simple can't be controlled, such as climate.

I really do hate nation-by-nation comparisons. Many nations are too large to be considered a uniform group... Andorra, for example, is a country smaller than many American cities. I'm sure if you looked in western nations, you'd find several equivalently sized/populated area inside many countries, which also have abnormally long life-spans as well. #2 on the list, Macau, is far, far smaller still.

Absolutely staggered...

[salparadyse]

...at the level of hard hearted, sneering ignorance in some of the posts on this subject. Let me make a guess here - a reasonable proportion/most of the responders are Americans who can afford Medical Insurance.
Rarely have I heard such sneering disdain for the poor and for documentary makers. Michael Moore makes films that try to show you what has happened to your country and mostly all you can seem to do is sneer at him.
The attitude of "pay or fuck off and die in the gutter" is not acceptable in a civilised human being. What, do you think it's cool to be mega-wealthy and then refuse help to someone who's in need? What has happened to your humanity?
And some hopeless retard actually said "socialism is a bad idea". What, and the fucked up, society wrecking, planet consuming filth called capitalism is better?
Socialism is your only hope, its just that those who make the most money from this retarded capitalism thing have a vested interest in promoting socialism as a stupid evil that would spoil everything because it would spoil everything - for them. And you've fallen for it. Well duh! is, I think, the correct response at this juncture.

As for Google...
After China are you really that surprised? It's surely more a case of, if they go mega evil slowly enough most of you will still be trumpeting the fact that "hey, but they use Linux" when the google-bot delivers the evidence against you in the google-court.

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[sycomonkey]

I am a relatively poor guy who is completely uninsured. When I had to get my wisdom teeth out I paid for it out of pocket, which was obviously extremely difficult, but I had to do it. Moore does NOT make documentaries, he makes opinion pieces. Documentaries are designed to document facts, leaving conclusions up to the viewer. It's the video equivalent of journalism. Moore makes movies specifically designed to support a particular point of view. This is normally called propaganda, but that's a loaded term now. "Opinionated Film" might be a good word for it, I'm not sure. But it's not a documentary. The US health care system IS broken, but I hardly need Moore to tell me that. It should be patently obvious to anyone who is paying any attention to the situation, regardless of his political affiliation, coverage status, or income. It is upsetting that we still haven't penned the solution, but I believe someday we will, and that will hopefully be soon. I don't like the fact that you rail against capitalism when capitalist companies have done the vast majority of medical research in this country (in all fields of science, actually. The transistor was invented by Bell Labs). Companies require oversight to prevent them from causing harm to people in the quest for money (i.e. environmental legislation, etc.), but they are a vital component of the modern society. The correct answer is a mixture of socialism and capitalism, where the government only takes as much tax as it needs, and only interferes in situations that require oversight. Google & China: Google was presented with two options by the Chinese government: Censor stuff, or don't provide service in China. They made the obvious choice. They probably are very unpleased with it, it's bad for PR and probably costs a lot of money to implement. But the blame is entirely on the Chinese government.

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[Anonymous Coward]

People seem to want a silver bullet - Republican or Democrat, socialism or capitalism, etc. about everything because then they can be right. It's really weird. Everybody likes oxygen, let's have a 99% O2 atmosphere, boy that would really kick ass and it would stop people from smoking too (or living for very long).
I saw one of Michael Moore's documentaries and I think it's kind of funny how he is a sleazebag underdog. The bad guys can use propaganda all they want and it's unremarkable, but if you want to do the right thing then you are stuck with honesty and integrity. Even if Michael Moore is just an opportunist exploiting exploited people to become a rich celebrity sleazebag - so what? It's like people who are against cleaning up the environment because it will cost trillions of dollars, that's great - I don't understand why sleazy corporations aren't jumping on the Green bandwagon simply because there is a lot of money to be made and a lot of jobs created. Do the right thing for the wrong reasons, fuck it. Why can only the bad guys be evil, Google has to eat too, so let them have their fun. Let Michael Moore have his fun. Whatever. Even a hardcore God fearing red blooded American should be able to grasp that there is opportunity in promoting communism, socialism, tree hugging... shit.. why do they only think you can be American masters of the universe by promoting fascism, censorship, disposablism, fucking over poor people, and all that. You could get rich helping the poor - nobody seems to gets it.
Make biased underdog propaganda, lobby for laws to clean up the environment prior to purchasing air scrubber stocks - get with the fucking program.

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[salparadyse]

The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe
Lovely sig!

Yes, ranting for breakfast - never the best idea to post within half an hour of awaking. Maybe "unfettered capitalism" would have been a better term.

Here in the UK we effectively no longer have free dentistry and the prices are stupidly high for private treatment - I couldn't afford Medical Insurance even if I was prepared to pay for it - so we are descending back in to the middle ages again - lots of people with terrible teeth. I put the blame squarely on the Gov' that said "we can't stop dentists going private" - lies of course- if the Gov' couldn't stop them - who could? Once you allow greed into the welfare system it's only a matter of time before there is no welfare left. There's no profit in helping those who can't help themselves.

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[lysse]

Socialism is your only hope

I have to say, I think you just lost your audience.

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[bryan1945]

"Let me make a guess here - a reasonable proportion/most of the responders are Americans who can afford Medical Insurance.
Rarely have I heard such sneering disdain for the poor and for documentary makers. Michael Moore makes films that try to show you what has happened to your country and mostly all you can seem to do is sneer at him."

My uncle was diagnosed with (turned out to be terminal after 4 years) cancer, and shortly thereafter my grandmother had to be into a home due to Alzheimer's. My family (grandfather, dad, mom, and myself) had nowhere near enough money to pay for their expenses, as well as taking as much time off as we could to be with them. Medicaid (or is it Medicare, I get them confused) and Social Security payments kept being pushed off and off, while their debts kept going up. So I wrote their respective Congressmen and Senators, and the state governor, and behold they started getting help within a month. Yes, my immediate family (dad, mom, me) have med insurance through our jobs, but it didn't extend to them. So they eventually got government help. I don't sneer at the poor. I don't like Moore because he seems like a complete propagandist. Even though we don't have a socialist health care system, there are other places to look for help besides private insurance. Medicare, all kinds of community programs, some of the big non-profit disease centers offer help. I know that not everyone will be able to get help this way, but I don't think putting people on 12 month waiting lists is a big improvement overall.

Yeah, they (and my other grandmother and 2 pets) all died that calendar year. By the 3rd funeral we were joking about getting life insurance policies on each other.....

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[man_ls]

It's not that they can't form a legislative solution, it's that the legislative solution would virtually entirely eliminate the service that was trying to be preserved in the first place. If dentistry were socialized, it would be regulated such that procedures cost £X (and thusly, dentist's incomes are a multiple of X) and must be available meeting certain criteria. Dentists who aren't willing to practice at the £X level would leave the practice of dentistry entirely and pick up something else. Possibly even something lower paying and less stressful.

If the government is in a crisis about cheap dental care disappearing because dentists are going private, at least dental care isn't disappearing entirely, which is what would happen in the situation where they weren't permitted to do so. It's a very nice Catch-22: dentistry is getting too expensive for common people, but if they regulate dentistry to be more affordable to everyone, there will be no dentistry for anyone.

Sure, there'd be some who would stay on full-time or at reduced hours at least, because they felt it was the "right thing to do" but you're still stuck with waiting lists, and generally the same nightmarish problems that one can describe in any socialized medical situation.

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[salparadyse]

Why is that?
Is it because Socialism is discredited in much the same way that communism is discredited - despite the fact it's yet to be practiced properly? Or because such is the weight of negative propaganda against it by those who fear such a system? Or because you genuinely have problems with socialism.

Socialism So"cial*ism, n. [Cf. F. socialisme.]
A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.

The dictionary goes on to say...
In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme.
So which "Socialsim" are you objecting to - the dictionary definition or the "now come to mean" popular misuse of the term?

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[Snaller]

"Documentaries are designed to document facts, leaving conclusions up to the viewer."

That is your opnion, it is not the opinion of educated people in most of the rest of the world. A documentary is supposed to have an OPINION as well.

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[BgJonson79]

If it has opinion, it's an editorial. If had has "Just the facts, ma'am," then it's a documentary.

If your facts are good, you don't need to opine on anything.

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[The Living Fractal]

...with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.

That sounds great. When you figure out a way to get people to want to live in a country/state like this, let me know. Because I'm going to be watching pigs fly in a frozen hell at that time.

Many, many people want the chance to be RICH, to be POWERFUL, to have WEALTH and to DO WHAT THEY WANT. Tell me how an equitable distribution of property and labor fits into that desire? Tell me how a country full of these people will be succesful at anything, or how they will excel at certain things that are driven by the aforementioned desires?

Socialism has no DRIVE. It cannot succeed.

TLF

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[curunir]

And some hopeless retard actually said "socialism is a bad idea"

I know it wasn't your assertion, but I'll comment anyways.

I'm sick and tired of people equating universal health care as socialism. It's not. It's one of many things that just don't work well when privatized. Things like fire fighters, policemen, road construction and last-mile telephone/cable are all things that create a huge mess when multiple businesses compete. We've realized this and granted either a monopoly to some company or made the service provider a government entity. Does this make us socialist? You'd be hard pressed to find even the most die-hard capitalist to argue that these services be de-regulated and allow competition from multiple companies.

Health care is just another one of these types of services. If we went with a universal health care system, a generation from now people would view health care just as they view the services listed above today. It would simply make sense to them. There would be no socialist connotation. This would especially be the case if we went the regulated monopoly route. IIRC, a while ago the CEO of BCBS of California proposed a universal health care program for all Californians. His claim was that his company could provide care for all patients with the money that is currently being spent on health care. The red tape really does cost us that much.

The other aspect of the universal health care that I wish got more attention is that it would be an incredible boon to American businesses. If the burden for paying for health care was removed from the employer, our companies could compete on equal footing against foreign companies who don't pay for the health care of their employees currently. I've wondered for a while now why those companies don't stand up against the companies in the health care industry who spend all that money lobbying against universal health care. Shouldn't the whole of businesses outside the health care field be able to bring to bear more influence in Washington than those that profit from the current system?

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[lysse]

Why is that?

Because it seems to me that most of the people you're trying to persuade will choke on that statement and refuse to consider anything you say any further.

So which "Socialsim" are you objecting to...

Beware of unwarranted assumptions. I'm British, moderately left-inclined, and staunchly anarchist - which socialism do you think I'd be objecting to?

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[Anonymous Coward]

I get free dentistry where I live in Shropshire (UK) - though all the English dentists seem to have disappeared and I'm treated by Poles and dentists from elsewhere in Europe. Not what I would have wished but it's better than nothing ...

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[Snaller]

"If it has opinion, it's an editorial. If had has "Just the facts, ma'am," then it's a documentary"

In your opinion. The rest of the world has never had a problem with commentary to opnions, infact they insist upon it.

"If your facts are good, you don't need to opine on anything."

Of course you do - people have different opinons about facts.

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[dangitman]

If it has opinion, it's an editorial. If had has "Just the facts, ma'am," then it's a documentary.

Uhhh, no. You just invented that definition of "docuemntary" on your own. Moast documentaries express opinions, and we don't call them "editorials," nor is there any reason to do so.

What's your motivation in wanting only those films which show "just the facts" and no opinion to qualify as "documentary"? Is it because you want to somehow say there is less legitimacy to producing a film with an opinion than there is to producing one that doesn't say anything? Why do you want to do that?

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[salparadyse]

Yes - motivation is the killer.
Many, many people want the chance to be RICH, to be POWERFUL, to have WEALTH and to DO WHAT THEY WANT.
Yes, I know - depressing is it not? Entranced by the portrayal of the rich as without constraint. Maybe if constraint was placed upon them less people would want to be like them. I speak lightly on this - realising as I do the enormity of the task.

None of this makes me feel less strongly about these things - just depressed.

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[salparadyse]

But I/we can still dream can we not?
Clearly, we cannot continue for too long as we are. Historically, when the rich start to take the piss big style, society comes apart and revolutions begin to foment.
We seem to be living in one those times when "the rich" have lost all sense of decorum or reality.
It'll end in tears.

So which "Socialsim" are you objecting to...
I don't know you at all, hence the question. It was meant as a genuine question and not a preconceived judgement.

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[TummyX]

one of this makes me feel less strongly about these things - just depressed.


Instead of being depressed why not follow Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Kill all capitalists, intellectuals, anyone else who could threaten your "socialist paradise".

Have you thought that the reason socialism hasn't been "properly implemented" is because it can't be?

One day you might understand that the only way to have your the socialist paradise you yearn to masturbate over is to CONTROL people, and to deprive them of their individual liberty.

There is absolutely no reason why someone like you should dicatate to me what I may or may not do. I don't want you to tell me that I can't save up what meager resources I may have, use my creative talents to add value to them and then sell them to someone who wants it. You cannot elimiate inequality -- it is impossible. You can make everyone wear the same clothes, eat the same food, etc but there will always be someone who can use his brain, looks, whatever to make himself wealthier than other people.

I'm sure you feel really good about yourself that you are "depressed" about the world because of the evils of capitalism. Saying how depressed you and having a sense of loathing about your culture probably makes you feel less guilty. I advise you to use the system to your advantage. Work, earn money and then give that money to people who need it more than you. You could start by selling your computer and cancelling your internet connection (products of capitalism and totally unnecessary) and giving the money to the poor.

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[AK Marc]

Any pure system can't be implemented. Capitalism has never succeeded and never will. Nor has pure Communism ever been tried, or Socialism, or anything else. Well, except Monarchy, but that was one that was essentially defined after the governments existed, and there are no more of those and never will be. Since none of them can be "properly implemented" it makes that an invalid arguement against any one of them.

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[BgJonson79]

>>What's your motivation in wanting only those films which show "just the facts" and no opinion to qualify as "documentary"?

Because facts should stand on their own. I don't need someone else telling me how to interpret them.

>>Is it because you want to somehow say there is less legitimacy to producing a film with an opinion than there is to producing one that doesn't say anything?

To me, opinions have less legitimacy because that's all they are. Facts are, by definition, irrefutable. Why would I need to opine the irrefutable?

Interestingly enough, in all my posts on this Slashdot story, nobody has yet asked me if I agree with Mr. Moore's films.

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[BgJonson79]

Why in the world would I want to hear what someone else has to say about facts? Don't facts, by definition, speak for themselves?

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[martian265]

You actually called Michael Moore a documentary maker? WTH, have you never watched one of his "documentaries"? He is nothing more than a lobbyist with a camera. Calling his films documentaries is like calling Britney Spears a trained Opera singer.

Oh yeah, and universal healthcare FTW (yeah right, like that will ever happen in this country).

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[Snaller]

"Don't facts, by definition, speak for themselves?"

As I said people have different opinions about facts.

Fact: "In the US there were 53 executions in 2006"
One opinion: Great!
Other opnion: Deeply inhumane!

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[TummyX]

I can't believe you said that. You can't compare systems because they're all imperfect? We're not trying to identify perfection here, just which is better overall.

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[salparadyse]

I've seen all of his films.
Oh yeah, and universal healthcare FTW (yeah right, like that will ever happen in this country).
Agreed.
This is not argument against it happening though. There are far far more of us being ripped off than doing the ripping off. Strength in numbers and all that.
If I spoke out against anything, it was the tacit agreement with the propaganda that Universal Healthcare is either not-doable or undesirable. Both are lies spread by those who make bazillions out of suffering.

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[dangitman]

Because facts should stand on their own. I don't need someone else telling me how to interpret them.

But what does that have to do with documentaries not being documentaries just because they include opinions? That aside, I think you're wrong. Opinion is not somebody telling you how to interpret them, it's just someone offering their opinion on their interpretation.

I also really doubt you can interpret obscure facts from outside your area of expertise. If you weren't a biologist, wouldn't it help to have an expert on biology giving you an overview of what the facts imply? One of the roles of documentary is to introduce subjects to lay people in a way they can digest. Plus, they could get really boring without opinions. And what about documentaries on subjects like politics or religion, where everything is subjective and bound to opinion?

To me, opinions have less legitimacy because that's all they are. Facts are, by definition, irrefutable.

That's where you have it wrong. What we take for "fact" is often later disproved. on the other side of the coin, sometimes opinions are ahead of what are considered fact, in terms of accuracy.

Interestingly enough, in all my posts on this Slashdot story, nobody has yet asked me if I agree with Mr. Moore's films.

Why should they? It's not really of any interest to me whether you agree with Moore or not. Why do you find that so interesting?

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[BgJonson79]

>>What we take for "fact" is often later disproved.

Then it's not a fact, is it? :-)

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[BgJonson79]

I guess that's where my views appear to differ from that of Slashdot Nation. To me, the fact is just as you've said, that there were 53 executions. Whether or not the recipients were deserving or if it's inhumane isn't a fact, so therefore it's not something I would concern myself with.

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[AK Marc]

But wait, the comment I was responding to was talking about how "socialism" is bad. It wasn't about "the way it is done in France is bad" but the generic unimplemented system that doesn't exist. So, we are to compare multiple systems that do not exist, have never existed, and base opinions on flawed hybrid systems on some never-seen hypothetical? That's just absurd. Don't compare the pure and use that as a reason why the hybrid will work or is a failure. If you want to do that, then a computer will work just fine when submerged in distilled water. It doesn't have any ions, so it doesn't conduct electricity. And it's cheaper than the mineral oil submersion systems. So water is obviously the best solution. It doesn't matter that no one has ever figured out how to keep ions from forming eventually in the water, causing it to conduct electricty and fry the electronics in it, it is theoretically the best solution so we should use it and no others. Or would you agree that arguing the "pure" but unobtainable is a pointless exercise?

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[dangitman]

Then it's not a fact, is it? :-)

That's the problem. It's impossible to have a "just the facts" documentary. They were considered facts at the time, so if we had made your hypothetical fact-no-opinion documentary, then ultimately it would have been misleading. Opinion could have mitigated the problem (or compounded it, depending on the opinion).

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[sycomonkey]

A film that bring to light the right facts can speak volumes, without distorting the viewer's perception of the matter.

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[sycomonkey]

Facts actually NEED to be disprovable, but never successfully disproven. Phil. of Science 101. This Propagandamentary is an affront to the real efforts to improve the medical system. It's politicizing a technical issue and as such, the best way Moore can help people being hurt by the current system is to shut up and just keep making films about how much Bush sucks. Because that's a point of view everyone can get behind (or at least 65% of us).

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[dangitman]

This Propagandamentary is an affront to the real efforts to improve the medical system.

Whoa. An affront to real efforts? What real efforts are you speaking of, and why is this an affront to them? Propaganda - How?

It's politicizing a technical issue

A technical issue? How on earth is it a technical issue? It's a totally political and social issue.

the best way Moore can help people being hurt by the current system is to shut up and just keep making films about how much Bush sucks.

How would that do any good for the health care system? What's Moore doing to make things worse?

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[sycomonkey]

I'll give you a hint: Remember when Jon Stewart was on Crossfire? He really hit the nail on the head that day. Moore's a polarizing element in an issue that is primarily driven by a misallocation of funds in a highly technical field (medical research), not by politicians. We couldn't do what Canada or France does because we currently do the vast majority of medical research in the world. I don't know what the solution is, but I am damn sure Moore doesn't either. If I wanted to watch a documentary about the problems with our health care system, I'd watch one by a doctor or an economist, not a political extremist, either left (Moore) or right (Bush). Everything that man spews onto film is designed to make you hate something(Bush, HMO's, etc.), instead of make you think about anything. The doctors what to help people, the HMO's want to make money, and politicians want to get reelected. And Moore wants you to go out and buy a ticket to his movie, giving him fame and money by dramatizing the misfortune of others.

Moore is making it worse by convincing people who agreed with him previously that the solution is simple, just vote Democrat and we can simply copy the system used by other countries, completely ignoring the fact that if we did that, medical research as a whole would virtually stop. I'm not saying that federally guaranteed healthcare isn't a good idea, it may very well be, when the time comes. I'm not a doctor OR an economist, I have no clue. I'm saying that if I want to see where ground is being broken to fix our problem, where the real work is being done, those are the kind of people I'd ask. NOT a political clown with a camcorder.

The only way the government could possibly help is A)Lower taxes (impossible right now with two wars and a deficit), B)Fund more universities with medical schools, or C)Roll up their sleeves and start doing more research themselves.

Making healthcare universal is only going to make it marginally cheaper... in that only the margins will disappear (partially into overhead). The root issue is the fact that fixing people isn't cheap... yet. If you still don't understand me, then I'm sorry, your on your own. Talk to a doctor or something.

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[dangitman]

Moore's a polarizing element in an issue that is primarily driven by a misallocation of funds in a highly technical field (medical research), not by politicians. We couldn't do what Canada or France does because we currently do the vast majority of medical research in the world.

1. What does medical research have to do with providing basic healthcare?
2. How is Michael Moore stopping funds from being allocated correctly?

Everything that man spews onto film is designed to make you hate something(Bush, HMO's, etc.), instead of make you think about anything.

I'd say it made a lot of people think. Moast people seem to think that if you have private health insurance, you will be fine -you'll be taken care of properly. Moore demonstartes how that is often untrue. I think that would have got a lot of people thinking more deeply about the insurance system.

Moore is making it worse by convincing people who agreed with him previously that the solution is simple, just vote Democrat and we can simply copy the system used by other countries

Where is the part of the film where he tells viewers to vote Democrat? I don't recall that.

completely ignoring the fact that if we did that, medical research as a whole would virtually stop.

Why would that happen? I don't see why decent public health care would mean an end to medical research.

I'm not a doctor OR an economist, I have no clue. I'm saying that if I want to see where ground is being broken to fix our problem, where the real work is being done, those are the kind of people I'd ask. NOT a political clown with a camcorder.

That seems really strange to me. Why would you expect a doctor or economist to fix the problem? Economists have little interest in good health care, and doctors are great at providing care, but not great at influencing public opinion or policy. To fix the problem, you need voters to care about the problem, and politicians to be pressured to make a difference. Doctors and economists aren't going to fix a political problem on their own. Especially as the doctors and economists will probably have completely opposite "solutions" to each other.

A popular film has a lot more chance of having impact on the actual problems, which are mainly due to public ignorance and lack of political willpower.

The only way the government could possibly help is A)Lower taxes (impossible right now with two wars and a deficit), B)Fund more universities with medical schools, or C)Roll up their sleeves and start doing more research themselves.

Why are those the only options?

Making healthcare universal is only going to make it marginally cheaper...

So, why is it massively cheaper in places with universal healthcare? And even if it is only marginally cheaper, then what's wrong with that? Surely any saving is a good thing, given how ridiculously expensive health care is in America.

Re:Absolutely staggered...

[Snaller]

You can not, not choose. Any action, even inaction will choose a side.

But not caring you are letting the system which killed them be in place to kill more.

Like selling weapons to both fractions

[Anonymous Coward]

Google gives both fractions the ability to get exposure, like a weapons salesman (e.g. USA) sell both parities and profit twice!

Google is also a for profit company, anyone of you having stocks and thinks Google does not evil is in denial. Profit thinking has no conscience, it needs to be put in law to obey conscience which otherwise is absent in (in)corporations, and Enron is just the worst example of profit thinking.

I think, and I loved Google at the beginning - but this is changing, that Google is becoming the next MS, and even worse - now you can choose to use Linux or Mac, instead of MS, but we all end up using Google as search engine . . . it's getting time for a truly independent internet search engine with alike quality of search results, any hints?

Re:The US system is probably worse than you think.

[zranger]

Sheesh. That's a lot of statistics. I'd be interested in the sources if you have them available. Not, of course, because you may be making them up or blindly copying them from someone else who did.

Fuck you, you fucking cocksucker

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, so I'm eeeeeevil if I disagree with Moore, our generation's biggest liar and propagandist?

Fuck you, shit bag. And fuck the fans of Moore who give him money. He's just a businessman playing you political asshats for fools. Nice going, dumbshits. You're also our generations pack of "useful idiots".

Re:Mod Parent Up!

[Grimbleton]

I prefer 7/12chan, to be honest.

Oh, brbfbi...

Slashdot now far over the ideological precipice

[Quiet_Desperation]

Yeah, because there can POSSIBLY be two sides to this issue. And a Moore can't POSSIBLY be lying in this new film like he has in all of his others.

So trying to make sure both sides of an issue get told is now "evil".

What the flying fuck has happened to Slashdot? It's like it's fallen off the Discworld into the inner circle of ideological hell.

scanning the comments on moore below

[circletimessquare]

i am struck by the attacks on moore's neutrality

(smacks forehead)

that the idea that michael moore ever could be neutral in any way, or that such a yardstick should ever be used in criticizing him, is to me, naive beyond ridiculous. folks, if you have passion for any topic in this world, sticking to neutral facts won't get you one iota of interest. it will get you obscurity. in other words, NOBODY is neutral on ideological topics. the right, the left, the middle, any other ideological position you can think of: if you want to judge michael moore, judge him on his ability to elicit interest in a subject matter. his neutrality? HA! am i supposed to laugh that you honestly think this is a valid subject matter?

everyone attacking moore is of course not neutral either. so why all the talk of neutrality? it's patently ridiculous. i was in fact just reading another story in the new york times, an interview with the great werner herzog on his filmmaking, and i think everyone here needs to consider these words when considering michael moore and "neutrality":

Q. There have been some accusations that you've taken liberties with facts in some of your documentaries and in "Rescue Dawn," particularly from the family of Eugene DeBruin. What is your reaction to those accusations?

A. If we are paying attention about facts, we end up as accountants. If you find out that yes, here or there, a fact has been modified or has been imagined, it will be a triumph of the accountants to tell me so. But we are into illumination for the sake of a deeper truth, for an ecstasy of truth, for something we can experience once in a while in great literature and great cinema. I'm imagining and staging and using my fantasies. Only that will illuminate us. Otherwise, if you're purely after facts, please buy yourself the phone directory of Manhattan. It has four million times correct facts. But it doesn't illuminate.

folks: every single word you read, every conversation you hear, anywhere, is biased. everyone is trying to sell you a bill of goods, all the time. furthermore, you yourself are not neutral, and never were. no media ever will be neutral. no media ever was neutral. you go through life with a bullshit meter, or you don't go through life at all

having realized that, we judge moore in a different light: his ability to engage and persuade. on this level, moore is unmitigated success, and an object of jealousy and hate for those on the right of issues. who cares? they have their own successes in the field of persuasion that liberals in turn hate and are jealous of

facts are overrated folks. as werner herzog says, you can cling to them if you wish, but that only makes you an unimportant obscure accountant. persuasion is what matters. because human belief is not about cold hard static facts, it is about your passion for how things SHOULD BE, not how THEY ARE. there are no facts to be had about how things should be. in which case, clinging to the need for "facts" in subject matter like healthcare is at best missing the point, and at worse, naive and stupid

everything you read and hear is full of smears, propaganda, lies, errors, partisanship, etc. a random cacophony of background noise. your average person's healthy critically minded bullshit meter can weed the useful from the unuseful. your bullshit meter should be on red alert all the time: those with an agenda aren't random riff raff, they are dug deep into every media outlet existing, that has ever existed, and will ever exist. some of you need to accept that

some of you lament the increasing bias you see in the media landscape today. ha! you are honestly going to tell me there was some place and some time in the past when things weren't biased? are you trying to tell me you suffer from historical myopia, romantic nostalgia or something? NEVER EXISTED FRIEND. AND NEVER WILL

do you want to blindly trust the m

Re:scanning the comments on moore below

[Simulant]

Bravo!

I'd much rather read your blog than the Google Health Advertising blog.

Re:scanning the comments on moore below

[Simulant]

I'd much rather read your blog than the Google Health Advertising blog. ...And I just did. And I was right. And even though I'm more in agreement with Dawkins, I applaud your intentions.

Re:scanning the comments on moore below

[Anonymous Coward]

If you never investigate the other side of a debate, how do you know that you have all the facts? How do you overcome YOUR OWN bias? The reason I distrust Michael Moore is because of this. He is an untrustworthy source because he willingly neglects inconvenient facts, which makes his conclusions suspect.

Re:scanning the comments on moore below

[Cocoshimmy]

facts are overrated folks. as werner herzog says, you can cling to them if you wish, but that only makes you an unimportant obscure accountant. persuasion is what matters. because human belief is not about cold hard static facts, it is about your passion for how things SHOULD BE, not how THEY ARE. there are no facts to be had about how things should be. in which case, clinging to the need for "facts" in subject matter like healthcare is at best missing the point, and at worse, naive and stupid

I agree with you that persuasion is important but that does not mean that you can ignore objective evidence (ie. facts). Facts are what make a healthy debate healthy and relevant. In fact (no pun intended), it's far too often the opposers of universal healthcare that don't use facts in their arguments which is what pisses the hell of everyone else and causes people like Michael Moore to make documentaries like Sicko which highlight the reasons why the system needs to be changed. If you don't provide facts it's difficult to be persuasive and your piece will look like FUD or worse, propaganda. They are especially important in healthcare discussions because they can objectively show the strengths and weaknesses of the existing system and it's alternatives.

Evil? no. Shameful? Yes!

[dborod]

So what's to stop Google from foisting ads for health insurance companies onto web sites whose content is critical of health insurance companies?

Re:Opposing Moore is evil? Not.

[SoulRider]

You obviously are missing the whole point of his movies. He is not conservative bashing, it is only coincidence that conservatives are all acting like a bunch of asshats lately. He is trying to expose some serious problems in this country and to try and get people talking about these problems. Here is a real rundown of his movies:
Roger & Me - how the outsourcing of jobs is actually affecting America and how the corporate heads just dont give a flying fuck about us.
Bowling for Columbine - we are a culture of fear and hate, with easily obtainable guns this a dangerous mixture. In fact Moore does not advocate gun control anywhere in the movie, he is an avid hunter himself. By the way I come from a family who regularily and with great gusto practice their 2nd amendment rights. And we all hate the NRA and realize they are nothing but a lobbyist group for gun companies and are completely full of shit. Name one thing they have ever done to actually protect our gun rights? Their whole reason for existing is to collect dues from the ignorant masses and give nothing back. I personally liked this movie, I am not against gun control. I cannot think of one single reason why I would need instant access to a gun. There is a problem with guns in this country and we better do something about it or America is going to turn into Beirut.
Fahrenheit 9/11 - ok I will concede this was a personal attack on Bush (Moore admits it himself), but it was not an attack against Republicans as a whole. Considering he had the facts verified by the same people that verify facts for the Bush administration, what can you say? If the movie is all full of lies, then our entire government is relying on getting their facts from a source that will lie for the highest bidder thus showing further incompetence on the part of our current administration. Oh! the irony!

The point being, his movies are only trying to get us to talk about the problems in this country instead of acting like America is some sort of magical utopia and we are immune to social problems. Getting dialog started is really what we need right now to fix some of our problems. I would personally like to see him make a movie about how both parties are trying to create a welfare state, they just call it different things.

Nobody is trying to stop the other side from telling its tale. But it does seem that when the conservatives do retort is is usually gut reactions and unverifiable facts, so until you can find someone who can retort logically, rationally and in an adult manner get used to being ignored. Unfortunately in the healthcare industry their point of view is: MONEY, MORE MONEY, GIVE ME MORE. I am not talking about the hard working nurses, doctors and their support staffs. I am talking about insurance, administrators and share holders who just arent in it to benefit humanity but to make a buck. Arent there enough industries to make a buck off of? Do you have to infect the one industry we entrust our health with?

Obviously you have never done a documentary, its like doing an essay. You devise a hypothesis (or some statement you want to try to prove), then use facts to support that hypothesis, finally you tie it all together to show that your facts indeed do prove your hypothesis. The idea is to prove your hypothesis not provide an unbiased discussion of that hypothesis, it is the same process with documentaries. I once did an essay on the benifits the nazis had on society, I didnt turn it into a nazi bashing paper in fact after reading the paper my teacher said the nazis might not have been as bad as he thought (jokingly). The point is that I stuck with my hypothesis and proved without a shadow of a doubt that nazis had contributed some positive things to society. Just so you dont think I am one of those people who denies the holocaust ever happened my next essay was about the atrocities they commited and my facts

Re:AN EASY WAY TO THE SOLVE THE COST PROBLEM

[Anonymous Coward]

very clearly the US health system fails to provide help to those in dire need, in this case the mentally retarded.

I don't have health Insurance

[Newer Guy]

I don't have health insurance. My COBRA ran out in January. I was paying amlost SEVENTEEN HUNDRED DOLLARS A MONTH for Blus Cross that paid 80% of IN NETWORK stuff-and even THAT had a yearly deductible applied to it. My son caught Lyme Disease last summer, and the co pays and deductibles for that ONE incident cost me almost $6000.00! Doing consulting last year, I grossed about $52,000. Take away $1668.00 (monthly COBRA) * 12 months and then add $6000.00 to that. What do you get? TWENTY SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS! HALF of my pre-tax income went DIRECTLY to health insurance. Actually, it was closer to THIRTY TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS, because my wife has Asthma and takes medication for depression, and my 17 year old daughter fell on ice and fractured her tailbone. And some of you here have the NERVE to tell me this is okay??? I have an average sized family with four children on the health insurance. Health care costs were the SINGLE BIGGEST EXPENSE I paid last year! MORE then housing, MORE then food, MORE then ANYTHING...IN fact, MORE then EVERYTHING ELSE PUT TOGETHER!!!

But this is okay for most of you, RIGHT? After all, YOU have company health insurance, and you're single..RIGHT? Well, so did I, until one day when I was LAID OFF!

Don't you DARE say that the health care system in the USA is fair or equitable! It isn't...and I'm LIVING PROOF OF IT!!

Re:I don't have health Insurance

[Simulant]

I'd mod you up If I hadn't posted already.

Re:I don't have health Insurance

[man_ls]

First, I'd like to start off by saying that I'm not intending anything following to be an attack or flame or anything of that nature. I count myself extremely lucky to have the health coverage I have (government agency health insurance tends to be pretty decent) and wouldn't ever presume to say that your feelings on the matter aren't justified -- they are.

That said, clearly, you are getting a significant use out of the healthcare system. That's unfortunate, as I hope your children's conditions have been addressed, but it does illustrate the "preventive" aspect of insurance.

You paid $26,000+ for healthcare. Assuming you instead elected not to carry health insurance, how much would the same procedures and prescriptions have cost if you were paying cash, not as a part of a group plan? I'm willing to wager it's a great deal more. As I sit here, a prescription pill bottle in front of me telling me that I paid only 19% of the cash price for that amount of medication ($10 from $51.99) That's just one example. I won't speculate as to the expenses you would have incurred, although likely those numbers are on the informational invoices you'll receive from your healthcare provider.

Socialized medicine is, in the end, the ultimate pre-paid insurance plan. Rather than, say, bringing home $52,000 and sending $26,000 away for health -- you'd be taking home $26-30,000 and sending $0 away for health. It seems like less since it's not coming out of your paycheck in a way you can notice, but it's still coming out. In years that illness or injury don't befall anyone on your health plan, you won't be able to pay less: on a population scale, people are pretty much maxing out healthcare every day and your tax dollars will need to pay for it.

Capitalist healthcare sure has its drawbacks, even moreso if you're on an HMO, but socialized medicine really isn't a viable solution for Americans. Our prevailing culture, long historical tradition, varied demographics and so on all contribute to the fact that mandating medicine be available for everyone is an unworkable solution.

(I am strongly in favor of healthcare reform -- but not in the direction that medicine will be socialized further.)

Re:I don't have health Insurance

[Cocoshimmy]

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but you are already paying more towards your healthcare than people are in countries with universal healthcare. For example, in Vancouver, BC, Canada, I was paying $50 in healthcare premiums (which is the amount for those with middle class incomes). If I was making significantly more, it would cost me $130/month. Healthcare quality IS good there from my own personal experience and that of my family (mom had cancer, grandfather had heart disease and they were all treated promptly).

Now, I live in the US and pay $150/month for medical insurance through my company. My company actually pays $1000/month (I know because COBRA costs $1150/month).

So already, that is more than what I was paying before yet in Canada I had 100% coverage (not 80% - deductible - $20/50/150 copay depending on type of visit).

Also, the use of the term "socialized medicine" was created by the healthcare industry in the US in an attempt to demonize an efficient form of healthcare coverage which threatened the existence of their horribly inefficient and poor quality system. Universal healthcare systems are used by the rest of the developed world and their costs are WAY less, they provide better care/service and everybody is covered. See here

Why is universal healthcare cheaper/better than the alternative? Here are just a few reasons:
-Because there are reduced administrative costs determining coverage
-Standardized costs for procedures so less lawsuits between insurance providers or individuals against hospitals
-Reduced malpractice insurance because fewer lawsuits over pricing, insurance fraud, insurance coverage, and greater use of standardized procedures.
-The government would have an incentive to reduce costs which would result in the creation and increased enforcement of stringent of FDA regulations, increased preventative medicine, etc.
-It would drive private insurance premiums down (since an efficient and consistently reliable alternative is available they would be forced to improve their efficiency and quality of coverage to stay competitive)
-If you lose your job or quit, you can still get sick and survive
-Access to healthcare is increased.
-It would cost less. Right now the US spends more per capita on healthcare than every other developed country and it is the only first world country without universal healthcare and is ranked as one of the worst healthcare systems in the world.
-Reduced prescription drug costs. The government would likely regulate drug costs based on effectiveness like MOST OF THE WORLD DOES ALREADY. This would reduce the money spent by pharmeceutical companies on marketing and force them to spend more on R&D.

Re:I don't have health Insurance

[jovius]

The anonymous responses to your post are simply disgusting. If that's the attitude of some of the americans to people like you it's no wonder things are not that well over there... Wasn't the US about freedom to pursue happiness ? When did you people forgot to be nice and supportive to each other in order to reach your ideals ? I can see that the amount of money is the meter of your happiness, not how you use it... I wish you well and hope everything turns out ok for you.

Re:I don't have health Insurance

[Vitriol Angst]

This isn't OK with me.

The people who defend this kind of system want to believe the myth that this only happens to lazy people who don't have health care and can't be bothered with finding a better job. Irregardless of the flawed logic that there are only so many "good jobs" with health care. The more you are willing to do, the more you will have to do. It is a race to the bottom. Health Care and Sarbanes Oxley are two very big reasons American companies are having a hard time competing. A Ford car has more health care than steel.

I really feel for your plight. What people don't understand about the greater good -- is WE as a people gain nothing from your family taking it on the chin like this. It's very hard to keep a family together with such an economic struggle, with such bills -- it's hard to be productive. Nobody chooses to have catastrophic health problems -- so our willingness to sacrifice people like yourself, only means that the rest of us are next.

America already pays for Socialized medicine. 54% of the money going into Health Care is from the tax payer -- and a big portion of that is the uninsured filling up the ER to get a $600 ear check up. I don't think the poor want to be in the ER -- it's the Hospital that loves this cash cow -- and they wring their hands, blame it on the poor, and collect the Billions. A pregnant woman who has health care costs on average are $10,000, and an uninsured pregnant woman's birth costs on average $100,000 and that is paid by taxes.

Of the money that goes into health care, 50% goes to insurance. Of the money left over that goes to actual health -- the administrative costs are around 43%. So, we have Twice the Money going to cover Half the people. After the money from yours and my pocket goes to insurance, and then we pay a co-pay, and then our employer and government kick in -- we are only getting 1/4th of the Health Care system that the money paid for.

Again, half goes to health, then 43% goes to administration. That leaves us with a huge rip-off. And the Public debate up until now on the Corporate News has been Doctors blaming patients, and over-hyping lawsuits and torte reform. Where they've introduced torte reform the savings have been on average a whopping 2%.

Re:I don't have health Insurance

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot! No, I'm not saying that you are stupid for being so heartless towards other human beings; I'm saying that you don't even fundamentally understand what the purpose of your health insurance is. If the money a person pays insurance companies were supposed to go back to that person alone and nobody else, then why are you giving your money to the insurance company in the first place? Just keep the money in the bank and pay for your medical expenses out of pocket. If the medical expenses are more than you have saved, then it shouldn't matter... it's not like someone else should be expected to cover the difference.

If you would give me your address I will gladly murder you by the end of the day.

Re:I don't have health Insurance

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of your post is fine. You need a serious reality check about an "average sized" family, though--average family size in the US is 3.14. A family of 6.00 is nearly double the average.

Re:I don't have health Insurance

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you DARE say that the health care system in the USA is fair or equitable! It isn't...and I'm LIVING PROOF OF IT!!

Hey life's tough. It is even tougher when you make bad choices. You made the choice to be a consultant and pay for your own insurance when you could have taken a job, presumably for $52k-$30k = $22k in salary, and made more moeny.

Health care costs were the SINGLE BIGGEST EXPENSE I paid last year! MORE then housing, MORE then food, MORE then ANYTHING...IN fact, MORE then EVERYTHING ELSE PUT TOGETHER!!!

Well something has to be. But look at the returns: your wife copes with her ashama and her depression, your son isn't going through Lyme disease complications, and your daughter's tailbone isn't hurting. Is that not worth more than food?

Re:I don't have health Insurance

[AudioInfecktion]

I'd say it would be unfortunately you own fault for not doing your homework once cobra became an option. There are MANY less expensive Private insurance options that do not have to be purchased through COBRA through a former employer. Would you still have had to pay something? Of course, but it would of been much less than $26K. The thing is that people need to stop taking the path of least resistance through their life. If you would of went out and visited an insurance agent, instead of just paying out the cobra thing that automatically came in the mail, you would of saved over 50% of what you paid.

Re:I don't have health Insurance

[ivan256]

Why is universal healthcare cheaper/better than the alternative? Here are just a few reasons:

Why is universal healthcare more expensive/worse than what we have now? Here are just a few reasons:

• Shielding individuals from the costs of their care provides no incentive for people to make economical health care choices
• Because of our new "College-prep" high school curriculum, people grow up not knowing how or when it is appropriate to take care of themselves. Combined with low cost access to health care, this will increase needless use of the system more than it alread does.
• An overworked system will lead to demand out-pacing supply (higher costs), more mistakes (higher cost & lower quality care), and reduced access (waiting lists anybody?).

Regulating drug costs is a whole other issue, with economic consequences far outside of the health care industry. It's playing with fire. You will see massive job losses, probably recession from the subsequent stock market crash, decreased new research, or research moving out of the US, or huge tax revenue based expenditures to keep research going... It's not a slippery slope. It's a cliff.

How would I fix the health care system? Well I'd start by teaching more in health class than how to use a condom. Like how to fix yourself when you have the flu instead of creating thousands of dollars in health care costs; then start turning people away after basic triage at the ER when they show up with non-threatening symptoms. I would provide universal care.... for children under the age of 18, who would then grow up healthier reducing costs on the system. I would end prescription drug advertising directly to end-users. And I would allow insurance companies to charge more for obese people and smokers. A lot more. And then get over it when people can't afford to be saved from themselves.

Re:I don't have health Insurance

[ceejayoz]

Shielding individuals from the costs of their care provides no incentive for people to make economical health care choices Why is the US by far the biggest spender on health care, then?

"The United States spends more than 15 percent of its GDP on health care -- no other nation even comes close to that number. France spends about 11 percent, and Canadians spend 10 percent." - http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/06/28/sicko.fact.ch eck/

Re:I don't have health Insurance

[Boronx]

What your missing is what happens to this guy if something bad happens. Frankly, except for the lyme disease, this is normal stuff. Guy loses his job, or comes down with cancer, under the current system he goes under. At the very least, his wife will have to go off her depression meds and get her asthma treatment in the emergency room at enormous expense to the rest of us and bankrupting his family.

Socialized medicine, he'd stay afloat if worse comes to worst.

Re:I don't have health Insurance

[Dreamstalker_wolf]

I just applied for low-income health care a few weeks ago. Luckily, I find that my doctor accepts one of the plans that is under the aegis of the state's low-cost provider. All well and good, right?

Nope. Apparently, I am "only eligible" for the plan that almost nobody within 5 miles accepts, and I do not find this out until I call the insurance co. to find out why my card hasn't arrived yet (I was told that I needed to choose a physician and when I said I had they then tell me that "that physician does not take [Plan Z]"...wtf, I thought I had applied for Plan X). And I'm almost smack in the middle of a major medical area of the city. The doctors/hospitals that do accept the plan I was shoehorned into aren't taking new patients. So, even though I will have insurance I am unable to see the doctors that do accept it.

Nowhere on the application form did it say that I was to be locked into Plan Z, however this is what the CSR I spoke to is now claiming. My doctor told me that they just randomly assign plans to people and hope they won't complain. Well, I'm going to complain.

Re:I don't have health Insurance

[Anonymous Coward]

Your assumption is that socialised health care costs the same as fully privatised. Unfortunately, you are wrong. Evidence is that socialised health care is cheaper. Other people have given possible reasons why this is so (most compelling being the arbitrarily high price people are willing to pay for their own health).

Re:I don't have health Insurance

[zahl2]

So are you saying that because self-employed insurance options are poor, nobody should be self-employed?

Re:I don't have health Insurance

[neolith]

Holy crap, dude. Your son suffered from a serious disease, your daughter fractured a bone, your wife suffers from a chronic and difficult to treat problem, no, make that two of them, and you wonder why health care was the single biggest expense of your year? So, what is the solution, hold a gun to my head and make me pay extra for your care? Because that's what you apparently want the government to do for you.

It seems you could have investigated major medical insurance which potentially would have covered the same things for far cheaper. You could have applied for state sponsored low income pharmacy assistance. You could have done mail order pharmacy and cut your wife's recurring RX's by at least half. You could have moonlighted at FedEx for their generally excellent insurance for part timers. You could have set up a medical savings account to avoid paying taxes on deductibles would have been another wise idea. You could have sprayed your kid with DEET before turning him lose in an area known to carry ticks with Lyme's disease, ounce of prevention and all that. I don't know. Am I being a heartless bastard here? I've got a wife, we're on meds, I've got kids, I've carried COBRA, I've self-insured while I was self-employed and unemployed, and I never made more than $60k/yr while I was doing it. We could swap war stories and see who is more or less "fortunate", but the bottom line is that if you live like a poor person, and what I mean like that is that you do not save for emergencies, you do not plan ahead, and you expect someone else to look after you, eventually you will be a poor person. Socialized medicine and security mitigates this somewhat, but does not change it. To think otherwise is fooling yourself.

Re:I don't have health Insurance

[mattkime]

>>Shielding individuals from the costs of their care provides no incentive for people to make economical health care choices

We can't make economical health care choices because no economic information is given to us. Have you price shopped hospitals?

Re:I don't have health Insurance

[mattkime]

>>and you wonder why health care was the single biggest expense of your year?

Did you miss the part where he said he was INSURED???

If he has INSURANCE, why should his medical bills be pushing him toward poverty?

>>It seems you could...You could...You could...You could...You could

In hindsight, there are always a million way to avoid the unfortunate. Insurance should INSURE you against the unexpected. Thats why we pay for it.

Re:I don't have health Insurance

[neolith]

Why do you assume I didn't think he was insured? I think it is clear from my comment that I knew he was, it's just that I've been where he's been and I can call BS on his victim routine.

Look, if I have car INSURANCE, and I get into five accidents in one year, guess what is going to happen. I'm going to pay a crap load in deductibles, and my rates are going to go up. If I had low, low deductibles, then I would be paying through the nose for my base insurance rates and my new adjusted rates would be astronomical. This is the real way insurance works, and should be obvious to anyone with a clue as to how economics work. You seem to have a different take on insurance, a fantasy version of insurance, but that's your problem, not mine. Socialized medicine does not change this, it will just widen out the risk pool, and change who you are paying your money to, and remove all ability of decision making on the financial side of your health care from you the patient. At the end of the day, somebody is going to make decisions on your level of health care, I prefer to have input on those decisions.

So, the parent poster paid twenty some thousand dollars on medical bills. If he were uninsured, me might have spent a quarter million on care for Lyme's disease alone. Insurance doesn't mean "you don't have to pay anything, ever." Insurance is to keep you from being RUINED by unexpected costs. The parent poster is not ruined. $25/year is not poverty. Granted, half his take home pay going to medical expenses sucks, but that is a bad year. He can make up for it in the years to come, and with better planning, the next time something like this happens he might not be in such bad shape.

The measures I recommended are what EVERYONE should do, even or especially with insurance. It is very telling that you think these are some extraordinary things one would do. If we went single payer tomorrow, I'd still have a medical savings account, I'd still save 10% of my take home pay for the unexpected and unforeseen, and I'd still spray my kid with OFF! before sending him into a West Nile and Lyme's disease breeding ground. The only thing I wouldn't do is take another job just to keep insurance coverage up, but what does that say about the new system?

Re:I don't have health Insurance

[ivan256]

There are many possible explanations (I'm not sure which is the correct one). It is not obvious that your statistic means I'm wrong.

For example, we could be less-healthy on average (stereotypical american obesity anyone?). We could be (we are) older on average than the countries you listed. We have longer life expectancies than those countries as well. Neither France nor Canada show up in the top 20 of industrialized nations (perhaps because we spend more to keep people alive towards the end of their life?). We could spend more on elective procedures that aren't covered in those countries. It could be all of those things combined.

Re:I don't have health Insurance

[ivan256]

Sending the bills to the government will make that problem worse not better.

Dentists, some primary care doctors, and most walk-in clinics that I've seen have price lists. This information should be spread more widely.

Re:I don't have health Insurance

[AK Marc]

As I sit here, a prescription pill bottle in front of me telling me that I paid only 19% of the cash price for that amount of medication ($10 from $51.99) That's just one example.

You do realize that the prescription is discounted for those with insurance, right? That is, you paid $10, and your insurance company paid $10, and the store sold it to you for $20. But you don't see any of that. Then, when someone comes in off the street, the same store charges $52 for the same thing to someone that doesn't have health insurance. They claim "collective bargaining" between the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies, but it really is collusion to hide he cost of medicines from the public and force people onto health insurance just for the drug costs alone. Yes, you are correct that it is an incentive for people to get on health care, but is it one that is reached through fair practices, or back-room deals?

Socialized medicine is, in the end, the ultimate pre-paid insurance plan. Rather than, say, bringing home $52,000 and sending $26,000 away for health -- you'd be taking home $26-30,000 and sending $0 away for health.

Ah, but insurance could be abolished, and HMOs can spend 30% on just overhead. If you look at the government, it isn't as inefficient as people claim. Social Security has the lowest overhead of any pension plan company that operates in the USA. Since up to 50% of the cost of care in the US goes to overhead and expenses that would disappear with truly socialized medicine, you'd go from bringing home $52,000 and spending $26,000 on care to bringing home $40,000 and spending $0 on care. Well, since the costs will be normalized (shared risk), the take-home would be more like $45,000.

Re:I don't have health Insurance

[mattkime]

>>Why do you assume I didn't think he was insured?

I didn't. However, you seem to think the antagonistic relationship between customers and provider in the health care industry is perfectly natural. Its OKAY to give them money and let them decide whether we get what we paid for.

>>Look, if I have car INSURANCE, and I get into five accidents in one year, guess what is going to happen.

Sorry, car insurance isn't health insurance. Having health is a necessary component of life, having a car isn't.

You can talk about "personal responsibility" until you're blue in the face but the simple fact is that a huge percentage of people in this country are unprepared for a major medical emergency. Now, either you can blame them and feel superior or you can fix it and help them.

Re:I don't have health Insurance

[neolith]

Being a necessity is doesn't change how insurance works, although having transportation is very much a requirement for life in these united states, outside 10 of the largest cities. You're surely not suggesting that we require everyone to live in a metropolis, are you? Besides, if you want to make health care a universal right, you have to start making decisions on what you think "health" is. Since that is a deeply personal decision, you are going to screw over people no matter what you do. My way, at least people who want to be informed and make good decisions about themselves can and do.

I don't think it is fine for insurance companies to make the decisions for the insured. But I also think you need to recognize that things like pre-existing conditions and expected levels of care are not something we can handle without serious compromises in a one size fits all model. We can change the existing system without chucking it and going socialist.

Yes, there is a certain percentage of people unprepared for a medical emergency, or any emergency for that matter. Loss of job, loss of property, "Act of God", whatever. I don't blame any one for it, but I have a different idea of how to fix the situation than you do. You want to extend the nanny state, pat them on the head, dole out whatever decisions and provisions mommy thinks best, and go on through out life without having to plan for when mommy isn't there. Where is the end game there? There is a close relationship between "personal responsibility" and "personal liberty". You do realize that, don't you?

My solution, what I want to do, is educate people and make them more self-reliant, and reform the existing system to make it more accountable. The technology has grown at a faster rate than the ability to govern it, but that doesn't mean it is ungovernable, or that you should chuck the system that has grown all these advances out the window and replace it entirely with government. When meat packing plants at the turn of the previous century were grinding up rat shit and human waste in their sausages, the solution wasn't to open up government ran sausage factories that gives you one choice of sausage at a fixed price, the answer was new standards and enforcement of existing ones.

Re:I don't have health Insurance

[Cocoshimmy]

For example, we could be less-healthy on average (stereotypical american obesity anyone?). We could be (we are) older on average than the countries you listed. We have longer life expectancies than those countries as well. Neither France nor Canada show up in the top 20 of industrialized nations (perhaps because we spend more to keep people alive towards the end of their life?). We could spend more on elective procedures that aren't covered in those countries. It could be all of those things combined. I don't know what you are implying or directly trying to state with this comment. If it's to be taken directly, then it's just plain wrong. Canada and France are ranked in the well within the top 20 in terms of GDP by two measures (world bank & international monetary fund) and are again ranked in the top 20 for GDP per capita.

If you are referring to your previous sentence (life expectancy) then in fact they STILL rank within the top 20 and WAY ahead of the US. Canada is ranked 13th at 80.34years, France is ranked 10th at 80.59years, and the US is ranked 45th at 78years.

Sure there may be several reasons why the US spends more on healthcare per capita than any other nation but these facts about the US system remains true DESPITE the fact they spend the most on healthcare (government or private): The US is the only industrialized nation that DOESNT have universal healthcare, has a significantly lower life expectancy than most other industrial countries, has their healthcare system ranked lower than almost all industrialized countries by two measures (WHO and OEC reports), does not provide coverage for everyone, has high incidences of diseases/illnesses which can be prevented (only measured against Canada), etc. If you are looking for some reading material which highlights these facts, here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American _health_care_systems_compared

Re:I don't have health Insurance

[ivan256]

Life expectancy at birth, and average life expectancy are drastically different numbers. While life expectancy at birth is an interesting number, the average life expectancy (sorry for the crappy link. The data from the CDC website isn't tabulated by country on a single page, and all the other reference docs were PDF) of the entire population (Thus including those born in the past, who are already incurring health care costs) is, in my opinion, more relevant to this discussion, and was the number I was referencing.

We can both parrot statistics all day, 'cause there are plenty to support both sides of the argument. The things that close the argument for me are in your own final link. There's the "Access to healthcare" section, which is as negative a thing as you could possibly say about Canada's system, but the biggie is in the "Price of healthcare" section. The US Government pays for care for 15% of the population under a federal health care plan today. That plan only covers a subset of the costs, and the government still pays 35% more per person for that coverage than Canada does for their system. Economies of scale comments and all that, are bullshit in this argument for the following reason: Those 15% represent a population that is equal in size to all of Canada, but the US government spends more on them for less coverage. The structure of the US government makes it impossible for it to ever provide univeral healthcare that is both of high quality and cost effective. So I don't care what other countries do. It doesn't matter. I'd rather stick with the system we have, rather than let the US government waste my money. Especially since my willingness to work hard and adapt my skillset as needed means the current system favors people like me.

It will be very interesting to see....

[Simulant]

... where Lauren Turner is working next month. My affinity towards things Google hinges on it.

Google might want to consider changing their motto to "We pander to anyone that can pay". It's slightly less misleading.

Anyone know if they have a defense industry advertising blog? I'd love to see that one.

HSA

[Anonymous Coward]

I would be far happier to just write you a check for setting a broken arm after falling down those stairs, thank you very much.

I have this, right now. It's called a Health Savings Account or HSA.

http://www.treas.gov/offices/public-affairs/hsa/

My wife and I together have a medical deductable of $5,000 per year. We can also deposit pre-tax dollars into the HSA, and use that to write checks to pay for things like a broken arm. With a $5,000 deductable, our monthly insurance premiums are pretty low.

And we don't need to get routine medical stuff "approved" by our insurance. Just write a check. (Or pay with a special Visa card that draws on the HSA.)

If everyone had this, US healthcare would be much more cost-effective.

Re:HSA

[The One and Only]

And if you were poor and couldn't afford one, the government could supply a full HSA for you, complete with sufficient funds for an annual checkup and flu shot, the occasional strep test, and some left over for incidentals. What? You're telling me this is the exact way poor people buy groceries if they can't afford them on their own? I had no idea similar problems had similar solutions!

Re:HSA

[jabuzz]

The problem is that the USA spends more on paper work for billing in the health care system, than the UK spends on it's entire health care system. Now those figures are a decade old, but I doubt they have changed significantly, and I know that the USA has a population about six times that of the UK. However that is a huge amount of money that is not being spent productively.

I recently read (in the last year) about a study that showed that the health outcomes (aka life expectancy) of the top socio-economic group in the USA where worse than the lowest in the UK. That has to be a terrible inditment of the USA way of doing things.

Over my dead body.....

[adarklite]

That's my first thought when I think of the government taking care of my health. My second thought is "What idiot would let the government have that much control over their life?" There are only two things that run well in the government the post office and the military. And that's because they don't have that much government oversight. The government needs an audit. You can't improve government by adding more ineffective layers.

Re:Over my dead body.....

[Simulant]

And what on earth makes you think that the military and the post office are being run well?

Re:Over my dead body.....

[adarklite]

For government entities they are run very well. Here's the equation I tend to use: "not paralyzed by bureaucracy"="well run"

Re:The US system is probably worse than you think.

[tran_man007]

While I believe that the United States needs improvement in healthcare, why is suggested that the government take control over it? I'm not thrilled with the incidents at Walter Reed Hospital and other VA hospitals where veterans are getting their care. The United States government is not known for its efficiency and healthcare is the last area that I would like to give up my freedom of choice. Yes, Medicare administrative costs are low, but that doesn't mean that they're efficient with their purchases.

Secondly: if you don't want to support for-profit health insurance companies, pick a plan from a non-profit company if your company lets you choose between providers. As a side note: non-profit hospitals aren't run as efficiently as not-for-profit/for-profit hospitals.

My impression is in the event there is a government run healthcare system, people will start complaining about the government instead of complaining about HMO/PPO, etc...

Here's an insightful article from the Chicago Tribune from the director of Nurses for Reform, organization based in Europe to improve Europe's healthcare system, about some of the major complaints of the British system.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/p remium/printedition/Tuesday/chi-oped0626sickojun26 ,1,5503687.story?ctrack=3&cset=true

In the end, I think the way that it'll work is that 1: there'll be a tax-payer based system that is free to all and a 2: private system that wealthier people can buy into in order to get better coverage/faster treatment.

Don't have to agree with MM to find google EVIL...

[mathfeel]

Michael Moore is by no mean objective, but he's a patriot. He's a patriot in the sense that he loves the American people but not necessarily the mega corporation. Yes, _Sicko_ cherry picks facts, but it's a nicely put together as a provocative piece. Compare to F911, which I think is a piece of crap, I feel as if MM has eaten a piece of humble pie. The 911 worker going to Cuba thing might be over the top, considering that Cuba ranked 39 in the same list that ranked USA 37 (not something to be proud of). However, I think most viewer recognize that it's a satirical stun and hey, if this country won't treat its hero, we ought to find some way to do it, right?. In Sicko, instead of yelling fuck the insurance industry as he did to NRA and Bush, he's calmly saying, look, there are other countries that do things differently, and they are looking pretty good. I think his health care proposal too naive, but I came out the theater feeling that we should at least not let profit-making insurance industry dominate the debate. When it comes to life-altering (note: not necessarily threatening, such as losing a finger...) situation, I don't think we should let for-profit corporation controls everything. Anyway, for google to control information for the benefit of corporate friends is just down right EVIL

This Sounds a Lot Like Selling Advertising

[Schlaegel]

I might be wrong, but this sounds like trying to sell ads. I would expect Google to solicit ads from Moore also.

I would rather Google always allow and solicit ads on multiple sides, of every issue. For me, to do otherwise would be the feared *evil*.

Percentage of GDP is unreasonable

[alexhmit01]

You wrote,

... and according to that CNN poll, "The United States spends more than 15 percent of its GDP on health care -- no other nation even comes close to that number. France spends about 11 percent, and Canadians spend 10 percent." Those countries seem to have better health care for a lower expenditure. Hmm, I wonder how that can be? Oh, right: it's not a for-profit system.

It's not a fair straight comparison, because the US system is fundamentally different. Our costs are driven up by wealthy people (or people with good insurance) getting very expensive treatments that they wouldn't get elsewhere because of standardized payments and choices. Our costs are driven up by the rest of the world free riding on America's investment in drug research.

According to my friends working in "Big Pharma," basically the prices they sell overseas, including Canada are "profitable" on a per-unit basis, because drug duplication costs are close to zero but the research is high. It's not that dissimilar to the computer software model that we've seen here. And similarly, while Linux has been able to grow the "free" approach impressively, it doesn't do any real research or advancement, nor does it handle corner cases. In fact, as the "free" solutions get better, the niche players actually are raising prices (computer prices go down, but software has been flat, becoming a bigger percentage) because they are selling fewer units to those willing to pay the premium...

In Big Pharma's case, the extensive research into developing a safe, effective, and patentable drug are substantial, and it is the enormous profitability in the US that funds all that. That profit motive is also why we get so many drugs that handle America-specific problems (look at all the lifestyle drugs), all the profits come from here. If the rest of the world had an American-style health care system, we'd have a LOT more drug research, because there would be more profitability.

The profit motive is made out to be the bad guy, but if you look at what is going on, it's actually not responsible for the paperwork. Medicare standardized billing codes, and everyone piggy-backs off that. The profit element does take money out as profits, but also forces some degree of efficiencies. If you look at how non-profits and governments run, they are WAY more corrupt than for-profits. Sure, there are plenty of managers in for-profits that take company resources to benefit themselves, and stock options for senior managers are more or less fleecing the shareholders by steeling the company, and other bad things, but in non-profits there is usually no way to stop the abusers, while in for-profits, corrupt managers eventually get fired because their corruption causes under-performance. In the non-profits, eventually people donate money (and in governments, they just take it) and then corrupt people are attracting to piles of money with no accountability.

The problems that people have with health care in the US are:

1. Not getting what they paid for, insurance companies have lost interest in actuarial risk, and more interested in denying claims. This is scary.
2. Rapidly increasing costs. While it might be reasonable for our extremely rich society to pay more and more for health care, it's still hurting those whose incomes aren't rising.
3. Corruption in company benefits... for accidental reasons, we get health care through the employer, and top managers in HR make the call on what is offered, and they have a bias towards fancier plans that cost more, which drives up costs.
4. Adverse selection, since "normal" people get care in group plans through work, the people left in the individual market are more likely to be high risk, so they get their rates jacked.
5. Mis-regulation... government regulation of insurance is normally focused on costs, which the government is bad at and markets are good at, and not on transparency and forcing level of service, which governments are good at.

Re:Percentage of GDP is unreasonable

[mvdwege]

According to my friends working in "Big Pharma," basically the prices they sell overseas, including Canada are "profitable" on a per-unit basis, because drug duplication costs are close to zero but the research is high.

I respectfully suggest you go over to the SEC site and download and read the yearly statements of the Big Pharma companies. You'd be surprised how they actually spend their money, as opposed to what they tell the public via their PR firms. And yes, the low-level drones in such companies do belong to the public, they get fed the same bullshit.

In fact, I have Pfizer's 10-K in front of me now, and they are in the midst of a reorganisation cutting staff in their PGRD division and closing down entire R&D centers (and in the meantime expressing concern that attrition is so high in the R&D group. I wonder why that is?)

And to close down the much-ballyhooed cost of getting approval: according to the 10-K, that takes 800 million dollars, and may take 10-15 years, so that cost can be amortised. Meanwhile, an approved patented medicine (a 20-year monopoly, remember?), may bring in 2 billion annually.

You are being lied to. The facts are out there, look them up.

Mart

Re:Percentage of GDP is unreasonable

[PatrickThomson]

Meanwhile, an approved patented medicine (a 20-year monopoly, remember?), may bring in 2 billion annually.

Yes, it's so fortunate that 100% of all drugs that make it to stage 3 testing are approved and marketed. Oh, wait...

Re:Percentage of GDP is unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

So in a single year, one successful drug will pay for one and a half unsuccessful drugs plus itself, with nineteen years of monopoly profit left to go. But standards are stringent! Maybe nine drugs get tried for every one that succeeds (but they all get far enough to cost 800m$. That means four years, with sixteen left. That's less than half the time it took Amazon.com to become profitable.

Re:Mod Parent Up!

[Daengbo]

It seems that Moore plays loose with the facts by omitting known relevant information, staging scenes, and disingenuously splicing together video in order to make something appear to be when it is not. He does this in all of his films. The issues Moore raises need to be discussed, but should be done so truthfully and without the propaganda.

Here's what Google is working on related to health

[chrishajer]

Here is some of the stuff in the health arena that Google is working on, including enabling portable medical records. And Blue Cross/Blue Shield has already announced plans to share medical information about their 79 million subscribers with "drug companies, device manufacturers, and employers." So who's the evil one here?

Bad news for John Edwardses of the world

[Anonymous Coward]

Limit the cost of malpractice insurance? But that would mean some sort of limits on the money awarded to victims of malpractice, or limiting the kinds of cases that could be brought to trial. Then guys like Jonathan Edwards wouldn't be able to get filthy rich by channeling the spirits of dead children for juries in order to put doctors out of business.

Re:Opposing Moore is evil? Not.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol, since when does being "godly" mean you have to be psychotically polite. Jesus called religious leaders of his day "hypocrits" and "white washed tombs" (that's a reason they killed him). The "sissy-fag" Jesus never existed. Michael moore is a fat slob. The "Christian thing" to do would just be to not hate him for it. That would be for the benefit of the believer too and not Moore. Evil wants people to hate it so that they fall. Michael Moore isn't worth hating and "falling" over. Anyway he only exists because of so many psychotic people who crave his slop.

How many of you are self employed?

[hax4bux]

Guess how much I pay for medical insurance for two healthy adults?

$1044/month. How many of you could pay this?

Guess what is actually covered? I dunno. They send me a dense little book every so many months which describes what they won't pay for.

I haven't seen "sicko" yet, but I am pretty sure there is lots of room for improvement in the US health care system.

Humph.

[TaleSpinner]

Given the kind of deliberate lying hack jobs that Michael Moore jestingly calls "documentaries" I would have to say on the evidence that Google is firmly on the side of the angels on this one. Moore is a character assassin writ large, and anything anyone can do to help his victims is justified.

Re:The US system is probably worse than you think.

[optikSmoke]

I have been doing a lot of reading up on health care statistics lately, and I recognize most of those mentioned in the above post. The most astonishing fact I've stumbled upon is that the U.S. *government* spends more on health care per capita than most other nations (including Canada). Then, you add on that the States also spend more (much much more) per person than other nations on private funding, and you can understand why the system costs more.

I think the whole "public healthcare raises taxes" argument is lost right there -- if the States had a system anywhere close to the efficiency of other industrialized nations', they could theoretically be spending just as much at the government level and chuck most of the private health costs. Of course, that's probably unrealistic in that it would likely be politically difficult to build a system like that out of the one in place now.

Anyway, since I can't recall all of the sources of the statistics I've read, I did a bit of googling for you. Right off the top, the OECD (http://www.oecd.org/) is an excellent source that often pops up in such discussions. They have an entire section on Health statistics of member nations.

And here's spending info courtesy of the WHO: http://www.who.int/whosis/database/core/core_selec t_process.cfm?countries=all&indicators=nha
This includes per capita government spending on health care, which happens to show that Canadian governement spending (for example) is less than U.S. Government spending, per capita.

And a bit of a comparison of average life expectency and spending on health care (note the disparity when it comes to the U.S.): http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php.

Anyway, what tends to bother me the most about these debates on Slashdot is that it often comes down to people with data to back them up versus people who blindly believe that the American system MUST cost less. I mean, it isn't government-run, right?

That position is undeniably false, and I really wish we could at least get past that part of the debate so that something meaningful can come from these discussions. Of course, faith in the free market, just like any other faith, doesn't require facts to be believed.

Selling is Evil?

[DavidD_CA]

Google's job is to sell advertisements on its search engines. And it's sales people are the ones who make that happen.

So a sales person approaches the health care industry and offers to sell them stomething. Shocking and OMG evil!!!!

While we're at it, let's call AT&T evil for selling them cell phones, and PG&E evil for selling them electricity. Oh wait, we already call them evil. Let's call Linus Torvalds evil because I'm sure that somewhere, some computer in the healthcare industry is running Linux. Those bastards!

Re:The US system is probably worse than you think.

[optikSmoke]

... show that Canadian governement spending ...

I spell-checked! I did!

grumble...

sigh...

[AzureWrathHal]

Gee, I really wish I could AFFORD to have ANY health care.

Then I could toss back and forth opinions with the rest of you guys!

Re:Don't have to agree with MM to find google EVIL

[mrcparker]

So, he is a patriot that cherry picks the facts. As long as the ends justify the means, then? I mean, who cares what the truth is as long as he gets his message out. Smells like propaganda.

Companies make money.

[tbcn]

In Sweden, the system used to be more like the canadian, but slowly and surely it is being commercialized. Not that the people wants it, but there is money to be made.

Companies make money. That is usually their "main thing". The way to get there differs though. The "Healthcare Giants" are companies. You see the problem here?

Re:Companies make money.

[fyngyrz]

Companies make money. That is usually their "main thing". The way to get there differs though. The "Healthcare Giants" are companies. You see the problem here?

Governments accrue power. That is usually their "main thing". The way to get there differs though. "Socialized medicine" is government. You see the problem here?

Seriously, I'm the first to say that we should stop using for-profit middlemen (insurance companies) and work with some kind of pool that does not seek to enrich itself by failing to provide healthcare. The idea that someone with a diagnosis of diabetes is completely uninsurable is horrifying to contemplate, as are many other artifacts of the current system. But the government has done the worst possible job at just about everything I can think of offhand where it has taken a role. From parks to radio to immigration to threat management to even handling pool money - social security for example. I am extremely cynical that giving the government any part of this would work out well.

I can't speak for canada, but in the US, the government is the least competent, and most dangerous, and most coercive, large entity I know of.

Re:Mod Parent Down!

[Instine]

Thread 19704559 - critisisms: "It seems that Moore plays loose with the facts by omitting known relevant information" It is impossible to include "all known information" in a film or viable length. The "staging scenes" critisism could be seen as ill founded as he admits to such scenes being his contrivance to the most part, and could then be assumed by most thinking viewers to be a common device of his film direction. " He does this in all of his films." - Needs sitation or evidence. For example, for the film in question.

Re:Mod Parent Up!

[xerxesVII]

How did you get that backwards b?

They do Ads and have GOOD CUSTOMER SERVICE

[logicnazi]

My god what is Google coming to! They let people *pay* them to display their messages. My god I thought they only let people whose political views I approve of buy ad space. I'll never use them as a search engine again.

Christ I'm getting tired of these posts on slashdot about how Google is violating their 'don't be evil' motto because they do something the poster disagrees with. I mean Jesus Christ doesn't anyone else have friends with different political views? Are they *evil* because they don't vote for national healthcare or believe in gun rights or the like? So why is Google evil because you don't agree with everything they do.

BTW for all of those going on about Chinese censorship I, and plenty of other people, happen to honestly believe that Google did the right thing in china because choosing not to censor at all would have just left companies even more willing to censor in the market and possibly creating a Chinese search engine competitor eager to censor. Whether you agree with me or not I'm certainly not evil because we have a difference of opinion. Yet if I can honestly believe this so can Sergey and Eric and refusing to do what they think is best because you will criticize them surely *is* evil. Disagreeing with what Google does and even thinking it is very harmful doesn't make them evil.

Besides, what would be evil is for Google to start exercising too much editorial control over their advertisement system. I sure as hell don't want big corporations like Google deciding for me what are 'good' advertisements that they should offer customer service for and what are bad advertisers that need to be treated poorly.

As an aside while I do favor some form of national healthcare and think the influence of insurance companies is too large I find the way Michael Moore films masquerade as serious inquiry or arguments about the issues really objectionable. Anecdotes simply aren't arguments. Any health care system has shitty, unfair and tragic outcomes. Go read the papers in a country with national health care sometime and you will find similar exposes about how the national health system has failed some individuals. What is relevant is statistical facts and serious policy discussion and Michael Moore films offer neither.

Michael Moore is engaging in propaganda just as much as the healthcare companies. Now he probably (reasonably) sees this as fair play but it's a fallacy to suppose they are a serious look at the issues. Go listen to a real policy debate between experts if you want to actually learn whats the best position, watch a Michael Moore film if you want to get emotionally fired up about something you already believe.

Re:Opposing Moore is evil? Not.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

yes i do dont beleive in religion or the fairy tales... but my point is, Pat Robertson didnt even attack Moore's points... but instead dismissed everything he said, just because he was a "fat slob"

You're Wrong

[jellie]

I think you're being ignorant. I used to work (okay fine, intern) for one of the largest biotechnology companies, so what's your point? Take Pfizer, for example (or any other pharmaceutical company - I just happened to choose this particular one). If you look at their most recent annual report, you'll see that they made $48 billion in revenue. R&D costs were approximately $7.6 billion, whereas "Selling, informational, and administrative expenses" - i.e., mostly marketing - was $15.6 billion. Generally, marketing costs are about twice that of R&D. And for Pfizer, they apparently spent billions on R&D, yet they still made over $19 billion in income/profit.

And the government has always picked up the tab for drug research, or any sort of research. Here's an article titled "Drug Companies Profit from Research Supported by Taxpayers". There has always been federal funding for research, whether it be academic research or private research (like pharmaceutical and defense companies). It's just a matter of the person's ultimate goal.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very grateful to the company and really enjoyed working there. If you want to learn more about your company, perhaps you should read the annual reports and understand the drug development process and the role of the FDA - or maybe anything else that interests you about the company.

The American Health Care System....

[FrankN]

... has served me fairly well. My only problem, so far, was when coverage for a particular medication was denied by my insurance because their book said it wasn't indicated for my particular diagnosis. Never mind the fact that my rheumatologist could direct their attention to some studies that indicated it might help me. The book said no, and that was that. I could not afford the $500 a month bill, so we are trying another drug instead. I hope it will work.

Which brings me to something that bothers me about the debate on heath care. Strangers wanting to 'give' me anything, in this case health care, raises a red flag. I'd love to ask the people advocating the idea this: why do you want to pay my medical bills? There's no such thing as a free lunch, someone, some where, will be pay the cost. What do I / We have to give up?

If universal health care looks like it is going to happen in the United States, keep this in mind: The people that will be making the rules, congress, are the same people that change their minds more often than they change their underwear, and they do it by commitee. The past is littered with examples of this almost since the founding of our country.

Are these the people we want in charge of our health? No matter what kind of a private / public system they create in the beginning, I guarantee you this: the congress, the president, the supreme court, and the federal bureaucracy, will eventually be completely in charge.

The insurance companies already hinder decisions made by doctors because some book says so, what would make us think that the government will be different?

Frank

Re:The American Health Care System....

[bmajik]

Thank you for making the most intelligent post so far observed in this discussion.

It's very unappetizing to say or discuss in certain circles, but I beleive people have to agree that there is no "right" to healthcare. Many people are clamoring for the "right" to health care and that the government must provide this right. Some have said that the right to the persuit of happiness is derived from the right to health care, etc.

The issue is that the "right" to health care is not a natural right at all.. the reason being, that in order for you to receive treatment, someone else must provide it. When the government guarantees you healthcare, it in effect is saying it guarantees it will compell someone else to provide it for you.

Rights that grant one man something only via coercion of another are not rights at all.. but are instead tyrrany. The many can always generally agree to enslave the few.

The rights we are given in this country are granted to all humans and require no man or no government to realize them in our own lifetimes. Rather, they are realized best when we have as unobtrustive of a government as possible.

Another aspect of this discussion that people are uncomfortable with is the notion of health care as an economic issue.

Healthcare _is_ an economic issue. Isn't there a dollar amount you wouldn't spend more than to keep a pet alive? What about a family member? Few people will directly say "my wife is only worth 10m to me", but many people, when presented with a loved one who has 1 month to live, will forego a 20 million dollar treatment now which only delays the inevitable by a month or two. Some people will go for it, some won't. In a relatively privatized system, each person gets to decide for themselves how much they're willing to trade money for a quality of life. In a government run system, individuals by and large do NOT have that decision making power.

Insulating people from the true cost of health care is the cheif problem -- it presents the fallacy that they shouldn't have to choose between health and money. Well, we see what happens when distant insurance companies are left to make this decision...people are surprised at how much they have to pay for care they don't necessarily feel satisfied with.

It's surprising that some people assume replacing a distant entity (insurers) with some accountability (you can always get different insurance) with an even more distant entity (government) with ZERO accountability (you only get the chance to get a different government every few hundred years, with lots of bloodshed), is going to be an overall win.

To re-use more things I've read elsewhere... people are ok supporting public housing to help those in need because they don't have to live in the publicly provided houses. Ask people how they feel about providing public health care to the poor when they also begin receiving the same care.

I've heard of a family practice that doesn't accept any insurance payments whatsoever. You pay in cash, up front, for anything you see them for. They bill their patients about 1/3rd the normal going rate, and are extremely popular.

When people know the true cost of what they're buying, and are paying for it in black and white terms, they choose wisely, and the system works more efficiently for everyone.

Re:Mod Parent Up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Rush Limbaugh is a steaming gas bag who's really only interested in one thing and that's Rush Limbaugh. 100% of what he says is a load of crap. There, fixed it for you.

Re:Don't have to agree with MM to find google EVIL

[mathfeel]

The end does justify the mean sometimes. Remember those patriots from the Boston Tea Party?? They were doing a completely illegal thing (by England standard) and are basically trying invoke violent. (Imagine someone from /. destroy Microsoft's data to protect the "MS tax"...half joking...) I'd like to believe just cause deserve just means, but sometimes the world doesn't work that way. Talking some sense in to King George ain't gonna do it. Blood had to be shred and I, for one, am grateful for that and for all the life sacrificed for America.

STUPIDO

[mitch77]

Beginning of the end? I believe health care is the pivotal issue on determining whether or not the US slides into a fully socialized state. Tort reform is necessary to keep the socialist dogs from the door. What the opponents to tort reform don't get is the same thing the 'useful idiots' who collaborated with the various Marxist overthrows didn't get; that they are going to be the 1st victims of the new regime. Socialized medicine means the government owns it just like the military health care. There is no legal action over health care for any reason in the military. It also means doctors become subject to salary controls that will inevitably follow. This will severely cut back on the influx of the best and brightest to medicine. And all the rich who fly from their socialized countries to get our, best in the world, health care will stop contributing their millions (billions?) to our economy. mitch OpinionJournal By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL Best of the Web Today - June 29, 2007 While most of Congress scrapped over immigration this week, a small band of Republicans doggedly toiled behind the scenes on quite a different subject. National Economic Council Director Al Hubbard and health secretary Mike Leavitt shuttled to and from the Hill; Senators hashed out the topic at a steering committee lunch; congressmen canvassed members, wrote and wrote legislation. Even President Bush gave a speech on the subject, exhorting his party to get it together. The result--if Republicans know what's good for them--may be a broad new GOP health-care vision, a free-market reform to replace today's faltering employer-based system. The party has circled this for years, throwing out free-market ideas here and there, yet never proved unified (or brave) enough to get behind one bold, top-to-bottom reform. Democrats are now forcing their hand. The setting is the upcoming debate over the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or Schip, a brawl that could well determine the future direction of U.S. health care. Democrats see expanding Schip as the first step toward socialized medicine. If Republicans fail to meet that challenge with their own more compelling plan for market-based, consumer-driven reform, it may prove the beginning of the end of today's private model. If that sounds dramatic, consider the Democrats' strategy. The left still bears the wounds of HillaryCare, and knows that even with spiraling health-care costs, the nation still has little appetite for an abrupt shift to all-government care. So they've developed a craftier approach, one that takes longer but gets them to the same end. The new plot is to enact national health care one citizen at a time, slowly expanding the reach of existing government programs until they encompass the population. Schip is the first step. The program, with its $25 billion budget, was originally designed to provide insurance to only the poorest children. Democrats want to throw an additional $60 billion at it, expanding Schip's rolls by three million. They would expand eligibility so much that as many as half joining would drop private insurance to do so. Even adults could sign up. Next: Even as Democrats work to expand Schip to cover older Americans, they'd expand Medicare to cover younger Americans. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell is said to have recently floated the idea of allowing the struggling Big Three auto makers to enroll workers in Medicare at the age of 55, or 10 years early. Consider this a pilot program for dropping Medicare's age limit overall and instantly subjecting tens of millions more Baby Boomers to the government's tender care. Democrats will meanwhile argue the only way to pay for Schip and other expanded programs is to gut Medicare Advantage and similar free-market reforms. See how clever? Swallow up ever more Americans into federal programs, banish any last vestiges of popular market plans, and voilà! It is Hillarycare! Only nobody ever had to use the dreaded word! Republicans beat back the original HillaryCare by warning abou

Re:STUPIDO

[Pax681]

oh am so glad i live in Scotland where we DO have social healthcare. don't give this UTTER CRAPIOCA about socialism either. i am no fan of michael moore but sicko does show up the US in a bad light as it's health care for the poor sucks satans bollocks! STUPIDO is quite an appropriate name for a blatant republican gobshite such as yourself. why don't you show you actually give a shit about your fellow countrymen instead of being a typical slightly right of atilla the hun ritht wing blowhard. for you info i am not a member of ANY politcal party, as i don't see why i should slot myself into any category when i have views from each part of the spectrum. i truly hope the republicans get HUMPED in your forthcoming elections. is it really too much to expect republicans to care enough about their fellow countrymen to have social healthcare? you know private healthcare can successfully co-exist with it? or is it all about the bottom line?..... i'll answer for you.... for bush's cronies and party...YES IT IS. also as a humerous side note... how many billions do haliburton(full of reps) owe the US taxman before they pissed off and based themselves in dunbai???

Re:The US system is probably worse than you think.

[khchung]

If the private sector solution is so efficient then why does it suck so much money out of the system?

Uh... what are you surprised? For profit companies which are not good at sucking money (aka making profits) go bankrupt or bought out, private sector solutions is efficient precisely at sucking money out of the system.

What's more disappointing...

[Animaether]

...is that only the top thread has a dozen or so messages about the actual issue in the story. The rest is warring among tribes of Pro-Moore vs Pro-HMO, Pro-U.S. vs Pro-EverybodyElse, Pro-Documetary vs Pro-OpinionPiece, etc.

Google must be smiling.

Re:Mod Parent Down!

[sumdumass]

I don't know if this is evidence, but I saw him in an interview promoting his book on PBS this last weekend. He goes on about how all the hospitals in the UK give people money when they leave to make sure they have a way home and food in their stomach. This interviewer asked if that was true, then why in the guardian was there a story about a 70 some year old woman treated and released and was found in the parking lot because she had no way home and no one to call for a ride. He said people fall through the cracks. He asked Moore about why, if the healthcare is so good in france, why then are they always protesting and stuff. And then more said it was becuase of the protests that it is so good. And then the interviewer asked if it is so good, why are we seeing them protest about the same stuff? and moore moved on to talking about canada avoiding the question.

Then moore said he went to Canada and went to a hospital emergency room and saw nothing different then in America. He said there wasn't any waiting like everyone says. And the interviewer asked a few questions then Moore finally admitted that there is generally a 4 to 6 week waiting priod to see specialist and then to ge treatments authorized.

So, at least from an interview promoting the movie, it seems like everything is contrived in the same sense the GP was claiming. This move is "Moore of the same" (pardon the pun). Or at least all indecations seem that way.

Really, you people cannot even do the maths.

[jbssm]

I'm sick and tired of ear some greedy Americans saying that it's wrong for them to use their own money to pay for other people sick problems, and that us in Europe keep paying extremely high taxes to afford that.

People, really use your brain for a change, lets see, in Europe we pay taxes and have free health care, social security and lots of other stuff. In USA you ignorant people that still didn't have realised it pay INSURANCE to have that, you end up paying the same or even more and in the case of a fatality of life, either the insurance company finds some way out of it or you end up in debt by paying the cumulative insurance payments that get bigger and bigger with your disease.

If you just stopped being dumb you would understand that in Europe all the money goes to actually take care of people, in USA a part goes to take care of people and the other part goes to make insurance companies richer ... all this while your health care sucks compared to the European one ... what about starting being smart for once in your life?

All ads are propaganda

[ragingmime]

...and from the shrill tone of most of Moore's movies and books (and his habit of not acknowledging information that conflicts with his opinion), I'd say that Moore's movie is too.

From dicitonary.com: Propoganda - 1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

I'm less than thrilled with the cost of our medical system sometimes. I can't stand insurance companies, and I wish that drug companies would ease up on developing nations who produce generic versions of patented drugs to help poor, sick people. I think it would definitely be a mistake to use only information from ads to make important healthcare decisions - but I don't have a ton of respect for the objectivity of people like Moore, either. I don't think either side is "evil," as such. Just read through the info that's there, seek out more objective information (e.g. WebMd), and keep your BS detector at the ready.

I wish there were more objective information out there, but if something is clearly marked as an ad, I trust people to take it with a grain of salt. There are already ads for drugs and health plans on radio and TV - what would make ones online any different?

Ignorance

[Mark_MF-WN]

Healthcare is much, much cheaper than you seem believe. 30% of the costs of healthcare go to running the beauracracies of the insurance companies. In a socialized system only 3% of the money goes towards running the beauracracy. Then you have the drugs, for which 70% of the cost goes to marketing. You'd know that, if you weren't so ignorant and stupid.

Try not being a GOP puppet. Thinking for yourself isn't nearly as hard as you might imagine.

This is my favourite though:

and people have such a sense of entitlement to all this work, and they're outraged that they can't have it on the cheap. Fancy that.

People feel they are entitled to NOT DIE. Fancy that!

Goddam fucking idiot....

Re:Ignorance

[maxume]

People feel they are entitled to NOT DIE. Fancy that!

Which is what drives a huge amount of US health care spending, as rich people waste millions on uncomfortable months. One of the features of all the health care systems that you are so happy with is that it can be difficult to get care that is not government approved(even good ol Canada makes some treatment illegal to get privately, as they need doctors). I'm all for changing the regulatory model in the US, but just disagreeing with you doesn't make someone stupid.

Re:Ignorance

[Oligonicella]

"People feel they are entitled to NOT DIE. Fancy that!"

No one is entitled not to die. That's one perceptual problem with humans, the idea that they can indefinitely stave off death.

Anyone who actually believes people are entitled not to die is the GDFI.

Re:Ignorance

[49152]

Everyone eventually dies, nothing can change that.

You can argue as much as you want, but I think it is safe to say that almost all humans anywhere would agree they are entitled to receive medical help if it can prevent their immediate death. I also think pretty much the same amount of people will agree that it is indeed evil to prevent someone from giving such help.

Of course this clashes fundamentally with the idea of a privately funded medical health system like in the US.

Re:Ignorance

[FooAtWFU]

Try not being a DNC puppet. Thinking for yourself isn't nearly as hard as you'd imagine. (I'm many things. A GOP puppet, however, is not one of them. A modicum of respect and avoidance of ad hominem attacks from your future posts would be greatly appreciated, thank you oh-so-kindly, sir!)

So pharmaceutical companies charge well in excess of manufacturing and research costs. This covers the marketing. Why, then, are they wasting all this money on marketing? I know! So they can make more money. Why? Because that's the point. they're out to make money. Private investors are not going to pay billions for research if they don't think they're going to get a return on their investment. That's why people are investing their money: not for the good of humanity or a noble cause like that, but for profit. There is incidental good to humanity, mind you, in the form of new knowledge which will make it into the public domain in 20ish years. But if you take away all the marketing, you take away a good chunk of the profits, and then suddenly biotech isn't so hot anymore, and people will put their money elsewhere. There's no incidental good of humanity served.

Yes, the Government and various philanthropists and such can fund research and develop drugs without all this money-making hooplah. But if you take it away, there are drugs which are not going to be researched and which will simply will not exist. Your choice is this: live in a world where you pay lots of money for fancy drugs (and cover the marketing and the investors) which save your life (or just make it better) but put you in debt, or live in a world where you don't even have the option of going into debt to save your life because nobody researched that particular drug. You don't get a cheap Get-Out-Of-Illness-Free card. Sure, a nationalized system might make things better in the short run by yanking a bunch of already-researched drugs into a more affordable state, but that's not a sustainable solution.

People feel they are entitled to NOT DIE. Fancy that! People must have a fundamental disconnect with Reality. If there's one thing you can be certain about in life, it's death.

Re:Ignorance

[thestreetmeat]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Thomas Jefferson was a GDFI!

Re:Ignorance

[toddestan]

So pharmaceutical companies charge well in excess of manufacturing and research costs. This covers the marketing. Why, then, are they wasting all this money on marketing? I know! So they can make more money. Why? Because that's the point. they're out to make money. Private investors are not going to pay billions for research if they don't think they're going to get a return on their investment. That's why people are investing their money: not for the good of humanity or a noble cause like that, but for profit. There is incidental good to humanity, mind you, in the form of new knowledge which will make it into the public domain in 20ish years. But if you take away all the marketing, you take away a good chunk of the profits, and then suddenly biotech isn't so hot anymore, and people will put their money elsewhere. There's no incidental good of humanity served.

I've always thought that marketing drugs was pretty strange. When it comes to drugs, either you need the drug in which case you'll seek it out (or most likely you'll seek out your doctor who will use his expertise to choose the appropiate drug(s) for you), or you don't need it at all. However, we have big Pharma pushing drugs directly to consumers like they are iPods or something. What's the deal with that? Why try to market drugs to an audience of people who either don't need the drug at all, or are going to already be using it? The answer is that they are pretty much trying to push drugs onto people who don't need them, and even go so far as to make shit up to do it (restless leg syndrome anyone?). All in the name of making more money.

While I don't really have a problem with for-profit drug companies, big pharma is taking it too far. They are evil, and desperately need to be reeled in.

Re:Ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

How did this get +5 insightful?

"Think for yourself?"
You're such a tool it's not even funny.

How about YOU think for YOURSELF instead of biting the baited hook the ilk of Hillary Clinton is waving in front your nose like the predictable little shortsited self indulgent dumbass they're counting on you to be?

Where the FUCK do you think this money is going to come from? Your pocket!

While we're pulling numbers out of our ASSES: the lower and middle class carry 90% of the tax burden in this country. The rich are such a minority that if you spread their wealth out, it would barely put a scratch in the surface of your tax burden. THE WEALTH GAP IS GETTING BIGGER BECAUSE THE POOR ARE BREEDING LIKE RABBITS SINKING THE WHOLE FUCKING SHIP! STOP HAVING KIDS YOU DUMB PIECE OF SHIT STAINED WALKING REPRODUCTIVE ORGAN!

YOU pay for this shit! Except now, there's cushy government jobs that need to get paid for on top of the pile of bills.

If you don't pay it now, then later through creative financing where they hide the debt by raiding the social security funds, or through inflation by deficit spending with China or printing more money. Then they'll raise interest rates, killing your land value, and leaving you owing the bank more money than you have assets worth, and a higher interest rate than you can pay off. This is the shit end of the stick you're so happily carrying around in your mouth you fucking RETARD.

Your "smart investment" they've been hammering in to your skull is your slave collar that they jerk whenever you demand a doggy treat.

You demand enough, they jerk the collar so hard, it snaps your neck, and you go bankrupt!

You think China is buying up our currency out of charity? They do it because they know that the federal reserve will rope things in! They don't mind loaning us money, because they know that we're good for it, because they aren't just giving you free candy from the money tree you fucking sycophant!

That "free candy" costs twice as much when it comes from the government, and the republocrat fascists know full well WTF is going on. The republicans are playing coy, and they're both doing a good cop bad cop routine to get you to want to hand over all of your chips.

That's the game!

They intentionally plunge the economy in and out of recessions and skim money off both crests of the wave!

HOW DO YOU THINK POOR PEOPLE IN POOR COUNTRIES GET TO BE POOR!?

THEY MAKE THEMSELVES DEPENDANT ON THE GOVERNMENT, AND WHEN YOU ARE DEPENDANT, YOU ARE THEIR BITCH!

If Frito Lays and Pfizer aren't owned by the same people, and they aren't selling fat in a bag to your indulgent ass just so they can charge you to suck it back out, then they're swapping guffaws at your expense in some country club in Italy!

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!

I could rip apart your post. I could be persuassive and taunt you mercilessly. But FUCK IT!

YOU ARE ALL FUCKING WASTES! YOU ARE NOT MY COUNTRYMEN! THE FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD SPIT ON YOUR IGNORANT LARDFILLED ASSES IF THEY HAD TO MARCH TROOPS OVER YOUR CARCASSES TO TAKE THE POWER BACK THAT YOUR FUCKING ASSES TRADED FOR FUCKING LOLLIPOPS!

GO TO FUCKING HELL! ALL OF YOU IGNORANT PIECES OF SHIT! I DON'T WANT TO SHARE A COUNTRY WITH YOU! YOU DO NOT DESERVE TO BE CALLED AMERICANS! YOU DEFILE THE WORD! I TRAVEL, AND I LEAVE THAT SHIT COVERED BADGE OF SILVER AT HOME BECAUSE I CAN'T CLEAN IT OFF WITH ANYTHING BUT 100% PURE U.S.P. GENOCIDE!

"Easy Credit" and you dumb fucks wonder why prices are going up when people can buy now and pay later? You'll pay later with a fucking recession you shortsighted crass piece of shit. You look real cool now big spender. But I'll be the one laughing when you're having garage sales and changing diapers to pay to send your fucking rabbit hutch to private school!

TRUST THE FED! You can leave that fox in charge of that big of a chicken coop! There's no way politicians watching the purse strings are SHIESTY FUCKING CORRUPT PIECES OF SHIT STEALING FROM THE MONEY SACK!

I HATE ALL OF YOU!

Re:Ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

But no!!!

They have a magic solution you see! The problem is redundant jobs! It's inefficiency in the system! We'll just make a new department of redundant oversight to make very stern recomendations on how to cut the fat! Cut the fat! Cut the Fat! Cut the fat!

IF I SAY IT ENOUGH TIMES, MAYBE YOU'LL BELIEVE THAT YOU'RE 10,000 HEADED HYDRA, WITH A LOLLIPOP PER HEAD, IS OVERWEIGHT BECAUSE IT HAS A HIGH BODY FAT CONTENT!

OR JUST FUCKING MAYBE! IT'S GOT TOO MANY FUCKING HEADS, AND THOSE LOLLIPOPS AREN'T DOING SHIT FOR YOUR RUMBLING STOMACH!!!!

SURELY THE FUCKING SHEEP YOU'RE FEEDING TO THE FUCKING THING BY THE TRUCKLOAD WOULDN'T MAKE THAT RUMBLING STOP! I ASKED THE HYDRA NICELY TO SHARE SOME FUCKING SHEEP AND HE DIDN'Y GIVE ME A LOLLIPOP THAT DAY!!!! SO OBVIOUSLY, THE PROBLEM IS NOT ENOUGH HYDRA-HEADS AND LOLLIPOPS!

DO YOU FUCKING SMELL THAT? THAT'S CALLED GOVERNMENT BLOAT! IT'S KINDA LIKE KERNEL BLOAT IN AN OPPERATING SYSTEM!

DIE YOU PIECES OF SHIT!

hey lameness filter? shove it up your ass mmm'k? that's cause I am fucking yelling! yelling is what pissed off motherfuckers do when the world is going to shit because the human race is self destructing, because people are such worthless stupid shitbags.

am i still yelling? what about now? how about now you piece of shit? I'm not gonna edit it out. It was intentional and deliberate. Do you understand that? I did that intentionally. Yes, I am being censored because I have something to say, and yelling is the only way to say it. Anger just gets people to plug their ears? Good. I hope they keep it up. Ignore me you fucking halfwits. Don't say I didn't fucking warn you. Keep spending your way in to a whole in the ground. It's cute. It's really fucking special in fact.

Re:Ignorance

[Mark_MF-WN]

If they disagree with me on basic facts that can be easily verified, then yes, that DOES make someone stupid.

For instance, if you claim that it is daytime, and I claim that it is nighttime (assume that we are colocated in this scenario), and we then proceed to go outside and see that the sun is directly overhead, and then check a clock and see that it is 12:00 noon ... and I then continued to emphatically declare that it is nighttime, then I would be stupid. Deeply, fundamentally stupid.

Similarly, someone who stubbornly asserts claims about universal healthcare that are easily disprovable (and have been disproven repeatedly), then they are stupid. Deeply, fundamentally stupid.

I'm guessing you're either religious or a neoconservative. To my knowledge, those are the principal groups that seem to cling to this belief that opinions are somehow relevant in determining the nature of reality. Unfortunately, it's not true. Only strictly subjective matters are subject to the idiocy of opinion. Most of reality is strictly a concrete, objective, independently verifiable phenomenon.

Try watching less Fox News. Your awareness of reality may already be dangerously undermined.

Re:Ignorance

[Mark_MF-WN]

People must have a fundamental disconnect with Reality. If there's one thing you can be certain about in life, it's death.

But from preventable causes? Do you really think kids should be dying from diseases that can be easily cured, just because they can't afford Doctor's fees?

Yes, the Government and various philanthropists and such can fund research and develop drugs without all this money-making hooplah. But if you take it away, there are drugs which are not going to be researched and which will simply will not exist. Your choice is this: live in a world where you pay lots of money for fancy drugs (and cover the marketing and the investors) which save your life (or just make it better) but put you in debt, or live in a world where you don't even have the option of going into debt to save your life because nobody researched that particular drug. You don't get a cheap Get-Out-Of-Illness-Free card.

Now this is completely laughable. You ARE a GOP puppet -- you've bought into their delusional and inaccurate view of the world.

Most basic drug research gets done at publically funded institutions already. Pharmaceutical companies mostly just find new uses for old drugs, so that they can get new patents. And then they use their patents to prevent research that isn't profitable, even if that research is by other companies or independent researchers.

When you pay those high drug prices, all you are paying for is the marketing. Your taxes paid for most of the research already. Is it really worth it, just to see a colourful label and a catchy name on the drug? Do you really prefer to pay more just for some shiny adverts in magazines?

Sure, a nationalized system might make things better in the short run by yanking a bunch of already-researched drugs into a more affordable state, but that's not a sustainable solution.

Funny, nations with nationalized systems seem to produce new drugs all the time. They seem to have all kinds of new medical research going on. And they seem to have sustained themselves for at least a few decades now, with no signs of coming apart yet.

You see, this is why I used the word ignorance. You ARE deeply ignorant -- you lack the basic facts upon which to base an opinion about socialized healthcare.

Ultimately, what it comes down to is that you are deeply and personally offended by the notion of poor folk, folk with permanent disabilities, single parents, and the like, being able to receive the same level of healthcare as yourself. Being a staunch GOP supporting puppet, you see everything in life, including life itself, as a commodity -- and you hate to even imagine a world in which your wealth can't buy you preferential access to that commodity. You need to be able to live a longer, healthier life than the poor, because somehow all the other advantages that wealth gives you over them just aren't enough. You need to seem them suffer with treatable illnesses and ultimately die young, so that you can know that you're better than them -- which is ultimately the basis of the entire neoconservative mindset.

Re:Ignorance

[maxume]

Your assumptions are wild and off base. Stop worshiping yourself so damn much and you might make better ones.

Re:Ignorance

[SonicSpike]

Actually healthcare would cost a LOT less if the federal government didn't regulate the industry. If the FDA (which is unconstitutional anyway) didn't exist, then there would not be such a huge cost of overhead in drug development.

And government is always the LEAST efficient bureaucracy of all so socialized medicine would be even worse than what we have now, not to mention unconstitutional.

Re:Ignorance

[Mark_MF-WN]

And government is always the LEAST efficient bureaucracy of all so socialized medicine would be even worse than what we have now, not to mention unconstitutional.

It's irrelevant whether or not the government is less efficient than other beauracracies -- one beauracracy is ALWAYS cheaper than dozens or hundreds of them, all getting in each other's way and interfering with each other's operations.

Sadly, reality is not on your side here. Which is nice-speak for "you're too stupid to be taken seriously by anyone". Nations with socialized healthcare systems provide better healthcare to the vast majority of their populations, at a fraction of the price. 80% of Canadians have superior healthcare to their American counterparts, and Canada's per-capita spending on Healthcare is less than half what America's is. As I said before, reality is not on your side here.

Actually healthcare would cost a LOT less if the federal government didn't regulate the industry. If the FDA (which is unconstitutional anyway) didn't exist, then there would not be such a huge cost of overhead in drug development.

Let's confine our discussion to the real world ... although I sense that you have problems in this regard.

It would be nice if absolutely anyone could practice medicine or sell drugs, and there could be real competition in healthcare. But it will never happen. That's just not how real world societies function. Sane people (by which I mean not-you) accept reality and work to achieve the best possible results in it, rather than fantasizing about some mythical anarcho-syndicalist society that can never actually exist.

I particularly like the fact that you yourself have already noted that the US constitution is no longer in effect, and no longer has even the slightest relevance to how Americans conduct their political affairs... and yet you seem to still think that the claim "it's unconstitutional" is somehow meaningful.

Re:Ignorance

[Mark_MF-WN]

Worshipping myself?! What are you, some kind of deranged fundamentalist christian? I mean wow, what a bizarre and insane thing to accuse anyone of.

So ... you deny that you are either Christian or that you vote for the Republicans in federal elections (since the GOP dominates the Republican party at the federal level). I find that hard to believe. Actually, I could believe that you're a muslim. They almost achieve that same level of contempt for their neighbours that Christians and neocons exhibit. The church of satan theoretically endorses that kind of selfishness as well, but in practice its followers all seem to be very compassionate and highly liberal.

Maybe you believe that you are a libertarian? No, that doesn't work either. A libertarian wouldn't be so pathetically deluded as to need to lie to themselves about socialized healthcare not working. A libertarian accepts that collectivist policies may be more practical and effective than liberal ones; they don't oppose collectivism on practical grounds, they oppose it on ethical grounds. Only neoconservatives and fundamentalist Christians are so divorced from reality that they can't accept what every single piece of legitimate research into healthcare programs has found -- that socialized healthcare works much, much better than private healthcare.

Re:Ignorance

[maxume]

I'm utterly non religious. I'm not particularly opposed to a single payer style system; it would likely be an improvement over the status quo(and certainly would be for me personally, as I would get better access to a large pool, but I'm young and poor, older, wealthier me might not be happy about more taxes), but I don't think it is any sort of wonderful panacea(go back and read the first half of the last sentence of my first reply to you, I say something about "changing the regulatory model"...).

This provides excellent context to explain what I meant about worshiping yourself. You are so eager to compare my and anyone else's ideological flaws to your perfection, you pigeon hole and assume yourself way further than you can hope to justify, and then rail against your own assumptions. How boring.

Anyway, here's an interesting analysis of just how far socialization is *not* going to take us:

http://www.janegalt.net/archives/009873.html

The meat of it is that Medicare and Medicaid spend in excess of 7% of GDP covering about 1/3 of our population; boosting that to France's 11%(or 12%, whatever) isn't necessarily going to improve things for the other 2/3. Providing universal coverage is definitely a good thing and something to strive for, but I would reach for the politically unlikely 'baseline' model, where certain treatments were provided and or subsidized, and everything else is the individual's problem. A baby born into a poor family with cystic fibrosis is not less deserving of care than a baby born into a rich family. A smoker is less deserving of care than a non smoker. And so on.

Re:Ignorance

[adpowers]

Yeah, the right not to be killed, not the right to make everyone pay for your life extension.

Re:Ignorance

[Mark_MF-WN]

ALL socialized healthcare systems are, to one degree or another, "baseline" models. For example, in British Columbia (where I live), a wide variety of things aren't covered: corrective lenses, orthodontia, medication (unless you're earning below $20,000 a year), wheelchairs, prostheses, etc. LOTS of things aren't covered, and are the individual's "own problem". It's odd that you would suggest that such a system is politically unlikely... or do you just mean politically unlikely in the USA? Because frankly, it seems much MORE likely than alternatives like buying everyone free medecine and round of LASIK surgery and a pony and some tasty pies.

Your odd comment about worshipping myself still doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I don't purport to have some kind of "ideological perfection" -- there are ideologies that I emphatically disagree with yet respect. But letting people die because one is too stubborn to accept real facts about the efficacy of different healthcare models isn't one of them.

For example, if someone were to take the libertarian stance of "it's wrong to use force to coerce some people into supporting others", that would be one thing. I disagree with the premise that collectivism is wrong, but I can respect that it's coming from reasonable ethical framework.

Conversely, if someone acts as if they care about other people, and are only opposing socialized healthcare because it's soooo expensive, well then they're retarded windbags who've deliberated ignored the real data about the matter. Similarly, if someone tries to claim that "research will stop! NOOO!", they're deliberately ignoring the real state of medical research in America -- in which the research is actually done using public money in universities, and big drug companies just add a huge markup to cover marketing costs, investor relations, the CEO's new Bungelow in Micronesia, etc, despite having added nothing of value beyond the extremely inexpensive act of actually manufacturing the drugs.

Thinking about American healthcare just in terms of GDP doesn't entirely make sense. It ignores the potential for regulating the prices of drugs downwards (or to ban drug patents entirely, or at least on drugs researched using public funds). It ignores the ability of the government to bargain aggressively for reduced rates from specialists, clinics, and private practices. It overlooks the fact that as government healthcare spending increases, private spending will decrease by a greater amount, as the health insurance companies and their markups, marketing budgets, investor payouts, and so on are eliminated -- not to mention the fact that private insurance companies invariably have to pay more for the same medical procedures because they can't bargain at anywhere near the same scale as the government.

Re:Ignorance

[maxume]

The government already accounts for half of health care spending in the US. It *is currently* in an excellent bargaining position, and prices probably reflect that. I would expect mandated prices to come with a long term slide in quality, but I'm crazy.

Re:Ignorance

[Mark_MF-WN]

But does the government actually use that position to bargain? I don't think anyone has suggested that the entire problem is the lack of a universal coverage system -- there are certainly other aspects.

One of those is this unhealthy notion that the government shouldn't interfere with business and industry. That would be a fine principal if the government actually followed it, but they don't. So now they're in that shitty half-way position of being knee-deep in healthcare, but unwilling to involve themselves positively. Instead of bargaining prices down, the US government tends to simply accept contracts that are offered to them. In the best case they take the lowest bid; in the worst case, they take the bid offered by the CEO who happens to be golfing buddies with the beauracrat in charge of the contract. That's NOT bargaining; in fact, that's pretty much the opposite of bargaining.

Even if one did irrationally oppose universal healthcare, there are other things that could be done to help the situation.

• Banning pharmaceutical patents.
• Forcing the AMA/Nursing College to allow more doctors/nurses to graduate. There's something deeply, deeply disturbing about giving a profession the power to artificially limit the quantity of labour available -- especially when lives are on the line.
• Forcing the AMA to accredit more immigrant doctors. There's something peculiarily disgraceful about having a skilled-labour shortage and simultaneously having people with PhDs and medical degrees driving taxis and running Donair stands. I work part-time at a service station to pay for school, and I'm actually training a guy with a medical degree. The guy who comes in to help out with maintenance can run a refinery. I've already trained a software engineer and a teacher, and I worked alongside another programmer. Granted this is getting a bit off the topic of healthcare, but it's just so insane that we all of these skilled labourers who can't use their skills because the members of the relevant professional associations don't want to see their artificially created labour shortages disappear.
• Etcetera...

There's any number of things that the US could do, but it doesn't do any of them.

Re:Ignorance

[FooAtWFU]

You are, of course, welcome to disagree with what The Evidence says, to present a case for it, or to not present a case and just say I'm wrong, and disagree with what actually constitutes The Facts and what constitutes propaganda. We obviously have a disconnect there. While discussing this, we can hold intelligent and meaningful discussion and debates.

But I'd appreciate it if you didn't ascribe me motives I don't have. I believe that humanity will be better served in the intermediate and long term by maintaining a non-socialized health care system in this country, because I believe (rightly or wrongly is a valid topic for debate) that a socialized one will end up in a state where it drags things down more than it lifts them up.

I also don't believe that anyone else fundamentally has a right to my money (via tax dollars) to attain such health care; and not half so much offended by the idea of taxes and losing my own personal money as the sense of raw entitlement that I'm running into. (It leaves me with a very bad reaction, and far more vehement opposition to things than I would otherwise normally have). I am not trying to keep anybody down and wage class warfare. I've come from a very poor background myself; I won't go into specifics and try to brag about it, or about how much I give to charity (nor is it that impressive at the moment, I've only been working a month -- you can strike another count against my Wealthy Rich Snob status though).

If I am going to ascribe motives to you, I think you want to paint me with some sort of broad brush of The Evil Rich Greedy Selfish Snobbish Wealthy Enemy, so you can feel good about yourself and all how you can stand firm against these terrible people. But you're wrong, and this isn't a healthy sort of attitude for anyone to maintain, though it is all too typical.
To use a political analogy, you're being just like a pro-lifer saying that a pro-choicer is out to murder and maim babies to satisfy their wicked, sinful bloodlust (which is obviously the case, since the pro-choicer is the spawn of Satan). Tip: Most people arguing a political point like this actually think they're promoting good. (You obviously think so yourself.) If you can somehow accept this fact, you might be able to accord your opponent that modicum of respect I was mentioning earlier. I mean, imagine that, seeing your opponent as a human being, instead of hellspawn! (I'm afraid that point of view is not really that grand for motivating the voters to Get Out And Do something though. Spreading hate is much more effective.)

Re:Ignorance

[Mark_MF-WN]

You are, of course, welcome to disagree with what The Evidence says, to present a case for it, or to not present a case and just say I'm wrong, and disagree with what actually constitutes The Facts and what constitutes propaganda.

So... exactly what "facts" support the case for private healthcare (or more accurately, for the absence of socialized healthcare -- they're not mutually exclusive)? I'd take your side more seriously if there were ANY evidence. Right now, every single shred of real, ojective data supports the position that the free market (or what passes for it in the US) is incapable of providing reasonable levels of healthcare for more than a minority of people, while in economies very similar the that of the US, universal health care systems provide reasonable levels of care for nearly everyone, and in most cases still allow the wealthy to pursue superior levels of care.

I also don't believe that anyone else fundamentally has a right to my money (via tax dollars) to attain such health care; and not half so much offended by the idea of taxes and losing my own personal money as the sense of raw entitlement that I'm running into. (It leaves me with a very bad reaction, and far more vehement opposition to things than I would otherwise normally have).

I only buy this argument from people who likewise believe that we should privatize the armed forces. After all, it's an extremely socialist institution. That's 2.3 million personell who are living off money taken by taxation.

Assuming that you do support a public military, what makes you feel so "entitled" that you can take money from other people to assuage your own cowardice? Maybe the rest of us aren't quite so paranoid and xenophobic that we need to squander all those resources on an overblown military, vastly larger than what we could ever need for self-defensive purposes? Or maybe the rest of us believe in defending ourselves, in the form of volunteer militias and so on.

The "entitlement" argument is just so much bullshit.

I am not trying to keep anybody down and wage class warfare.

Nevertheless, that's precisely what you're doing. The portion of the population without healthcare, in most cases, can't get it.

Consider my friend Allison: at the age of 15, she developed a rather serious tumour in her cerebellum. She comes from a poor family. Luckily, we're Canadian, so she was able to have it treated it using state-of-the-art gamma knife surgery, and now she's healthy again. In the United States, she would be dead -- it took 10 years to completely treat her tumour, as it recurred several times. Allison's mother had to stop working to care for her, so there would have been no way for her to pay skyrocketing health insurance premiums, let along pay for rent and food and whatnot without the kind of disability assistance and caregiver's allowance that Canada's social welfare programs provide.

Now, you can dither and whine about whether or not her mother could have had health insurance, blah blah blah. But here's the real crux of the matter: if Allison were American, how would she be supposed to get her own health insurance once she's living on her own? She's confined to a wheelchair for life, she needs specially designed corrective lenses for an eye that will no longer track properly, she has organ damage from spending several years on steroids, etcetera. What healthcare plan is going to cover her? Is she being arrogant, or suffering from some evil sense of "entitlement", just for not wanting to DIE from the first easily treatable malady that comes along?

I just don't understand why anyone would begrudge others the basic right to live. The fact that you would get so upset at the very notion of social support is mind boggling, especially since you purport to be a moral person. Since when does a moral person expect people like

Re:Ignorance

[FooAtWFU]

It's funny that you make the argument for a socialized health care system, the universal system to support the every-man, with the Exceptional case. It's a touching story. But the US already has government-funded health care for the poor and for children; it's called Medicaid. I have no idea whether it would have covered your friend's surgery. If it doesn't, that's a flaw, sure, and maybe it should get more money. You can do that without a single-payer system, though.

The last paragraph of your post, anyway, makes a bunch of nonsense comparisons. Some of the things you cite are plain-and-simple public goods: non-rival, non-excludable. The Army, for instance: my being in the country doesn't mean we're any less safe from war (it's nonrival) and, if you were taking up a collection to pay for it and I didn't, you couldn't exactly say "oh, everyone in this country can be safe from war, except for that guy over there." (nonexcludable). Currency is one of those few interesting cases where there's a greater benefit from having fewer options available, and a free market solution would be less than efficient. Those free-market things some people love to talk about only really work so wondrously well if transaction costs are low, and there aren't barriers to entry: roads don't really qualify (a, tollbooths - even with modern speed-pass-whatever, and b, natural geographic monopolies on 'em). Health care is fundamentally different. It's often very much rival (if I see the doctor, someone else has to wait) and very much excludable. They still have a lot of barriers to entry, mind you (medical schools and licensing and all that), and transaction costs can be very high indeed (you can't exactly be hospital-shopping for better prices when someone's having a heart attack, for instance). So it's not a free market to begin with, and one can certainly make the case for the government doing something (something more) to address the very-much-existant issues. But converting it to a monopsony is largely orthogonal to such efforts.

Re:Ignorance

[Mark_MF-WN]

No one said anything about a single-payer system. They do work extremely well in practice, but still, single-payer is not the last word in socialized healthcare. But any socialized system has to be universally available -- exluding folk based on bizarre, arcane conditions, so that they don't find out they're getting a bill until after their trip to the hospital, etc.

It's often very much rival (if I see the doctor, someone else has to wait) and very much excludable.

Unfortunately, under the current system, if you see the doctor for a nasty outbreak of excema, somone else may have to wait in the lobby with a severed artery. And I'm not making that claim lightly. The private system tends to place specialists not where they're needed, but where the money is. The rich need their skin tended, so the doctors are working doing that rather than performing skin grafts for poor folks who need it. With the exception of the emergency, where triage rules, a wealthy person's splinter can easily take priority over the uninsured fellow who needs his hand sewn back on.

The Army, for instance: my being in the country doesn't mean we're any less safe from war (it's nonrival) and, if you were taking up a collection to pay for it and I didn't, you couldn't exactly say "oh, everyone in this country can be safe from war, except for that guy over there." (nonexcludable).

Sure it's excludable. When an invasion occurs, no one bothers to protect your house when the enemy wants to loot it and send you to the gulags. No one bothers to try and rescue you either if you're taken as a conscripted labourer by the enemy. The army isn't working on your behalf. And of course, it ignores the fundamental question: what if I don't agree that an army is necessary at all? Maybe I don't believe that anyone will invade my country; why do you have such a disgusting sense of entitlement to take MY money to alleviate YOUR xenophobia?

Besides, how is that different than healthcare -- if you get treated for TB, you can't pass it on to the uninsured family next door, even though they didn't pay for that service. Seriously, outbreaks of serious illnesses are a much more plausible threat than war -- the preventable infections (mostly the flu) kill more Americans per year than war, crime, and suicide combined. Making sure that your neighbour's family gets antibiotics and flu shots means less chance that they'll pass some nasty bug on to your family.

Those free-market things some people love to talk about only really work so wondrously well if transaction costs are low, and there aren't barriers to entry: roads don't really qualify (a, tollbooths - even with modern speed-pass-whatever, and b, natural geographic monopolies on 'em).

Libertarians would disagree with you. If your property has a road with a tollbooth, and my property has a road that I've licensed to a corporation for a yearly fee and which generates revenue using road-side advertising instead of tolls... whose going to make money? Or the people in a region can form a cooperative to own and operate a free road system on their respective lands -- that way, there's no coercion involved. If someone wants out ... well, they'll have a hard time getting anywhere. Talk to some libertarians sometime, they've actually thought about this stuff, rather than simply condemning it out because of your sense of entitlement to free roads.

Currency is one of those few interesting cases where there's a greater benefit from having fewer options available, and a free market solution would be less than efficient.

The Scottish would beg to differ. They have private banks that issue their own pound sterling, which receive widespread use in Scotland and England despite not being legal tender. Is the government really necessary here?

Why does it fell like I'm arguing the anarch

Exceptions

[Mark_MF-WN]

Stories like the ones above are the exception, not the rule...

Except in the US. In a private system, they ARE the rule. You've got three stories there -- but 18% of Americans have NO HEALTHCARE WHATSOEVER. They can't even get to the point of being exploited and gouged. They keep the waitlists short by not being on them.

I'll never understand how such hateful, inhuman monsters as yourself can exist. You'd rather have 18% of the people go without care, and another 20 or 30% go with substandard care, then face the HORRORS of a system where so few people receive poor care that when it happens it's newsworthy.

With any luck, you'll be downsized and get cancer on the same day, and you'll finally develop that special form of self-servint empathy that only a conservative fallen on hard times can have.

Re:Exceptions

[bryanp]

You say he's got three stories there. But just clicking one of them (the 2nd one) I see this:

The drug Herceptin is said to improve survival rates and quality of life for women with advanced breast cancer - but, according to the charity, around 1,000 women in the UK who could benefit from it are not being given access to it.

Sounds more like 1000 stories to me. And that's just one of the links.

Re:Exceptions

[Colin Smith]

Stories like the ones above are the exception, not the rule... No, they're not, I mentioned a few because I couldn't be bothered posting them all. NICE exists specifically to ration healthcare. To cut the budget.

I'll never understand how such hateful, inhuman monsters as yourself can exist Well, we're born, in the same way as retarded little morons like yourself. The big difference, is, we're taught to think for ourselves.

You'd rather have 18% of the people go without care, and another 20 or 30% go with substandard care, then face A couple of points.

1: Even without health insurance, Americans get care.
2: If you read my other post you'll see I proposed compulsory health insurance system which is used in other EU countries which provides benefits of both a private health sector and universal coverage.

the HORRORS of a system where so few people receive poor care that when it happens it's newsworthy. Sorry, but those are just the tip of the iceberg, used as examples. The real story of the NHS is the waiting. Even with tens of billions of pounds of going in, there are huge waiting lists for service and huge bureaucracies in place to move patients from one queue to another in order to meet government targets.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3749801.stm

Instead of 30% getting substandard care, it's closer to 100% in countries with fully socialised healthcare. And this is with an astronomical budget. The NHS budget is 105 billion pounds, 250 billion dollars every year. That's 1750 pounds (3500 dollars) per person per year.

With any luck, you'll be downsized and get cancer on the same day, and you'll finally develop that special form of self-servint empathy that only a conservative fallen on hard times can have. I'm freelance, healthy and a liberal.

Re:Exceptions

[rtb61]

Your selective lies of omission a pretty transparent. Do you even know the difference between elective surgery and emergency surgery. Do you even understand how much stress is reduced on a family with a suddenly seriously ill family member when then don't have to stop and think whether the insurance will cover it or whether they can even afford it.

In your system if you cant afford it or you don't have the insurance, waiting lists for emergency service are better, sort of, because of course you just die and stop waiting. You see in those countries with a nationalised health care system, those stories in the paper are about improving the system, motivating politicians for even better services, and you know what, they actually work, it is all part of the true democratic process.

Now fortunately for those people with a proper health care system were all ill people are treated regardless of their ability to pay, there would be riots on the streets before they would let the system go back to the greed based for profit system.

Social welfare just like a social democracy, it all about providing the best services for the majority, not about the majority serving the greed and lusts of the minority. The amazing depth of your lies, 100% get poor health care, your corrupt little person, even you should accept that in any society, there are always a percentage that cheat and steal from any system and get better everything.

Re:Exceptions

[Mark_MF-WN]

So... how many American women who need that drug can't get it?

* sound of crickets chirping goes here *

Hundreds of thousands? Millions? That's what I thought.

Case closed, asshole. Thanks for proving my point -- any problem you can find with socialized healthcare appears a hundred times over in the Human-life-as-a-commodity system.

Re:Exceptions

[bryanp]

Ah, you can't come up with real numbers so you resort to name calling. Tch tch. Personally I think that both private and socialized health care systems have advantages and serious flaws. But hey, far be it from me to get in the way of your "You're a boogerhead so there!" style of repartee.

Re:Exceptions

[Eunuchswear]

So, how come "100% substandard care" gets a better outcome that "30% substandard care"?

And you do know that the US spends a larger percentage of it's GDP on health care than the UK? Your scary figures about how much the NHS costs are peanuts compared to the US health care costs.

Re:Exceptions

[Mark_MF-WN]

So you honestly believe that fewer than 1000 American women with breast cancer go without medications that could prolong their lives?

Are figures really necessary? If you're too moronic to understand this issue for yourself, here we go:

You already know that 18% of Americans have no health coverage whatsoever (unless your FoxNews-addled mind can't undertstand basic facts, something that conservatives are renowned for); American women have a 1 in 8 chance of developing invasive breast cancer, and approximately 50% of Americans are women.

Assuming that uninsured Americans are equally distributed across both genders (an unreasonable assumption, since men have approximately 40% higher income on average, and thus are more likely to be the ones with health coverage), that's 3.38 MILLION American women who DO have breast cancer and DON'T have the basic health coverage necessary to pay for surgery, medication, chemo, or even a trip to the GP to find out why their chest hurts so goddam much.

So, let's review:

In Britain, it is newsworthy that 1000 women couldn't get some particular breast cancer drug.

In America, no one gives a flying shit that 3.38 milllion women will get breast cancer and receive no treatment whatsoever. It's considered so irrelevant that it's considered vulgar to even suggest that they could be helped, something that only a filthy liberal would even consider.

But hey, far be it from me to get in the way of your "buying myself a second HumVee is more important than whether other people die of preventable causes" belief system.

Re:Exceptions

[bryanp]

So you honestly believe that fewer than 1000 American women with breast cancer go without medications that could prolong their lives?

I never said that. I said you didn't back up your numbers. I also pointed out that you are apparently incapable of disagreeing with someone without resorting to petty name calling. A pity. Apparently you also can't argue with them without inserting made up insinuations about their personal habits. I do not own any sort of SUV, thank you very much. I drive a sedan which gets fairly reasonable gas mileage and take public transportation whenever I can get away with it.

Disagreeing with someone without being a schmuck - it's a valuable skill. Learn it.

Re:Exceptions

[Mark_MF-WN]

If it's a disagreement about something upon which reasonable people could hold different opinions, then sure. I wouldn't think less of someone for, say, not enjoying industrial music, or for thinking that Britney Spears makes really good movies. I wouldn't condemn someone for disagreeing with my theory that war is a natural and instinctual Human behaviour, and instead held the more commonly accepted theory that war is purely economic. There isn't enough evidence either way, so reasonable can disagree.

But reasonable people DO NOT ignore data that threatens their position. People who do that are dangerously irrational.

Reasonable people also also don't expect other people to die just so that we can claim that our society is keepin' it real, capitalist-style. People who cling to an ideology even when it means that millions of people suffer from and die from preventable illnesses ... well, I just can't say enough bad things about them. They are either too stupid to hold sensible opinions (I suppose I might have some pity on such people, but it's hard...) or too evil to care about the suffering of others, in which I don't feel even the slightest resistance to mocking and insulting them.

And the SUV thing was what is known as a caricature -- a literary device that you may have heard of by this point in your life. I suspect you have, since you did the same thing with your little comment about "You're a boogerhead so there!". Obviously, I never said that or anything like it (this is actually the first time in the last two decades that I've used the word "booger", even if only in quotation).

Where did this silly notion that people can't use strong language in debate come from? What purpose does it serve? If you can't insult morons who hold stupid positions, who the hell can you insult?

Re:Mod Parent Up!

[ultranova]

I prefer 7/12chan, to be honest.

Everything I know about surgery, I learned by browsing Gurochan.

Americans spend more per capita in taxes on health

[Rob Simpson]

Then add what they pay in private costs, and it isn't a pretty picture: Public and private expenditure on health

Google have done this for a long time

[MindPrison]

It was evident to me that Google censors according to "business wishes" when I started to make some fan-art in 3D of a well known character.

Funnily enough - just about every image I've made gets scooped up by Google and placed to become searchable for everyone - which is perfectly fine with me, but when I became slightly suspicious about Googles business censoring where when my fan-art images dissappeared quickly while everything else remained.

Unfortunately - it doesnt stop there!

I really wish it was only protective of its own copyrights, fair enough - but what *REALLY* scares me is when Google censors information at will - even information Id consider perfectly legal and ok for eg. my country, but it actually censors a lot of pages (and I do mean A LOT OF PAGES!) from my Country which is a Democratic country and one of Americas allies, so this is very surprising to me, but research indicates that it absolutely censors. It censors pages with interesting knowledge about computer algorithms, chemical knowledge, electronics-pages with schematics - anything that Google or its customers may find inappropriate some way or another.

If you dont quite believe it and think that I am over the top paranoid - check out http://sethf.com/anticensorware/general/google-cen sorship.php. which incredibly enough isnt censored yet, but what it says - is clear enough and it has examples for you to try

Google became too big and too powerful - such powers could surely not stay innocent forever, dissapointing - but history proves its knowledge about power corrupts - time and again!

People will pay anything...

[blitz487]

...for the illusion of 'free' health care.

A lot of people believe that the US health care system is free market. It is not. 50% of all health care dollars are spent by the government. The government runs 5 socialized health care systems: medicare, medicaid, military hospitals, VA hospitals, and the indian hospitals. The rest is heavily regulated from top to bottom. It might be only 10% free market. Most of the problems with it are attributable to government interference.

Remember our wounded soldiers the government abandoned at Walter Reed Hospital? Look forward to plenty of that with the government running your health care.

Re:People will pay anything...

[Anonymous Coward]

And idiots will pay far, far, more for a system that under performs, and outstrips in expense, when compared to the socialized systems other civilised countries run.

Come On..

[wdr1]

Oh Lord... Listen people, free speech cuts both way. It not only allows you to say what /you/ believe, but it also allows others to say what /they/ believe.

There's no love lost for insurance companies from me, but I'd much rather they too have free speech, even if it means "spinning" things their way, than to start censoring anyone who disagree with Michael Moore.

-Bill

Re:Come On..

[sfjoe]

There's no love lost for insurance companies from me, but I'd much rather they too have free speech, even if it means "spinning" things their way, than to start censoring anyone who disagree with Michael Moore.

It's not "free" speech. They're paying for it. You and I are effectively shut out from countering their paid-for propaganda.

Re:Come On..

[adpowers]

Uhh, yes it is. The grandparent was talking about "free" as in speech not "free" as in beer, you frigtard.

I don't see a problem

[nanosquid]

Google is offering to sell ads. That's their business. I don't see a problem with that. Of course, health care companies can use that to get their message out, just like right wing politicians, open source nerds, on-line pharmacies, and herbal viagra salesmen can use it to get their message out.

Google were evil if they tried to pick and choose who can use them to advertise.

Now, it was perhaps in bad taste for Google to advertise specifically to the health care industry, but that's still this side of evil, in particular since Sicko really is not completely accurate.

Re:I don't see a problem

[Dr. Martin von Nostr]

I mostly see Google as a pretty responsible company, but I can see why this is a little scary. Not because of the particular issue, but the idea of Google going out of their way to target issue-based advertisers. As long as google keeps clear distinctions between which search results are paid and which are not, it's not a huge problem, but as a company that probably does more to organize and disseminate information for the masses, doesn't anyone else find it uncomfortable that they are going out of their way to get what will inevitably be one-sided propeganda (isn't that all issue-advocacy ads are) displayed prominently on their website? Before you slashdotters get all crazy, I'm not saying that anything here should be illegal. I'm all about the first amendment and all that. But the discussion is whether google is being "evil", and while this is nowhere near as bad as, say, covering up internal studies about the health effects of smoking, or setting artificial price floors with your competitors (way to go SCOTUS, by the way), it's still not exactly what I'd call responsible corporate behavior. I guess I just have a problem in general with what I perceive as the lack of honesty in most advertising today. Of course both sides of the debate on healthcare should be presented, and of course we all know what Micheal Moore's angle is, but at least he's a disinterested party in the sense that he's not directly making money on healthcare. Do you really think that the healthcare companies in this country have anything useful to add to the debate? Every one knows exactly where HCA and Humana stand on socialized healthcare - what is gained by innundating people with their opinion? It only serves to bias people in one or another direction (even though private medicine may well be the best policy). It'd be like having a massive campaign to publicize death-row inmates position on the death penalty. I think the country is much better served by reasoned debate than by a bunch of zero-information tirades from people on either side.

Sicko

[adeydas9]

Sicko

Competition, Market

[curious.corn]

Hi, I'm italian and i could bring examples of extremely poor public healthcare but I won't as I think it's mostly due to a cultural incapacity to get a good job correctly done without trying to cut corners and screw anyone whenever possible. We also have a kind of mixed system where doctors can, or used to until very recently, exercise their practice both in public and private structures so that, inevitably, the public service is treated as a hunting ground where to pick up patients for expensive private clinics. Also, slackers and nepotism plague the public institutions where barons, who often own the most prestigious clinics, sit on the top chairs with the sole purpose of driving and keeping everything firmly into the ground just for the sake of exercising their feudal power.

But this is not the contribution I wanted to make. I have a question: is all out competition, wide open free market always the solution? Will the fight for corporate survival always bring the best product on the market and the leanest execution? Hmm, I guess no. I don't want to take on good 'ol Microsoft we all hate, just let me mention another industry: mobile telephony. Do you americans already have a pervasive, standardized cellular network or are you just starting to after years of quarreling standards and vendor lock-ins. We, the EU, have had this GSM given from the beginning of the digital cellular rollout and today enjoy continental roaming and dirt cheap terminals since a decade. Sure, some of you will argue that GSM is so much worse than some other patented, exclusively licensed protocol you can only use with one operator (and good luck if you travel to a city where the incumbent went with the competing protocol) but I'm happy to travel anywhere on the continent and be sure that either by voice or SMS, there an infrastructure that'll work for me.

My point is sometimes fragmentation, darwinism, de- or lack of regulation, don't work at all and actually break the toy for everybody. Public safety, health care, unemployment subsidies are all systems that do work after all, will have their own set of gripes and pockets of inefficiency but still manage to make a better life for those that contribute and make use of it. Take me for example: I was hospitalized and had an appendix removed within 12 hr and all I had to pay for was a 15 EUR ticket (although I did risk getting mis-diagnosed... but that's more because of what I mentioned in the first paragraph...)

Re:Mod Parent Up!

[SnowZero]

And I would agree with both statements. I don't see how anyone can rage against Rush or Fox news, and then use a Moore film as "evidence". They all use the same approaches. Moore (and the others) believe that its ok to twist the facts, as long as your message is a good one. Of course, with distorted evidence, we can only trust that they are right, or watch multiple films as a same point-counterpoint. Spin is very common at all levels of journalism, but that doesn't mean it should be the ideal one strives toward. Instead I say that one ought to set an example above those you are complaining about -- don't just stoop to their level. But what do you expect when Che Guevara shirts are many times more popular than MLK ones?

We pander to anyone

[smurfsurf]

Join us next week for the "Hey true Christians, buy adwords to counter the familiy-hating ungodly gay agenda!" Google sales pitch.

Evil if you do, evil if you don't...

[SnowZero]

No kidding. If Google censored the healthcare websites or put their rank artificially low, would that not be more evil? Why does "evil" on Slashdot now mean "anyone who doesn't agree with me". That must be "evil" as in "axis of evil", I guess... if you don't like the administration, don't act like them.

This case is like offering to sell a car to someone who is boycotting a bus. Not taking sides, just offering a service for a price. That's how the free market works.

private healthcare would mostly disappear

[r00t]

For non-emergency stuff, I guess I could travel to areas with high demand for private healthcare. Those would be places with lots of rich people, like Beverly Hills.

Everywhere else, in small cities across the nation, nice healthcare would be a thing of the past.

Re:Mod Parent Down!

[OohAhh]

I can't speak for the others, but I know of how my mother was treated when she needed hospital treatment here in the UK. If the patient can't easily arrange transport to or from hospital then that can be provided free. This can be by volunteer drivers, ambulance, or even taxis. As for food I think it's true that hospitals like to make sure their inpatients have eaten before going home, but that may only be normal meal times. So it really comes down to how the discharge is time in relation to meal times. I'd be surprised if any hospital actually gave a patient money, but it's not impossible. As for the 70 year old mentioned it's possible she had said she'd already got transport arranged, but either she hadn't or someone didn't turn up. As to the exact reason that's anyone's guess and obviously it should have been made sure that she was alright. Unfortunately no system is going to be perfect and some times it will fall short of ideal.

Re:Pfft

[hey!]

You kids and your newfangled evil. Back in my day, evil had Moxie.

Re:Mod Parent Up!

[Anonymous Coward]

First rule! First rule!
GB2GAIA, FAGGOT!

Re:The US system is probably worse than you think.

[joseph449008]

Good point. If you want to compare systems, Canada vs. the US is a fair comparison. If you want to compare Cuba with another country, try Mexico. And not surprisingly, Cuba has reputedly the best healthcare in Latin America. It's stupid to try to compare systems between countries that have vast differences in resources per capita. Still, the US is only ranked slightly above Cuba in healthcare I understand.

your arguments are valid

[circletimessquare]

but can easily be included

1. remove any country from the list that is too small. only include countries over a couple of million. the lesson still holds that the usa should adopt universal healthcare

2. yes, you are right, lifestyle and diet affect health. which means that americans need to do more than adopt a new healthcare system, they need to eat healthier and exercise more

Facts and passion strike a balance

[microbox]

because human belief is not about cold hard static facts, it is about your passion for how things SHOULD BE, not how THEY ARE. there are no facts to be had about how things should be.

When people have trouble reconciling cold-hard facts with their beliefs, they usually end up going with cold-hard facts most of the time. Those that don't move "back-to-reality" have a psychotic quality to them (think Scientology and ilk). But even people bound up in cults don't stay there forever.

There is a gray area, where the facts aren't obvious. This is where people can really get into all sorts of emotional arguments. Strong emotions create a blink spot in our logical thinking (they are different parts of the brain). It's interesting to note that people engaged in political discussions - if you examine their brain activity - have switched off their logic, and switched on their emotional centres. I think that explains a lot.

Essentially, for such a person to move "back-to-reality", they have to switch on their logic centres, and this can take some sort of shock - esp. if their thinking is entrenched. But this does happen when "reality comes crashing in", at which point, people almost always go with the facts of life.

At this point, our beliefs become based on cold hard facts. This is so common, that we have a word for it: we call it experience, and society places considerable value in it.

When cold hard facts match someone's beliefs, then we've come across a special trait, called wisdom. People tend to love this word even more than experience. The antonym is ignorance, which might accurately describe someone spewing emotional political rubbish.

I think that says sometime about basic intelligence. What I mean is - almost everyone thinks wisdom, experience and facts are good, and that ignorance, naivety and falsity are bad. Wisdom, experience and facts have value. Value implies scarcity. I think this implies that it would be naive to expect everyone to be wise and experienced... it's not easy to learn life's lessons. But is does happen eventually, so some extent.

There's no reason to be overly negative about people responding to passionate arguments that have little basis in facts. We aren't born with experience, we have to learn from our mistakes, and the end result is valuable.

Re:Facts and passion strike a balance

[Daniel Dvorkin]

When people have trouble reconciling cold-hard facts with their beliefs, they usually end up going with cold-hard facts most of the time.

If this were true, there would be no such thing as religion.

Evil

[Scrameustache]

I hope you're not saying that it's wrong to counter propaganda? That's all Moore's 'documentaries' are really Anyone who uses 'quotes' around the word documentary when referring to a non-fiction movie made primarily from documents linked by Moore's narration should be modded down "-1, tool"

And stop using propaganda like it's a bad word. Anyone who's spreading the word in engaged in propaganda, there's more of it on your evening news than in anything Moore ever released.

Hear hear

[Snaller]

"People who scream 'Michael Moore hates America' are pathologically incapable of thinking critically or handling criticism, even when it is constructive criticism that is desperately needed."

Indeed, but to outsiders it does appear that the majority of your country think that "free speech" means they have a right to try and supress what the other party has to say. Sad really.

You should consider a different type of plan

[Anonymous Coward]

My toddler and I (both healthy) pay about $2k per year in premiums. I'm responsible for every penny until I reach the $5k family deductible. After that, they cover everything. Thus, I'm only obligated to pay a couple grand and my absolute max per year is 7. It gets even better when you stash $5k in a HSA.

YMWV.

Re:You should consider a different type of plan

[Simulant]

After that, they cover everything. You hope. This is also what many of the insured people in the movie thought. You might want to check it out. The movie isn't really about people without insurance. It's about people like you and me.

Quite Evil - from a physician

[NIckGorton]

Pharma and the insurance industry are evil. Moreover in the case of the health insurance industry they serve no purpose. Previously insurers would assume risk and in doing so merit some financial reward. With the advent of capitation and risk selection, they don't even do that anymore. They are leeches, that in the words of Sicko: Flat Suck.

And I can also assure you that the denials of care that Moore described were not the exceptions, but the rule. I have a patient (whose details are a bit obscured in this story) who has a number of serious medical problems. He has a history of a bleeding ulcer and recently began to have symptoms that were the same as he'd had when he had the ulcer. So I prescribed a Proton Pump Inhibitor (the one that was the preferred drug on that insurer's formulary.) They denied it saying that he had reached the limit of the number of medicines he was allowed to have. In order to have the ulcer medicine he would have to go off of one of his diabetes, blood pressure, or asthma medicines or pay for one of them out of pocket.

And sorry, but the cries of 'socialized medicine' being worse than what we have are for shit. If everyone has the same insurance, then every doctor and hospital would take it. I transfer patients every day from the ER to other hospitals when mine is perfectly able to provide them treatment and the patients want to stay at my facility. But their insurer says they won't pay for them to stay to have their appendix removed at the community hospital in their town, but demands they be transfered to a facility 40 miles away that is 'in network.' Of course they can choose to stay if they want (and we would treat them as required by the EMTALA law.) However their insurer gives them the ultimatum: be sent to another hospital they don't want or be faced with the $30,000 bill for their surgery and recovery in the hospital they do want. So the claims of not being able to 'choose your doctor or hospital' are not what you'd have in a single payer system, but are what you get every day if you are insured under an HMO, PPO, or other device used by the insurance industry to deny you care.

And that is what its like for those with insurance. For those without it can mean death or permanent disability. I see people in the ER every day who have delayed or avoided care because of uninsurance who experience severe consequences because of it. Perforated appendicitis because of a delay due to worries about costs. A child admitted to the hospital with a kidney infection that could have been easily treated with oral antibiotics days before but wasn't because of lack of access. Renal failure in a person with diabetes left untreated. People with bent forearms because while they were appropriately treated and splinted in the ER, they were unable to see an orthopedist for subsequent definitive treatment because of lack of insurance. That is stuff you expect to see in the developing countries, not the richest country in the world. Of course it is easy to see the villain in that scenario as the evil orthopedist who would not see him for free. (And I will admit ortho is one of the worst offenders for unwillingness to provide uncompensated care.) However why should one group of professionals (health care providers) be expected to shoulder the cost of health care for 15-20% of the US population simply because the country refuses to? I don't mind paying taxes to support health care for all in the US, but I do take issue with the tax being exclusively applied to doctors and nurses and PTs and RTs etc, while an attorney or programmer or businessman who makes as much or more than I do pays nothing.

The saddest part is that we already spend in GNP well more than enough to cover every man, woman, and child in the US with a health care system that the world would envy. We pay about 15% of our GNP for health care, while most developed nations spend around 7-8%. If we took all of the money that goes to 'profits an administration' (about 30%) in the for profit health insurance industry, as well as negotiating for drug prices that were on par with what the rest of the developed world we would have enough to pay for everyone.

So I think Moore is right: Its sicko.

Nick

Re:Quite Evil - from a physician

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't mind paying taxes to support health care for all in the US, but I do take issue with the tax being exclusively applied to doctors and nurses and PTs and RTs etc, while an attorney or programmer or businessman who makes as much or more than I do pays nothing. Wait, so then WTF is this "Medicare Tax" that gets taken out each and every one of my paychecks? o.0

Re:Quite Evil - from a physician

[Anonymous Coward]

And sorry, but the cries of 'socialized medicine' being worse than what we have are for shit.

So...when Congress starts talking about reforming health care; possibly making it a single-payer system -- where is the AMA going to stand this time?

Re:Quite Evil - from a physician

[NIckGorton]

That would be a tax to cover a percentage of the population: those who are over 65 who have worked (or their spouse worked) ~10 years while paying that tax, many of the disabled, and those who have end stage renal disease (ESRD) who need dialysis. That would not be what I spoke of in the quote you used which is health care for all.

Though to be honest paying that tax pisses me off a bit precisely because of one specific wastefulness: Medicare Renal (for those with ESRD.) Diabetes affects about 20 million Americans (mostly type-2). If you have diabetes and no insurance, you are most often unable to treat your diabetes. Untreated diabetes results in many complications, but a common one is kidney damage resulting in ESRD.

So instead of paying $1000/year to treat a type 2 diabetic with a pill costing $1/day, we wait till he has developed severe and inevitable complications of that untreated diabetes. Then once the horse is out of the barn, we decide to treat him at the cost of $30,000-40,000 per year plus often a kidney transplant (about $100,000 of yours and my taxpayer dollars). So in addition to costing much more, this squanders a scarce resource (kidneys for transplant) into a group whose ESRD could have been easily an inexpensively treated. An ounce of prevention is not only worth a pound of cure, its a shitload less expensive as well

Its like refusing to pay to put oil in your car till the engine seizes and then buying a new engine. That is, fucktarded.

Nick

Re:Quite Evil - from a physician

[NIckGorton]

I would hope for, but the AMA can be a very conservative organization at times.

It also depends on whether or not you are asking for single-payer or universal coverage. If you are asking the later, many physician organizations (including the AMA) support that - essentially the system as it stands, but everyone who is uninsured gets government insurance. This situation is similar to what they have in the UK. Anyone can go to the NHS, but if you have private insurance you can go to private facilities. The reason for this support for UC but not SP is that the former makes it more likely that in the short term physician salaries will stay high. This is shortsighted because in the long term overall I think SP would increase or at least keep the same physician compensation. (This may come in the form of lower pay, but also lower malpractice and operating costs. A large chunk of most malpractice claims is to cover future costs of care. If the future cost of care is $0, then that lowers malpractice awards and ultimately malpractice insurance costs. If you look hour per hour, US physician pay is not far off of most other developed nations. And if you ask many physicians they would take a pay cut to avoid having their souls sucked out of their eyeballs by having to care for patients in the system we have now.)

However the problem with a system that is not single payer is that they savings needed to finance this venture would not be as great. The big savings you will get with single payer is 1) no 30% off the top for 'profits and administration', 2) negotiated priced for drugs on par with the rest of the developed world, and 3) lower administrative costs (for example, if you see me in the ER, in addition to the cost of me, the nurse, the supplies, etc, you pay about $50 for me to pay someone to take my charts and code them, create a bill for the insurer, send it, follow up on it to ensure its paid, etc. The reason I have to use a billing company is that there are over 1000 health plans just in CA. I could easily self code, taking about a minute if there were one unified charge/billing system.)

So I believe that support of a non-SP but universal coverage system is actually fiscally irresponsible. That said, in the current political environment and with Pharma and the Insurance Industry paying millions of dollars to buy congressmen I don't think we could get a single payer system through. However, I do think that if we got universal access, the number of people covered under that program would increase to the point that insurers and Pharma lose some of their power. Ultimately this might be the only way that we get single payer. Its not just a battle, but a complicated war. Moreover, currently 50 people die every day due to uninsurance. A melange system of public and private care that was universal would be superior to the immoral and unsustainable system we have today.

Nick

Sorry, no

[Jeff Molby]

Of course, everyone has an agenda and of course, you need to be skeptical of everything you hear.

How the heck does that make facts overrated?? It makes them hard to find, but that makes it more important to find them, not less.

Re:Mod Parent Down!

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

I'm going to say that any system that steals from the working population to help the people who refuse to work is a system that is nowhere near perfect and quite a ways off from ideal.

Re:Mod Parent Up!

[yada21]

Rush Limbaugh & Michael Moore are the same person. If you want proof here it is, I've never seen them together - have you?

I have an easy fix.

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Why don't all the people who are fed up with their health insurance start their own health insurance company? They can get the socialist healthcare people to join them as well as the poor who cannot afford their own healthcare and that's already a large group. They charge a low fee to be a member, and they guarantee to pay for anything you need.

I mean, it's a free country with a basically free market. Why not take advantage of it and open up competition if you hate all the existing companies so badly?

Moore could lead the funding with all the money he makes off of his lie- I mean movies.

Re:I have an easy fix.

[JedaFlain]

How did this get modded interesting? There are multiple broken systems that comprise the US healthcare system as a whole. Overpriced medication, high-cost surgery, high-cost malpractice insurance and, lastly, profit-maximizing, bureaucratic insurance companies. If you form a low-cost insurance company, you are attempting to fix one of these facets. However, your company will go under rather quickly due to the fact that the charges to your insured will be the same.

The numbers being given by other posters are that insurance companies eat about 30% in bureaucratic overhead, and that health insurance costs about $1,500 a month for a normal family that isn't on a large group plan (corporate, medicare, etc.). Say you are able to lower your overhead down to 2%. You can lower that monthly payment to $1,170. That $1,170 is the bloat from the rest of the system. It's around what you'd have to charge to keep your company afloat. Less than that, and you'd need to be subsidized by some other source.

Now I may be building my own straw man here, because those monthly numbers aren't going to be the same for everyone. But, even if you cut that number down to $500/month, that's still out of the reach of a lot of families. Which is why so many go without insurance in the US. This is also why someone hasn't just come out with some cheap, national health care company as you suggest. Because it wouldn't survive.

Re:I have an easy fix.

[fimbulvetr]

There are, at least from what I can tell, four underlying factors to the health care issue in the U.S.:

#1. Doctors/AMA
#2. Health Insurance
#3. Malpractice Insurance, Tort, etc.
#4. Prescription drugs

Fixing #2 without balancing the equation in the remaining will result in nothing but a failed attempt. The government has a heavy hand in all 4 already, it's just never been reconciled so all 4 of them play nicely together - each has evolved independently. The worst part is, due to current conditions, they have no tendency, if you will, to change under free market conditions.

Re:I have an easy fix.

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously don't know much about this topic ... the US pays significantly more for health as a percentage of GDP than other developed countries (who have universal health care), yet provides second rate coverage for its population.

Re:I have an easy fix.

[Boronx]

The people that are left out of the current system are people that are too sick or too poor to afford health insurance.

You can't make money off of these people, that's why they aren't insured. For some people that's enough reason why they should be denied health care. In the real world, you pay for them to go to the emergency room to get an antibiotic at ten times the cost of a clinic.

Re:I have an easy fix.

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

"The people that are left out of the current system are people that are too sick or too poor to afford health insurance."

For the first, you have charity. Citizens of the United States donated more money to charity last year than any other country. If the charity was "Help your fellow American Citizens not die" the donations would come in.

For the second, get a job? If you cannot afford health insurance you're doing it wrong. I work at a hospital and for full insurance the cost is around $10/week. There is no excuse to not being insured.

Re:I have an easy fix.

[Boronx]

Your insurance is subsidized by your employer. Not everyone who is employed is so fortunate.

Evil? Says who?

[Lunarsight]

I work for an HMO, and I certainly don't feel evil. I think HMOs have to make tough decisions, balancing the health needs of their members with the need to keep costs down. If HMOs skimp too much on the healthcare, then they're seen as insensitive, penny-pinching slimeballs. Ironically enough, if HMOs let the healthcare costs get out of control, it translates into higher premium costs for their members, and HMOs often are considered 'evil' for that as well. So, sometimes - HMOs can't win.

On Google helping the speech of corporations.

[doug141]

It is interesting to note that in the slashdot thread today about printer companies engaging in customer-unfriendly ink-lockout, the answers modded up are "use the free market, don't buy those brands."

Yet in this thread, health insurance companies are lumped as a group, and they are all "evil." That America is the one country where you can sue for just about anything, including denial of coverage, gets no mention. That the problem of being locked into your employer's plan was caused by Gov't wage controls passed in WWII is not mentioned, nor that the health insurance free market would work better if Gov't undid their damage by temporarily forbidding employer lock-in to one health insurance provider.

There are those who want to nationalize everything, those wanting to nationalize nothing, and those wanting to nationalize some things. The nationalize-some-things people get into spittle spraying, name-calling arguments over where the right place to draw the line is, and some even want to shut down the speech of others. Grow up. If you don't like google helping the speech of some corporations, do what the printer ink people are doing and stop using google.

What is this health insurance speech which is so horrible? Is it the question that if I'm entitled to national health care, and thus the labor and output of health care professionals and band-aid factory workers, am I also not entitled to a nationalized food production and distribution system? Certainly I need food more than health care. Those evil farmers work for profit. John Deere makes tractors for profit. Isn't that wrong? What about nationalized clothing production? Housing? Printer ink? IT services? Your job?

Free speech is EEEEVIL!

[crmartin]

Idiot. What's "evil" about offering rebuttal google ads so heath care companies can answer Moore?

You want evil, go look up what Castro does to dissidents.

I can confirm this

[aepervius]

I lived 25 years in France, and not one time I had to go in the doctor for "normal" care I had to wait more than 1 hours. I also went twice in emergency (once without bleeding and another time leaking from my whole right leg and arm) and neither did I have to wait more than 30 minutes. I was never in a life threatening situation (except slowly bleeding but I was NOT near any danger zone) but i guess in such case you would not even have waiting time. For specialist (eye, ears, bones, tooth) I had to get an appointement but all were within a day or two, and none were emergency. As for a friend which had an emergency with her teeth, she was in the doctor room within less than 30 minutes. The same I lived for germany for the last 10 years. My parents got involved twice in emergency situation (not life threatening) and got their exams (radio, thomo, ecg) immediatly. My in-law got a exams+biopsy of growth in some galnd in his neck within days (results took a bit more to come though. Might have been a week between the exam and the results).


I have YET to see for anything a "waiting time for month" as I keep hearing social insurance country get. That is most probably not a "month" in average but probably the worst case scenario in a case of bad-luck situation.

On the other hand I keep hearing from the US horror story of people left dying or transported by taxi to downtown because they have no health insurance.

ZDNet - Micrpsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

ZDNet is lame. They alwasys hit on Google to help Microsoft who pays them a lot of money. They are liars and diversionists, hardly connected with "geeks", they want to be Slashdot but with Microsoft income ZiffDavis has outlived its usefullness and value The only connection is sentimental and thet is drying up fast :)

Google Health Advisory Council

[pvera]

How come *this* did not grab any attention:

From Google Health Advisory Council:

Every day, people use Google to learn more about an illness, drug, or treatment, or simply to research a condition or diagnosis. We want to help users make more empowered and informed healthcare decisions, and have been steadily developing our ability to make our search results more medically relevant and more helpful to users.

Although we have some talented people here with extensive backgrounds in health policy and technology, this is an especially complex area. We often seek expertise from outside the company, and health is no exception. We have formed an advisory council, made up of healthcare experts from provider organizations, consumer and disease-based groups, physician organizations, research institutions, policy foundations, and other fields. The mission of the Google Health Advisory Council is broadly to help us better understand the problems consumers and providers face every day and offer feedback on product ideas and development. It's a great privilege for us to work with this esteemed group ...

The list of advisory council members is pretty varied. They span the full spectrum from medical research, HMO evil empires, mainstream medicine and all the way to patient advocacy.

Re:Mod Parent Up!

[Brickwall]

In general, all of the reviews (save fox) on nearly all of Moores films have been that he is correct with his figures.

Well, in "Sicko", Moore makes this assertion a steaming pile of excrement.Moore goes to a London, Ontario, Canada hospital, and claims waiting times in the ER are "never" more than 45 minutes. I live just north of Toronto, Canada, and after having chest pains on Thursday night, I went to the ER at my local hospital at 6:30 am. There were only a few people there, and the triage nurse told me I would be seen next. I was sent to an exam room at 9:30 am, by which time the ER waiting room was full, and the triage nurse was telling incoming patients to expect a seven hour - yes, that was SEVEN HOURS - wait.

I have also lived in London, Ontario (20 years ago), and had to take a friend to the ER on a Friday night after a (drunken) fall. We arrived about 12:30 am, and it took almost 45 minutes just to see the triage nurse, let alone a doctor. We didn't get out of the place until after 7:00 am.

So Moore is basically a lying piece of crap who will mix in a few facts with numerous lies and distortions to make his slanted point of view seem reasonable. If he really wanted to fix the American health system, why doesn't he go after the biggest cause of trouble - the malpractice vulture lawyers, who try to turn every tiny error into a million dollar claim?

In my single experience with US healthcare, I was in a car accident, and had a broken foot. I was also knocked out for 10 minutes from the airbag (those things hurt!). Even though all my vital signs - respiration, pulse, temperature, lucidity, vision - were perfectly normal, they ordered a chest X-ray. When that found nothing, they ordered an MRI. When that found nothing, they shot me full of barium contrast, and gave me another MRI. When that found nothing, they finally discharged me, with a bill for $30,000. Why did they do this? Defensive medicine - even though everything looked OK, if something surfaced later, these doctors knew one of the vultures would be after them like white on rice. So they do thousands of dollars in unnecessary tests to cover their butts. That's what prevents insurance companies from offering more comprehensive coverage. Take away contingency fees (or reduce the percentage from the obscene 66% to a more reasonable 10%), and you'll find fewer cases clogging the courts, lower insurance costs, and more affordable insurance for everyone.

Re:Mod Parent Up!

[xystren]

And how is this different than any other of the crap that we are "spoon fed" on the news?

The mass media (and news reporting) are owned by non-journalistic mega-conglomerates. Isn't it refreshing to get a different view even if it is spun in the complete opposite direction for a change? Why is this a bad thing?

Why did 80% of the people that used Fox News as their primary source of news believe that there were WMDs in Iraq, while only 16% of people that used NPR/PBS as their primary news source believed the same thing? [CQ Researcher, Journalism Under Fire]

If you say that MM is out for no one other than himself, you can apply that to 99% of everyone in this society, even the holier than thou Oprah is a prime example.

Cheers,
Xyst

They're trying to make a buck, but are not evil...

[rdean400]

Michael Moore specializes in the use of hyperbole to make his point. Based on his movie, he would have you believe that Canada, UK, France, and Cuba are the panaceas of modern medicine and that the U.S. is worse than third world. There is a mountain of evidence to show that the picture isn't as bleak as he paints it, and there are many cases of problems in Canada, UK, France, and Cuba to undermine his thesis that government health care is what we need.

As much as it pains me to say it (considering that there are things to be concerned about from Moore's one-sided piece), the health care industry deserves a chance to respond. Google is pointing out that they have a way for them to do so.

The math of accountability.

[3seas]

All this babel on this side or that side when the bottom line facts are about where the money is coming from and where it is going in regards to health care. From the individual in need to the doctor to the medical supply company to the pharmaceutical company's, and not to forget the insurance companies and any government funding that came not from direct knowledge of the tax payers like MEDICARE.

But perhaps what is really needed is a full disclosed accounting by the government of where they spend tax payer money.

Now due to the Governments wrongful putting their hands in the Social Security till, more than once, and not putting the money back, I and those of my age will not be collecting more than 75% of what is due me, upon retirement.

So where is the money going, considering the numbers in the math of consideration of those who die before collecting and have no one else to benefit from their family?

Try the US military Budget!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_th e_United_States

And for a real wake up call: (it may be a little dated but ....)

http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/TLSF/theme_a/ mod02/www.worldgame.org/wwwproject/index.shtml

The money is there, its just not going to the benefit of the tax payers, but instead to the war mongers addiction to war technology. And this military is the place where the money went that was taken from social security....

It shoudl be noted that of the 6 billion plus people on this planet, it is a fraction of one percent that is in position to lead and inspire others to follow in their waring mentality...

Hospice care: too little, too late

[westlake]

And let's not even get into the Medicare fraud perpetrated by for-profit home health agencies, going into fucking hospices to give physical therapy to terminal cases. Look! The patient is going to be dead inside a month, there's no need for --oooh, did I see money?

Hospice patients can benefit from physical therapy.

Simply having a terminal illness does not mean that we have to "give up" and lay down in bed and immediately die, as some may believe. Those patients who make the most of their remaining time usually experience the highest quality of life. Hospice is about improving the quality of life and providing comfort care, even if a "cure" for the disease cannot be made.

The physical therapist can evaluate your ability to move around safely in the home or facility. The therapist will determine what problems you may be experiencing in getting around: walking (if applicable), in and out of bed, transfer from chair to bed, into the bathroom, to and from a car or wheelchair. The therapist can assess {your} level of pain and provide physical therapies which can help to reduce pain. Strengthening exercises may be given if you would benefit from these, and the therapist can evaluate all the equipment or layout of your living situation to make it safe and easily accessible. Hospice Patients Alliance

The problem with hospice care is that too often it comes too late.

One in 10 hospice patients are referred "too late" for services, resulting in unmet needs such as adequate pain relief or emotional support... Even though experts recommend at least a three-month hospice stay, the average length of stay is less than two months. In fact, the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization reports that 30 percent of people served by hospice die in seven days or less.

{Researchers] expected to find that when there was a short stay, there was an unhappy family. "Quite to our surprise, we didn't see a strong association. If we did, dissatisfaction rates would have been much higher. What I think the results are telling us is that the hospice industry really knows how to rally the troops. Doctors, nurses, counselors, clergy, social workers - they come in and work almost like a SWAT team. They immediately assess the needs and expectations of a patient and their family and make sure those needs and expectations are met so that the dying experience is comfortable. They pull together services fast. And this is reflected in the satisfaction ratings. Most families felt that a hospice referral came at the right time - even if it didn't." One in 10 Hospice Patients Referred "Too Late" [June 28, 2007]

Populism ending in Fascism

[gelfling]

Every politician every company that proclaims to 'do no evil' and be for the little man secretly harbors a desire for fascism. Many succeed. That's why they call it demagoguery.

Europe public health, a fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

Canadians have decided long ago that it is not right for a rich man to have better service when it means that everyone else will have worse.

Everyone has the same service; this guarantees that the rich will not gut the service.

Plain WRONG. There is no place in the world, NO ONE, not even those with costly and universal, tax-funded, government-managed public healthcare systems (Europe, anyone?) where poor people has access to the same leves of healthcare a rich one has. Repeat, no one. No matter how good or bad the public system is, when you have money you can go for alternatives if public health is not enough, or not satisfying.

And know what? This is how it should be. The rich ones are paying more euros/year for the same service (public health uses to tax you plain rates throughout every income levels), and paying twice for the same service: once for the public service, once for the private one.

So please stop whining. The main problem of public healthcare systems is public management: people managing billions a year that are not accounted for it, and are not responsible for their decissions. At the same time, the poor ones have access to a very dissatisfying public health, while the middel class pay twice (public and private), and the richs don't care a bit: they have enough money to get adecuate health service.

Maybe the US health service and insurance is not a panacea, but Europe isn't either. Yes, here even illegal inmigrants are given the right of free health, but "paying customers" don't get a service the quiality you expect after paying thousands a year each family for it.

Re:Europe public health, a fraud

[Eunuchswear]

What is this "costly" universal, tax-funded, government-managed public healthcare system of which you speak?

"universal, tax-funded, government-managed public healthcare systems" are much cheaper than the American system.

Universal Healthcare

[DaMattster]

While Michael Moore may have been a little over the top, there is a pressing need for Universal Healthcare and he is calling people to action. The National Healthcare systems in Canada, France, and Great Britain are certainly not as flawless as Moore would have you believe but it is accessible and gives everyone the opportunity. George W. Bush wants tax breaks for those purchasing their own insurance. That is not nearly enough. Tax breaks won't amount to a hill of beans if the applicant is outrightly denied. Moore was not too far off with the ridiculous costs associated with an emergency room visitation. Google, like every major corporation has an agenda, to make money. Don't forget this when you read its take on universal healthcare. Google, as part of its advertising, wants to promote itself as free and equal. However, mark my words, once the bottom line is impacted, services will disappear. Yes, healthcare for all would raise taxes, but, I would gladly pay more money knowing my taxes would actually provide services to a needy individual other than a pork barrel politician's program. Finally, Moore raises some interesting philosophical issues. Yes, we as human beings owe it to each other to help and, no, it is not communism. It is being a good human being and caring. Moore even points out that caring for one another is part of the American spirit.

Don't Be Evil!

[DragonTHC]

Google, this is evil.

Helping evil corporations (what a cliché) is just as evil as being evil.

There is little doubt of the consensus that health insurers are evil.

Re:Don't have to agree with MM to find google EVIL

[Etcetera]

So, he is a patriot that cherry picks the facts. As long as the ends justify the means, then? I mean, who cares what the truth is as long as he gets his message out. Smells like propaganda.

Sounds like Dan Rather...

Speaking of evil...

[Anonymous Coward]

> This, of course, is one of those oft repeated, and completely, utterly, false canards, which the acolytes of the All-Powerful Deity of the Free Market Mammon are so fond of breathlessly repeating.

Another one those people forget is Greed is EVIL. It's not good, it's not the sole driver of all progress, and it motivates plenty of purely evil actions. It's not a virtue, it's not necessary or even helpful to society, and anyone who can't see that has a pretty distorted view of the world. Or maybe they read too much Ayn Rand. Because the real world doesn't depend on a handful of super business men.

Re:Speaking of evil...

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Another one those people forget is Greed is EVIL. It's not good, it's not the sole driver of all progress, and it motivates plenty of purely evil actions. It's not a virtue, it's not necessary or even helpful to society, and anyone who can't see that has a pretty distorted view of the world. Or maybe they read too much Ayn Rand. Because the real world doesn't depend on a handful of super business men.

Absolutely.

The entire utility, and cleverness, of the concept of "capitalism" was to take the evil vice of greed and try to harness it for the good of the society, based on the recognition of the fact that those afflicted by the disease of greed seem, for the most part, uncurable. That is, the idea was to collar the pathologically greedy and force them to pull some useful payload attached to their leash behind them as they struggle, driven despertately by their disease, wheezing and coughing all the way.

However, as soon as they break away from that leash, it is no longer useful for the society to allow these greed-aflicted individuals to run amok and their activities must be curtailed, or a very large number of people will be severely harmed by the diseased ones in their insane efforts to own everything and everyone.

This is the very lesson which seems to have been forgotten in the USA, and so now the greed-mongers are pretty much free to do as they please, with the resulting effects such as rapid deterioration of the standard of living for most Americans, non-existant competition between gigantic oligopolies and duo-polies, accelerating concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands, superiority of corporations over citizenry in the sphere of politics, globalization of corporate profits but not employee benefits, socialized corporate losses and privatized corporate profits, etc and so on.

A good indication that the takover of the US by the parasitic greed-mongers is entering the final stages is the recent emergence of corporate mercenary armies, on a scale rivalling that of the regular US armed forces. The fat lady is truly about to sing for the Republic.

Re:Speaking of evil...

[Rich0]

The entire utility, and cleverness, of the concept of "capitalism" was to take the evil vice of greed and try to harness it for the good of the society, based on the recognition of the fact that those afflicted by the disease of greed seem, for the most part, uncurable. That is, the idea was to collar the pathologically greedy and force them to pull some useful payload attached to their leash behind them as they struggle, driven despertately by their disease, wheezing and coughing all the way.

Well-said!

The only problem is that I think you just described the ENTIRE human race, and not some sub-class within it. Oh sure, not everybody here would sell their money for cash (although many would if the price was right), the fact is that ALL humans are motivated by greed. That is why capitalism works so well in its inherently-imperfect way.

Just look at what happens in a city when there is no police coverage (LA Riots, Katrina, etc) - everybody and their uncle is looting the local department store. And not for bottled water...

Greed is a universal condition, although it can vary in intensity. One might kill their mother for $1000, but I might only deprive her of a little happiness for $50,000. NOBODY reading this is really immune from selfishness - if you think you are then you are simply deluded. Some might not measure their success in dollars, but that doesn't change the fact that everybody is motivated by greed in some way.

By the way, I'm all for healthcare reform. It is because of greed that we DO in fact need a government responsive to the people to reign in individual excess. However, I'm not convinced that simply offering free health care without limit to everybody equally is going to work. Ultimately those who are paying for it will resent waiting in line behind those who aren't paying for it. And I don't mean the next door neighbor out of a job for three months. The issue is that not all work is equally valuable, and the reward for being a clerk at the local Walmart shouldn't be the same as the reward for managaing a 5000-employee business.

Re:Speaking of evil...

[SoulRider]

socialized corporate losses and privatized corporate profits

excellent point, its like the debate I hear from conservatives that liberals are trying to create a welfare state. The truth is both sides are doing the same thing, the liberals just give the welfare to the poor who need it (I didn't say they deserved it) and the conservatives give the welfare to the rich who already have more than they need (and dont deserve it). I think the reason liberals and conservatives fight so bitterly is because they are so much alike. Happiness is found somewhere in the middle.

Just as an off topic, socialized programs are not necessarily socialism. Social programs are programs to improve the quality of life and provide vital services to the citizenry of a society. Socialism is a political dogma which in practice seems to encourage totalitarianism, perpetual expansionism and a greater division in economic classes, wait a sec! who is leading us to socialism again?

Re:Speaking of evil...

[IgnoramusMaximus]

The only problem is that I think you just described the ENTIRE human race, and not some sub-class within it. Oh sure, not everybody here would sell their money for cash (although many would if the price was right), the fact is that ALL humans are motivated by greed. That is why capitalism works so well in its inherently-imperfect way.

I would disagree that the entire race is afflicted, although I must admit that a signifcant portion of it indeed is, based on empirical evidence.

Please also take into account that by "greed" I do not mean a desire to create a comfortable life in exchange for labour or other contributions to society, but instead attempts to "get something for nothing" in their miriad of forms. That of course including a delusion of immense self-worth and thus pay completely out of proportion to labour performed, which afflicts many individuals, who would die arguing that they are getting only what they "deserve", i.e. $12300 an hour for playing golf with their socialite friends all day, or some such.

One might kill their mother for $1000, but I might only deprive her of a little happiness for $50,000. NOBODY reading this is really immune from selfishness - if you think you are then you are simply deluded. Some might not measure their success in dollars, but that doesn't change the fact that everybody is motivated by greed in some way.

I beg to differ. This is probably the very reason why I and many people like me seem to operate on a different wavelength alltogether. I would not do it for a billion dollars, as I do not see a point at all in desiring money beyond what I already have, thank you very much. I work so I can be comfortable and I do not need a lot to achieve comfort. You would be surprised how much nonsense you "desire" is actually completely psychological, induced by mindless advertising propaganda and indirectly by peer preassure. Once you wake up, it is like living in a world inhabited by marionettes. You can see all their strings out of a sudden, pulling them this way and the other, while you are free. It is quite an experience.

I'm not convinced that simply offering free health care without limit to everybody equally is going to work. Ultimately those who are paying for it will resent waiting in line behind those who aren't paying for it. And I don't mean the next door neighbor out of a job for three months. The issue is that not all work is equally valuable, and the reward for being a clerk at the local Walmart shouldn't be the same as the reward for managaing a 5000-employee business.

The reason why healthcare must be provided to all citizens with no charge (be it by the government, non profit mutual-corporations paid from taxes or what not) is that healthcare is not a business and thus does not fall into the realm of the marketplace. One cannot shop for a best doctor while one is unconscious in an ambulance. One cannot "return" a faulty abdominal surgery for a refund. Normal rules of competition, and thus capitalist marketplace, simply do not apply as they do with underware and plastic lawn chairs.

Helthcare, like roads, is one of the foundations of a civilized society, which must be provided to all in order for the society to function. The result of "private" healthcare is pretty much the same as having evey road being a "toll" road. Those who own the critical arteries i.e. the ones which cannot be circumvented, will choke the society with their greed, very much so as the US is being chocked by the "medical insurance" industry.

That is why every OECD country, other then USA, has universal healthcare. Every one.

Re:Mod Parent Down!

[sumdumass]

Well, in this interview, they showed a clip with Moore standing in front of a cashiers window and he is commenting on how in the UK the cashier doesn't accept money they give it to patients to cover expected expenses of getting dinner, medicine, and travel home.

So if this isn't true, or is blown out of perspective, it expends on the theme that all his movies do this.

As for the old woman, I don't know the set of circumstances. It was the middle of the night, she went in for arthritis pain and when they released her, she was freezing in the parking lot come morning. I guess it was out of the ordinary enough that the interviewer read about it in a paper.

The HMOs should be taken out of business.

[jbn-o]

People know that something is better than nothing. So it's going to be tough to convince Americans that waiting months or over a year to see someone (let alone a specialist) for a non-emergency is somehow worse than waiting long periods of time knowing nobody will see you but the emergency room (which offers no chronic healthcare and everything they offer is very expensive). For over 40 million Americans without insurance that's the case now and that number is only going up. Then there's the ridiculously high cost of the shoddy healthcare Americans get: How many Canadians are entering bankruptcy or are homeless because they can't pay their healthcare bills? The leading cause of bankruptcy and homelessness in the US is not being able to afford the medical bills, according to Michael Moore. How many Canadian doctors get rewards for denying treatment at the behest of the HMOs like Dr. Linda Peeno did, and how many Canadians die as a result of being denied expensive treatment? That number will probably pale in comparison to the number of Americans.

The American system is so bad we can see it's not the best system Americans can have. And that's enough to justify leaving the HMOs out of the discussion and talk about what the Democrats, Republicans, and HMOs don't want us to focus on—a single-payer universal health care system (such as HR676, Americans: write your Congresspeople to co-sponsor this bill). Moore's "Sicko" properly recapitulates this discussion. The HMOs need to be put out of business; like America did when it stopped privatizing firefighting, America needs to stop privatizing health care. If there's a better plan than HR676 in the offing, I'd love to read more about it. But this much is clear: the insurers aren't necessary, and government does plenty of things right, so we should organize and use democratic power to steer things to how we want them to be.

not closed source kind of evil

[symbolset]

This is the closed source kind of evil.

I don't like Michael Moore's work, but somebody had to point at the elephant in the living room here.

The AMA set itself up as a gatekeeper to the medical profession and medicine. A legal system embedded in our culture keeps the information and materials required to treat injuries and illness out of the hands of the public. This was purportedly (and logically) done to improve the quality of care in general, since a great deal of medical treatment was once done by unlicensed quacks who did more harm than good. The problem is that this occult (hidden) cabal has evolved into a self-serving priesthood of medicine that limits availability of care in order to drive its value up. A necessary part of this equation is that a large number of people have to suffer from the deprivation of care in order to maximize the value equation. Even the kindest, most generous doctors must participate in the system in order to get into the profession in the first place and to remain in it. If they want to donate their time and expertise to the poor they can only do it if they go abroad.

Add that the medical profession has been victimized by another unaccountable secret cabal of insurance providers set up as gatekeepers to the doctors, and you get a system that's horribly broken. If a doctor wants to treat the indigent for free, for cash or for reduced rates, he can't because the insurance companies would terminate his ability to be compensated through insurance and he would go bankrupt in short order. The proponents of the status quo are horrifically wealthy and intend to stay in that condition. I heard somewhere that medicine accounts for a ridiculous percentage of our GNP, and it's growing at a terrifying rate.

Throw in a third layer of gatekeepers, the lawyers that sue out of business every doctor that doesn't have absurd amounts of insurance coverage and you have a system that can't be fixed. I have often wondered if the lawyers were in collusion with the insurers to keep this broken system in place.

This is not some academic theoretical discussion for me. For nearly 20 years I lived without coverage. Through great care, the avoidance of treatment I really needed and the good fortune to be close enough to cross the Mexican border one day I really needed care, the American healthcare system only bankrupted me once in that period. I can't imagine what poverty I would be living in if I were chronically ill, less fortunate or less careful.

So don't be confused. This is very much the "closed source" kind of evil. If it were possible for a kind and generous soul to study medicine and get accepted by the medical community and devote their life to the general practice of medicine for the good of their community, there would be a clinics everywhere that took cash at reasonable rates because that quality of person is abundant still and they could make a decent living at it. I'm not saying it would be a route to country club membership, but not everyone who wants to be a healer cares about that.

Re:not closed source kind of evil

[MillionthMonkey]

The AMA set itself up as a gatekeeper to the medical profession and medicine.

The AMA, and doctors in general, are a real part of the problem. We would have more doctors if we didn't do so much hazing of medical students. We don't let anyone into medical school, and then we make them waste hellish years of their lives studying shit like anatomy that most doctors never use, or staying awake for 30 hour days during their residencies. By the time they emerge from the hazing process they are fatigued and bitter and they support further hazing of doctors because they had to do it and now they are going to enjoy the benefits of being in an exclusive club damn it. So doctors become a scarce resource. Really it isn't that hard to be a doctor, and in my experience most of these guys aren't that good anyway. Talk about a self-worshipping profession.

Re:not closed source kind of evil

[nomadic]

Throw in a third layer of gatekeepers, the lawyers that sue out of business every doctor that doesn't have absurd amounts of insurance coverage and you have a system that can't be fixed. I have often wondered if the lawyers were in collusion with the insurers to keep this broken system in place.

Lawyers don't focus on doctors who don't have insurance; it would be counter-productive. And believe me, insurers are definitely not fans of plaintiff's lawyers, in fact the health insurance company is a huge backer of tort reform.

Re:not closed source kind of evil

[AK Marc]

The AMA set itself up as a gatekeeper to the medical profession and medicine.

I agreee that the AMA is evil and acts in a manner that results in deaths for its own profit/control. However, we also have a screwed up belief system. We are supposed to "fight" for life. So much so that suicide is illegal, terminating your own life support is hard, and helping someone with their own suicide gets you thrown in jail. If you have inoperable cancer, rather than $50,000 worth of treatment to give you 12 crappy months of life, there should be more suggestions of "giving up" and taking 3 good months and 3 bad months. There is such a focus on extending life and no attention to quality of life or value of life. Yes, I said it, life has a dollar value. Our medical costs are high because we set that value high. Extraordinary measures are taken all the time to save people. And no, I'm not talking about bone marrow transplants. I'm talking the people that have inoperable cancers. I'm talking about my 70+ year old aunt that had a kidney transplant last Saturday. She's over 70. She'll never work another day in her life. She's living off saved money and government money. It's not that I want to see my aunt or anyone else die, but everyone will die. Spending trillions to add a year or two to a bunch of old people's lives is what's driving up the cost. We either have to accept that as the driving factor of costs, or address the care needs of the elderly differently. I know that a big portion of the costs for the elderly are medicines that are overpriced in the US. But what it comes down to as the largest costs for the system are the life-extending things done on 55+ seniors.

We either have to let people die or accept high costs. Given what I've seen, we are willing to live with costs much higher than the rest of the world in order to provide care to old people.

Re:not closed source kind of evil

[Anonymous Coward]

The AMA set itself up as a gatekeeper to the medical profession and medicine.

True.

Add that the medical profession has been victimized by another unaccountable secret cabal of insurance providers set up as gatekeepers to the doctors, and you get a system that's horribly broken.

Also true.

Throw in a third layer of gatekeepers, the lawyers that sue out of business every doctor that doesn't have absurd amounts of insurance coverage and you have a system that can't be fixed.

Also true.

But here's the problem: if you fix these things -- eliminate the "gatekeepers", which means eliminating the government controls that give them this power -- it would mean that the solution to the problem is not to abolish what little remains of the free market, but to RESTORE it.

Moore (and his millions of think-alikes on the Left and many on the Right) isn't saying that at all -- they thing the solution is to have the government run EVERYTHING (and if you think that will exclude homeopathic remedies, vitamins etc. then you're quite the socialist Pollyanna).

That's why I don't need to see "Sicko" to judge it, anymore than I need to see "Triumph of the Will" to know what's up with THAT.

Re:not closed source kind of evil

[broter]

...and then we make them waste hellish years of their lives studying shit like anatomy that most doctors never use...

OMG, this made me laugh. The unnerving part is someone (accidentaly?) modded this as "interesting" instead of "funny."

But then, I think you're way off with "Really it isn't that hard to be a doctor..." I'd suggest that you're next phrase, "and in my experience most of these guys aren't that good anyway", could be considered evidence that it really is difficult to troubleshoot an malfunctioning human.

Re:not closed source kind of evil

[fimbulvetr]

It seems to me that the way a civilization treats their doomed population is _very much_ a defining attribute of that civilization. Assuming they'd like to live, I can't imagine it any other way. What would you propose, concentration camps? Rifle squads? Shooting them into space?

Re:not closed source kind of evil

[MillionthMonkey]

You obviously don't work in the medical field and are just reacting. There is a movement afoot in the medical community to stop teaching anatomy to med students. It was more important in the 19th century for a doctor to know anatomy, but now it's mostly hazing and tradition. Some specialties still require extensive knowledge of anatomy, but most don't and if it weren't for the hazing factor most doctors wouldn't need to know it at all. It consumes a huge amount of time to memorize the insertion points of six hundred muscles, it makes them bitter and feel justified in seeking high salaries, and not many doctors need to know anatomy to that extent anymore. That stuff can just be looked up. And you pay for all that unnecessary memorization when you go to an or an ear nose and throat specialist. I'd rather ask for a referral than rely on the anatomical knowledge of an immunologist as memorized years ago at 3 AM in med school ten years ago. My own neurologist uses Google right there in the office. I ask him about a skin rash and he wants to do a referral. Paying for his anatomical knowledge of my elbow strikes me as a little silly.

Re:not closed source kind of evil

[AK Marc]

What would you propose, concentration camps? Rifle squads? Shooting them into space?

How about just letting them choose to die in peace? It's not about forcing anything on them, it's about giving them the choice, and actually supporting their choices. In many other societies, people that are old, no longer productive and have lived a full life are willing to just let go. Deny coverage and go home to be surrounded by family. Here, we fight tooth and nail for a week of suffering in a hospital at a cost of over $100,000. If you choose to not fight for the last few days, your doctors, friends, and family all gang up on you.

Re:not closed source kind of evil

[fimbulvetr]

Well, sorry for misinterpreting your post as I thought you implied forcing. For the record, I agree with you when it comes to it being the person's choice.

google biasing

[whitroth]

I have noted that there almost seems more negative reviews of Sicko than positive showing up on google news. But then, I've started wondering about whether google was biasing themsemselves, or whether it was being googlehacked. For example, some truly obscure sites keep showing up for long periods of time (hours or, in some cases, days) - I mean, really, how many people are reading a news site out of Bismark, ND?

        mark

Submitter's bias is showing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical that someone who doesn't support an effort to damage control Moore's communist propaganda is also anti-google.

If cuba is so great, why are they drowning themselves to come here?

The US is NOT Canada!

Half the US economy is our military. That's because it's easy for rich fucks to manipulate the economy and profit off wars. The more military spending the more money they can get away with.

Essentially, as a US citizen, your job in life is to live in a throne of comfort, get fat doing so, and work tirelessly to ensure that the war profiteering is as profitable as possible. Then when you die, they pay off all your debt with your assets, ensuring that no new bloodline's ever get a fat enough wallet to sit at the big boys table.

Who knows what type of self-righteous outrage they might have to deal with if random trash was allowed to work their way to the top?

Health care ties in here somewhere but the important part is: Please, oh please, GOD! Don't socialize healthcare! They'll be releasing pandemics from the CDC and biological weapons labs to increase income to skim off the top of.

They'll be subtle about it of course.

You don't eat all your chickens or you won't have any eggs.

American Helathcare

[hackus]

It is no secret the American Health care system is based on how much you can pay. When hasn't it ever been? Honestly I look at the posts here about Roger Moore's movie like everyone is shocked and amazed or angry.

Gimme a break!

Even if we ever get Socialized medical care in this country, do you HONESTLY BELIEVE you will get access to the same medical technology and doctors as say the average Millionaire?

Your kidding yourself if you think so. Your just going to get long lines, and "hack" doctors bought by the pharma companies to proscribe more Ritalin for Johnny.

The best medical care you can give yourself is the same that I do every day:

1) Cut back on crap food. Eat vegetables and fruit and SOME meat. I have a steak about ounce a month and I have chicken in my salad 3 times a week. Take a vitamin once in awhile if you know your eating bad (usually when I go on vacation!)

Go for a day without eating every once in awhile. 1/3rd of the people on the planet only eat 3 times a week anyway. Just because its 12PM doesn't mean you have to eat. Listen to your body when its hungry it will tell you, otherwise don't eat.

I think if half the people did this we would see less fat Americans.

2) Get off your fat arse and exercise. I take evening walks (about 2-3 miles) and I bike. in fact I am going to biking after I type this! Give yourself some time alone, so you can calm down.

3) Get 8 hours of sleep a day.

If your job interferes with the above, your going to live a short life, probably painful death too. Get rid of the job. Besides, most American companies don't provide insurance coverage anymore, so Moore's film is sort of Academic.

Do the above and you should have a decent run. (60-70 years with minor issues.)

But I find it incredible that people are talking about this stupid movie like it "discovered" something awful that nobody knew about.

You could do the same movie about the legal system, and political system in this country because they are both tied to Health Care and just as corrupted.

But everyone already knows that.

Get a clue: we are living in a Empire, not a republic anymore. Don't worry about it, because there isn't anything you can do about it. It is a natural cycle that every country or civilization invented so far goes through.

Have a nice day! Now, go take a nice 2-3 mile walk and think about this post.

-Hack

Re:American Helathcare

[PenGun]

I'm 60 this year. I'm just gonna go do my 4 mile run. No weights today but that just happens every fourth day.

  I'm in Canada so I don't have your problems but guys ... what did you expect with your "bounty hunter" society. Good times?

Re:American Helathcare

[axia777]

Piss off. You obviously don't give two shits about other people. Just go on like other selfish Americans and worry about you and your own. You think all these problems will be fixed with eating right and exercise? You are crazy. The problem is people who can't afford treatments for things like cancer and pneumonia. And when they can the payments are insanely high and they break them financially. Your missing the point completely.

Re:American Helathcare

[hackus]

To say I don't give a crap about people is a bit of a stretch I think from my post.

If anything, I am making a point about the movie "Sicko" which seems to point out just how naive people are that are posting here.

Something I didn't expect from slashdot crowd generally.

-Hack

Re:American Helathcare

[axia777]

Sorry If I exploded. But It makes me sick to death to hear people say the health care system in America is okay and working just fine. Because it is not, at all, and has not been working for the people for decades. It is raping us financially, even the rich, and it will continue to do so until we stand against it.

Initiation rites are part of the occult sciences

[symbolset]

In law it's called "passing the bar". The idea is to rate-limit admission of new practitioners of the arts through processes that are arbitrary and unknowable by the applicants. It's part of the veil of mystery that vests the practitioners with supposed special powers.

In short, I agree with you. What this system needs is some light.

Time to go back to Yahoo.

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to go back to Yahoo.

My reply to Ms. Turner's post

[meckhert]

Here's a copy of the email that I sent after reading that post.

Subject: Lauren Turner's Healthcare Post

To Whom It May Concern:

I just want to say that I am appalled by the recent post by Lauren Turner regarding Michael Moore's movie SiCKO. First of all, Google's motto is "Don't be evil." However, encouraging what is tantamount to a corporate funded propaganda blitz is nothing if not evil. If you actually watched the movie, then you must recognize that the central message of Moore's movie is that the healthcare system should "help people" first and foremost. The current system does a lousy job of that, and it's core mission is clearly distorted by huge profit incentives. There are not two reasonable sides to that issue. Encouraging a marketing campaign that attempts to distract and obfuscate from that is pure evil and can only lead to more human suffering.

Google = EVIL

[zymano]

And why not? Why is it hard to believe.

Did you all believe their lie of 'not being evil'.

By the way GOO is owned by investors. Don't believe propaganda by the media.

And their search engine SUCKS and gives BAD results for many topics. Everything is SPAM now. GOOGLE SUCKS and is EVIL.

It's what you deserve

[PenGun]

After reading this thread a bit I have come to the conclusion that Americans have the health system they deserve. Have fun with your poor and unfortunate.

  I think your time in the sun may be ending soon. So it goes.

Military Healthcare

[annenk38]

I really don't understand why everyone bitches about DMV. I've been to many DMV offices around the country, and the only ones that truly suck are in New York City. Same goes for the Post Offices, Social Security Offices, etc. And if you want to talk about bureaucracy, try finding a private practitioner in NYC where you won't have to spend at least 1-2 hours filling out forms, and then spend another hour or two waiting in line to be seen.

Besides, we already have a health care system run by the government -- in the military. And having firsthand experience regarding the quality of health care in both military and civilian worlds, I can confidently make a claim: the corpsmen doctors and dentists take much better care of their patients than their civilian counterparts.

Pap nonsense

[smagruder]

The Constitution contains *nothing* that bars government single-payer healthcare. Nothing. Congress clearly has the power to enact it, if a democratic majority in both houses and the President support it.

How about whipping out your Constitution, and then do something wild... actually read it!

It continues to amaze me the fools who believe that because any particular idea doesn't appear in the Constitution, then Congress can't write a law about it. If this were true, we would have very little law.

Re:Pap nonsense

[BgJonson79]

It prohibits it at a federal level, because the 10th says, "Anything we haven't listed here is up to the states." What specifically says the Congress can enact it?

That's why the MA plan is VERY Constitutional. It guarantees equal rights and doesn't have to worry about a USA-wide Constitutional muster test.

Though I bet if we did have a Const. amendment guaranteeing universal healthcare, it'd probably pass by the necessary 2/3 majority of states.

MM = best propaganda since Joseph Goebbles?

[meburke]

When a tech company produces a hardware or software product that is flawed, /. readers are all over it with derisive comments, alternatives, and condemnation. Michael Moore may be the best propagandist since Joseph Goebbels, and I'm not sure /. readers are educated enough to see the flaws in his products.

There are serious deficiencies in the health care system. The shortcomings are well known, and there are some possibly criminal activities that are accepted as standard procedure in the medical industry. These should be overcome by specific exposure and proof instead of painting the whole industry with a bucket of shit.

If Google is truly suppressing access to free speech (concerning MM's propaganda), then Google is perpetrating an evil act. The opposite action would be to expose the "product" defects in a way that educates the searchers and the public at large, but Google does not do this because that is not the Google mission. Therefore, Google should provide unbiased access and allow the searching public to draw its own conclusions.

Google should not be censoring content or access, Michael Moore should not be propagandizing without integrity, and the American public should not be so gullible as to believe the propaganda, but, hey, what are we going to do?

'Damage' is relative

[Frodo420024]

It'll probably be confusing what 'damage' is going to happen. The classic Forman movie "One flew over the Cookoo's nest" did a *LOT* of damage to the psyciatric system, at least in Denmark. Institutions were percieved as making the inmates more nuts, not less, and many of those were simply abolished over the last decades, leaving the mentally ill to live in the normal society and being expected to take care of many basic things themselves. The result, unfortunately, is not a decline in mental illness. What we have instead is an increase in crimes committed by these people, damaging both themselves and their victims in the process. Taking movies for 'documentation' is risky. There are professionals our there, without an agenda to entertain or cause scandal, and they are generally better informed than some movie-instructing wise-guy.

Right idea, wrong algorithm

[bill_mcgonigle]

It should not be beyond the capacity of a wealthy, civilized country to ensure that its entire populace--particularly its hard-working middle class--is kept healthy.

It's not beyond the means of the country, but it is beyond the means of the government. They basically can't get anything right. Charity work should (and ought to) be handled by charities. They don't suffer from rampant corruption, and if they do, they don't have the power to force donations at gunpoint, so better/more efficient charities will take over if that happens.

Spectrum of Socialism

[bill_mcgonigle]

And if universal healthcare is socialism, then the United States is already socialist.

It has many socialist programs, yes. Universal Health Care would be the newest and largest one.

Socialism isn't a binary thing, it's a spectrum. The US was founded as a violet nation. Now it's a blue-green. Universal Health Care would leap-frog us over Green and Yellow straight into Orange. From there's it's just a few Hugo Chavezes to Red.

This is all a bad idea while energy is expensive. Star Trek can't work until we have infinite energy. The problem with government acting as a charity is that they're very bad at it, and they do it at gunpoint.

He will totally eat them all

[Bloke down the pub]

More important, who's protecting all the pies from him?

Too many issues in here for a quick soundbite

[dfenstrate]

Well, I can see the conversation is being dominated by the pro socialized/single-payer/government funded healthcare crowd, but I'll try anyway.

First, let's be clear that what everyone is talking about isn't 'insurance' for the most part, but 'maintanence.' Health 'insurance' is the only sort of insurance where the insurer is expected to pay for day-to-day stuff.

You don't call up your auto insurance people when your car develops a squeal or it starts pulling to the right. You live with it, or you take it to the mechanic and pay them yourself.

You don't call your homeowner's insurance when your toilet is clogged up, you call a plumber, and you pay him yourself.

Yet for care that requires much more expertise and training than either of those two problems, we expect the normal situation to be we present ourselves at the doctor's office and somebody else pays the bill.

People are prepared to pay for maintanence in other areas of their life and typically budget for it or find someway to pay it.

The best comparison in the US is HSA (Health Savings accounts) + catastrophic insurance. The idea is you're able to pay so much per year for health care (usually $5000), and then more traditional insurance takes over above that. This way is much, much cheaper than what's normally considered 'health insurance.'

You're going to pay for health insurance in any case, weather by taxes, or buying products, or income you might have been otherwise paid, etc. The HSA way cuts out the most middlemen for every day care.

Incidentally most health care facilities offer substantial cash discounts. You handing over a check is much, much cheaper to them than filling out all kinds of paperwork for medicare or the insurance company. (Dartmouth Hitchcock Hospital gives a 20-30% cash discount, for example)

Yes, some insurance companies will try to f*ck you anyway once they have to start paying. Do some research and sign up with the company least likely to screw you.

Any other way causes a seperation between the cost of a service and the decision to use it. Because of what's considered 'normal' nowadays, people don't even consider that consuming health care services might result in cutting somewhere else in their life. Get that lump checked out? You might have to go without cable this month. See a doctor for that persistant, nagging three week old cough? No eating out for you for a while.

Those kinds of equations don't enter into anyone's head, but those are rational questions. Do you value watching the sapranos this month over nipping that problem in the bud? Do you want pizza hut a few times this month more than you want to get rid of that cough?

Are you folks really going to tell me that someone shouldn't have to make a decision between the countless luxuries we enjoy in this day and age, and their health?

Are you going to tell me that not only is healthcare a 'RIGHT', but everything they would have to give up to pay for healthcare themselves is also a 'RIGHT'?

This is the discussion we're having for everybody above the poverty level.

There's so much more wrapped up in this issue, but I'll leave it at that for now.

Re:Too many issues in here for a quick soundbite

[p'g,fr4g.r]

yep. ppl should be glad to pay for effective** healthcare.

a key question is why more ppl don't buy the catastrophic insurance. tho $5k(+?)/yr isn't affordable for lots of the ppl who aren't insured.

the fix for almost all of these issues of affordability is to fix the system of income/wealth redistribution. and the govt cannot do that.

** the usual caveats apply.

Re:Too many issues in here for a quick soundbite

[big_paul76]

It always amazes me when people make this sort of argument, as if your health and your life are just another consumer product, like a sony walkman, as if it's something you could live without. Only in the USA do people actually think of health care like a luxury good, rather than as a basic human right. Take a look at the above comment "Get that lump checked out? You might have to go without cable this month. See a doctor for that persistant, nagging three week old cough? No eating out for you for a while." That is madness, in a developed country, that you would have to go through that sort of thing. Imagine trying to make the same argument, but change "heathcare" to "fire department services" or "police services". "Gee, my wife got raped last week, I guess we're gonna have to survive on peanut butter and kraft dinner for a couple of weeks so we can afford to pay for having the crime investigated by the police", or "gee, the house is on fire! Well, it's not a big one, I can probably borrow a fire extinguisher from my next-door neighbor and put it out myself, I don't really wanna spend 10 grand to have the fire dept show up, put out the fire, and rescue my kids from a burning building." There was a line I heard somewhere about how socialist ideas don't catch on in the US because working people don't see themselves as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires, while they wait for their turn to win the lottery.

Re:Too many issues in here for a quick soundbite

[dfenstrate]

Only in the USA do people actually think of health care like a luxury good, rather than as a basic human right.

Health care isn't a luxury good. Most of the stuff we pay for everyday, with money we could use for our healthcare, is a luxury.

Further, only europeans and their ilk would think anything that requires other people's time, money, and products is a 'right.' You folks invent new rights everyday. I'll pass on your definition of 'right', thanks.

If you said universal healthcare is a nice thing that advanced civilizations do for their citizenry, that's at least a plausible argument. But a right? No way. You do not have a right to other people's efforts and goods, because if you do, the providers of those efforts and goods have no rights.

Fire department services aren't a right. Police services aren't a right. Plenty of places in the US exist with the none of or the barest of those services. Besides, I spent most of my post talking about maintanance.

For your analogy to hold water, you would have to have a 'right' to smoke detectors and fire extinguishers. You'd have to have a right to 2" deadbolt locks and bars on the windows.

When you go down your definition of what's a 'right', there is no end. The final outcome of such a definition of 'right' is nations full of infants, relieved of all responsibility for their lives by the state.

Re:Too many issues in here for a quick soundbite

[big_paul76]

Well, it's like this. You wouldn't advocate that your police or fire services would be administered and paid for in the same manner that Americans pay for health care currently. That was the point I was trying to make here. As to rights, well, every American has the right to life, right? It's in your constitution. And if you're in a situation where you may have to declare bankruptcy, because you had to have life-saving surgery, does that not conflict with your basic right to life? But anyway, I'll back off from the term "right", it's kind of loaded anyway. How about instead of "rights", can I suggest that healthcare, like police or fire services, or clean drinking water, or roads, or sewage, is the sort of thing that, when you live in the richest country in the world, you ought to be able to take for granted, irrespective of wealth? Seriously, I can't understand how any American who doesn't work for an HMO or an insurance company can defend their current system. You guys do realize, that you're the only place in the world where people accept that health care is a commodity, right? Anywhere else in the developed world, you get sick, you go see your doctor. You don't worry about "can I afford to have a cardiac bypass", like you're trying to decide if you can afford to take the kids to disneyland this year or something. I'll concede that maybe it isn't a "right", in the sense that we usually use that term, but, c'mon, with the wealth of the USA, surely we could take medical care for granted the same way we take for granted that your tap water isn't poisoned?

You people are pathetic!

[Newer Guy]

You people who have no empathy for your fellow man are pathetic! You are probably all young, single professional types, who went to college on daddy's dime and now are bummed because you only have ONE 60 inch HDTV and your car just turned two years old.

My health insurance payments made my family HOMELESS! We spent last year living in Extended Stays for 45 dollars a night. I didn't QUIT my job, I got LAID OFF. I didn't consult by choice, I consulted BECAUSE I COULD NOT FIND A JOB! It took me two years to find one and I STILL don't have health insurance because my employer doesn't offer it until you've been here 90 days.

NO ONE should have to choose between food, housing and their health. NO ONE!! None of you ASSHOLES do!

I'm 52. My only regret is that I wasn't YOUR father. You'd have grown up with a bit more empathy and a bit less hypocracy...and your butt would have been a bit pinker along the way too!

Re:Mod Parent Down!

[Anonymous Coward]

Crap!

I have worked in a hospital in the UK for 20 years and this does not happen. Ever. It is not unusual to discharge people to the park next door to the hospital in the last 10 years though this never happened before about 1994. Prior to '94 we'd make sure that customers had somewhere to go when we kicked them out, after then the budget was more important.

I was once discharged from a hospital in Edinburgh (as they needed the bed) 4hr after wakening from a general anaesthetic - on foot as I had no cash on me for a taxi and certainly was in no state to drive assuming I owned a car which I did not.

Do not then go to mate's flat (near hospital) and thence to the pub. I had to be carried out... My memory of the next 3 days is more than a little blurred.

Re:Mod Parent Up!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Michael Moore is a steaming gas bag who's really only interested in one thing and that's Michael Moore. 95% of what he says is a load of crap."

Brings to mind RMS.

Re:Mod Parent Down!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not my experience and I've been working on the frontline of a hospital in the UK since 1987.

Money is out of the question as I am the person they ask for it, and I have none. I have emptied my pockets before now, but am no longer prepared to do so as it is the bank's money I'd be giving away. NHS pay is crap and conditions worse - my hourly rate as an IT contractor is 5X what the hospital pays me. And why do I work in a hospital? Because it's well worthwhile - it is possible to make a difference which no amount of IT work will ever do.

There are very good reasons why I post this anonymously, as in I like getting paid. The culture of bullying in UK hospitals is abysmal,

Re:Mod Parent Up!

[jwilcox154]

I think his name is actually Michael Rush-Moore Limbaugh.
*me ducks* ;)

what?

[AlgorithMan]

pardon my ignorance, but what are these google ads?

Authenticity?

[krasmussen]

Has anyone stopped to wonder that this is just a Blogspot blog with a single post and a Google-banner? Sure, it looks like all the other Google blogs, but there's still no convincing proof that it is one.

Fuck all of you.......

[axia777]

That think this Health Care system in America works. It works for the people with jobs that cover health care. Most don't and if they do they charge the worker insane amounts of cash to get it. You people that think it works either are covered and don't care about other people or are severely delusional. This health care system is systematically raping the American public. Wake up and smell the coffee. Micheal Moore's movie Sicko may not be perfect and it may have faults, but it is still right. This system is EVIL.

Re:Mod Parent Up!

[ravenshrike]

Bwahahaaaahahahaaaa. Um, sure, but any remotely credible statistician can tell you that all the figures in the world mean absolutely NOTHING without proper analysis. Moore's analysis tends to be so far off in the boonies that you can't even see it.

Another Googler's opinion

[raph]

That post is but one Googler's opinion. Here is another. Clearly, there is much in that original post with which I disagree, and neither of us is representing official Google policy.

The health insurance system in this country needs changing. If anyone tries to convince you otherwise, look at them as an arm of an organized, effective, and massively funded propaganda campaign. And if they're an unwitting arm, that just means they're not smart enough to tap in to their share of the obscene overhead that the insurance industry rakes in.

Overall, I think Google is going to do a lot more good than evil in terms of contributing to the debate on healthcare reform. If I thought this, or anything else they were doing, was really evil, I would not be working there.

Re:Mod Parent Down!

[ravenshrike]

Give it, ohhhhh, several days ago with an article from kurt loder: http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1563758/st ory.jhtml

Unfortunately, Moore is also a con man of a very brazen sort, and never more so than in this film. His cherry-picked facts, manipulative interviews (with lingering close-ups of distraught people breaking down in tears) and blithe assertions (how does he know 18 million people will die this year because they have no health insurance?) are so stacked that you can feel his whole argument sliding sideways as the picture unspools. . . . That last statement is even truer than you'd know from watching "Sicko." In the case of Canada -- which Moore, like many other political activists, holds up as a utopian ideal of benevolent health-care regulation -- a very different picture is conveyed by a short 2005 documentary called "Dead Meat," by Stuart Browning and Blaine Greenberg. These two filmmakers talked to a number of Canadians of a kind that Moore's movie would have you believe don't exist: . . . James Christopher, the film critic of the Times of London, thinks he knows why. After marveling at Moore's rosy view of the British health care system in "Sicko," Christopher wrote, "What he hasn't done is lie in a corridor all night at the Royal Free [Hospital] watching his severed toe disintegrate in a plastic cup of melted ice. I have." Last month, the Associated Press reported that Gordon Brown -- just installed this week as Britain's new prime minister -- had promised to inaugurate "sweeping domestic reforms" to, among other things, "improve health care." . . . Moore's most ardent enthusiasm is reserved for the French health care system, which he portrays as the crowning glory of a Gallic lifestyle far superior to our own. The French! They work only 35 hours a week, by law. They get at least five weeks' vacation every year. Their health care is free, and they can take an unlimited number of sick days. It is here that Moore shoots himself in the foot. He introduces us to a young man who's reached the end of three months of paid sick leave and is asked by his doctor if he's finally ready to return to work. No, not yet, he says. So the doctor gives him another three months of paid leave -- and the young man immediately decamps for the South of France, where we see him lounging on the sunny Riviera, chatting up babes and generally enjoying what would be for most people a very expensive vacation. Moore apparently expects us to witness this dumbfounding spectacle and ask why we can't have such a great health care system, too. I think a more common response would be, how can any country afford such economic insanity? . . . Having driven his bring-on-government-health care argument into a ditch outside of Paris, Moore next pilots it right off a cliff and into the Caribbean on the final stop on his tour: Cuba. Here it must also be said that the director performs a valuable service. He rounds up a group of 9/11 rescue workers -- firefighters and selfless volunteers -- who risked their lives and ruined their health in the aftermath of the New York terrorist attacks. These people -- there's no other way of putting it -- have been screwed, mainly by the politicians who were at such photo-op pains to praise them at the time. (This makes Moore's faith in government medical compassion seem all the more inexplicable.) These people's lives have been devastated -- wracked by chronic illnesses, some can no longer hold down jobs and none can afford to buy the various expensive medicines they need. Moore does them an admirable service by bringing their plight before a large audience. However, there's never a moment when we doubt that he's also using these people as props in his film, and as talking points in his agenda. Renting some boats, he leads them all off to Cuba. Upon arrival they stop briefly outside the American military enclave on Guantanamo Bay so that Moore can have himself filmed begging, thr

A little story about Healthcare from inside...

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked for a privatized insurance underwriter, as a coder, for security (securing code they wrote changing it from VB6 to .NET & specific apps for security like SECURE FTP AUTOMATED DATA SENDERS & MORE) & have seen the "holes" in that companies' setup, security-wise, & they ARE there still!

When I pointed out various inadequacies in their security, @ a client computer node level INSIDE THEIR NETWORKS?

I was chastised by the CIO and his henchman the main network engineer (even though they followed many of my suggestions, all backed by valid documentation from MS & the fact I was hired to help secure their programs (building SECURE FTP programs, improving broken softwares they had, & more) & literally, I was called "STUPID", no less for mere suggestions to mgt.!

(1 of which, the CIO, who had NEVER EVEN DONE THIS TYPE OF WORK HANDS ON, a major problem in many spots I have seen in the past decade now, & more, in professional environs)...

Yes, even though they took my advisement before (me, a coder there, improving their programmatic level security) regarding tools Microsoft provides to stop errors/abends in their network & more.

That was after suggeting some things from here to they, because they needed it:

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?s=2aa c2d3ff16e9b8448875ee96e27d1ec&p=375355#post375355

Most of what's there, can be automated into logon scripts (.reg file merges) &/or ActiveDirectory Group Policies, in minutes TIME, only!

I suggested, do a testbox with this setup, run our apps on it, & test to be sure they all work (maybe a DAY's TIME or TWO, tops, of a single network engineer's time, for better security, all the way down to a client node level)

That was after the Network Admin. tried the OLDEST mgt. trick (former mgt. here, & mgt. again now as of the date of this post) in the book on me:

"Oh, it would cost too much to take the time to apply those"

& I shut him down there, via showing him .reg files & policies that could be spread in minutes across every node in their LAN/WAN system!

(As well as HOW the IP stacks work with ipnat.sys, tcpip.sys, ipsec.sys & more (covered in that URL above, search "CableGuy" there, after that dunderhead who had never REALLY done the job @ this level (pure hardware guy) tried to "outsmart me" on that note also... & as far as CISCO PIX? LOL, I had to point out his precious hardwares @ the time were NOT impenetrable, or invulnerable also, then & today, vs. various machinations).

I told him after ALL of that, & proving him wrong:

"Gee, I wonder what costs more: A day's work for security here, or your customers finding out you are RIDDLED with security holes here, that could expose their private healthcare data?"

Things that ARE easily applicable by network engineers (it's their job, after all) are in that URL above, & yes, they can be made to work just fine on today's modern Windows OS & webbrowsers for better security, & even on LANS/WANS of corporate entities' client nodes of all kinds.

After I left that company (for a better job & company), all what I stated WOULD occur for they...

Most of what I have in that URL above is/was later backed by documentations from Microsoft, after I had put the ideas in the URL out initially @ this company (which shall remain nameless - I have no reason to expose they to hackers/crackers is why I won't mention their name).

After that, per Ayn Rand's novel? "Atlas Shrugged", & I was Atlas... & Atlas moved onwards to diff. & better horizons.

APK

P.S.=> The keyword is PROFIT here... anything for a buck, & screw the chumps that invest in our product seems to be the keyword today, today in a world built not on great men BUT instead committees of crooks largely, imo @ least... apk

Yeah, but

[zahl2]

Yeah, but maybe at least my insurance claims will stop being denied. I'm not sure it made sense for me to even buy it. I'm still not sure: I have a high deductable, and they still deny my claims.

I'd like to believe in a free market here, but I think it's failed here.

Re:Yeah, but

[Mr. Flibble]

It is not really a free market for Health Care in the US. The reason that the US pays twice per capita for health care of any other industrialized nation and gets the WORST healthcare out of those, is that the system is broken.

It is not free market - it is regulated in the wrong way. The incentives in place are designed to make the system break in the US. That is the problem in a nutshell.

That said, true free market health care may not be a good idea. I believe that things such as healthcare are a market-failure system to a degree. Thus, IMO, my solution would again be a base health care level, and anything beyond that is free market. This way, EVERYONE gets healthcare, and more money ends up in the system as a whole from those who wish to pay for more.

What would you propose?

[zahl2]

What sorts of reforms would you propose?

Re:What would you propose?

[pudge]

What sorts of reforms would you propose? I've addressed this already in other posts.

Dying

[Mark_MF-WN]

Dying from preventable causes, asshole.

You knew exactly what I meant, and you deliberately misinterpreted it -- I would suggest that this can tell you something about just how completely flawed and stupid your position is.

Re:The US system is probably worse than you think.

[zahl2]

Secondly: if you don't want to support for-profit health insurance companies, pick a plan from a non-profit company if your company lets you choose between providers. As a side note: non-profit hospitals aren't run as efficiently as not-for-profit/for-profit hospitals.

Who are non-profit companies? Remember that those of us who are self-employed are kind of screwed. And last I checked, there wasn't exactly a Consumer Report thing that would help you pick the best insurance company. The insurance I bought has a high premium, high deductable, AND they still denied the only claim I've put in. What's the point? And I'm pretty damn healthy.

Also, there was a study that showed you got better care at a non-profit hospital. This makes sense: if you're doing health-care for profit, then you're under pressure to increase profits. One way to do that is to decrease standards of care. Of course, that seems to be the case for all hospitals these days. And it especially wouldn't apply if you go to one of the public hospitals in LA where they like discharging you onto Skid Row. (A quick google search should find you plenty of info on all this.)

Drug costs

[zahl2]

I guess you didn't go look up the SEC reports. Drug companies spend more on P&R than R&D these days. You can thank the laws allowing them to market drugs to the public for that. (ie TV ads, bus shelters, newspapers... they've got the saturation thing down pat) Before it would have just been some doctor junkets, which are much cheaper in comparison.

Whoa there

[fyngyrz]

Get over it. A constitution is a freaking book

No. The constitution is literally the constituting authority from which all legitimate federal activity and organization derives. It is a critical and very specific link in how the federal government may act, and how it may not. The 14th amendment transfers some of that to the states, specifically the bill of rights.

Everything that the government does that is not able to trace its authorization back to the constitution, is literally illegal and and unauthorized.

The constitution provides the means for alteration; if new authority is desired, or old authority is to be discarded, then such alteration must be performed.

It is law, it is literally and specifically the "highest law in the land."

when fiction is presented as non-fiction

[Anonymous Coward]

"except that Moore doesn't make false claims of fairness or balance."

Bull-fucking-shit.

You intrinsically do when you attempt to display "the truth".

I've been through similar to both in Canada

[temojen]

I've had a repetitive strain injury in Canada. The best course of action is to take an asprin, and stop straining that joint. Maybe that's why it took so long to see a specailist; it wasn't really urgent or nescesary.

I've also had a traumatic wrist injury that required an immediate 2 hour operation. The doctor saw me within 30 seconds of me coming through the door, and went immediately to get an orthopedic surgeon. Within 4 hours of the accident I was going under anasthetic and I was operated on by the only surgeon on the island who had seen that type of injury before. At that point it was iffy whether I would bleed to death, lose my hand, or keep my hand with some loss of function. After three attempts at stabilizing and re-constructing my wrist, I came out of the OR with an external fixator, a K-Wire, and a splint. Five years later my right wrist hurts every day, has low grip strength, and reduced coordination and range of motion; much better than the alternatives.

The long delay you cite as evedence of the failure of the canadian medical system is in fact evidence of the success of triage.

Re:I've been through similar to both in Canada

[AK Marc]

There is *no* triage in the US for non-emergencies. My need for the treatment is irrelevant when scheduling my appointments. If I don't like the schedule one doctor has, I make an appointment with another. In some cases, offers of cash can get schedules rearranged. The real complaint is that people are treated equally. The US is a system that is devoid of caste, but yet requires that people be treated differently. Those with money think they should be able to buy priority. Those that associate themselves with their ethnicity think they deserve better treatment because of that (and that's not limited to any one minority, but includes all races and creeds). Those that are just pushy think that they should be served first just for being them. To tell everyone that they have to take a number and wait their turn is to insult everything American. We are the land of "Mine" and "Now" and to force sharing and delays is tantamount to treason. It does not matter that the entire standard of care could improve with such a system.

Tennessee tried it...

[SonicSpike]

... and went bankrupt. It was called TennCare.

Lauren Turner Can Help...

[Anonymous Coward]

She knows so well how to get bad press for himself, sure he can help...

Me **** You Long Time

[gridsleep]

Am I supposed to be surprised that the Google whores place profit and propaganda ahead of truth and information? Am I really supposed to be surprised? Use Scroogle.org for your searches if you have any brains.

Re:Pfft

[gbulmash]

• Not even the diet-coke of evil.
  • Just one calorie. Not evil enough.
    • You kids and your newfangled evil. Back in my day, evil had Moxie.

Muahaha!!! Moxie has plenty of calories!!! Hahahaha! Muaha... eh.

cons love Evil

[p'g,fr4g.r]

not to mention that there's no real world standard definition of "socialism". every organization has a blend of characteristics.

in the conservative form of socialism, everyone (government, etc) needs to chip in to help only those people who are ripping off everyone else.

competitive Evil

[p'g,fr4g.r]

there are competitive pressures on every activity. but how long do you want to wait for things to improve? the advantage of limited government is that we choose to more closely monitor/direct relatively few critical activities.

we don't need someone telling someone else what color(s) they can paint their residence. but if organizations that control health care are killing an "excess" of people, then we need to step in and take care of that problem.

Evil conservative socialism

[p'g,fr4g.r]

by that def, universal coverage isn't "socialism" since govt is a payer, not a provider.

however the u.s. military is providing defense (sometimes) against certain types of violent attacks upon property and persons. and the us military is a heavily government organization (parts are private, such as weapons and facility contractors, and the mercenary contractors). so the military is a the most predominant socialist industry in the U.S.A. but cons like a socialist military because it's *conservative* socialism.

Re: Evil conservative socialism

[jadavis]

by that def, universal coverage isn't "socialism" since govt is a payer, not a provider.

You're splitting hairs. The government will have a huge influence on every aspect of the medical field with universal health care. By your interpretation of the definition of socialism, nothing would be socialism because the government never really provides anything. The most it can do is coerce others to produce goods and services so that the government can distribute those goods and services.

In this case, the doctors are coerced because if they try to open a private practice, they are competing against a subsidized industry, so it's not a level playing field (like private vs public schools). And they already invested all their time and money becoming a doctor, so it's unlikely they'd want to change careers after the fact.

so the military is a the most predominant socialist industry in the U.S.A.

Wrong. More money is spent on Social Security than the entire Department of Defense... and that was in 2004 (I looked up the budget outlays myself) -- a war year.

The military does resemble a socialist institution, but I don't think that's an excuse to encourage more socialism. We have decided in the United States that nobody can be free if anyone can be violent to anyone else for any reason, so we entrusted the proper use of violence to the government (police, military, etc). It's not perfect, but we'd hardly be able to call ourselves a country if factions were warring within.

mr shakeyhand?

[p'g,fr4g.r]

or the robin hood of jerky boys

staffing

[p'g,fr4g.r]

"They are chronically understaffed because so many institutions have become for-profit. The overhead of dealing with medical billing is insane and every clerk hired means one less nurse."

visit your primary md. ignore storage** and the waiting room. you'll notice about half the sf is devoted to admin (stuffed full of cubies and shelves of files to 8 ft high, etc).

then notice that most of the remaining sf is patient visit rooms in which fewer than 50% of patient-occupied rooms also contain medical staff.

that should give you an idea of staffing-hours ratios.

* (whatever's in there? stacked bodies of course.)

Wrong! Google Helps Michael Moore.

[Anonymous Coward]

As pointed out on zdnet, this turned out to be a knee-jerk reaction, by rabid Michael Moore fans just waiting for the chance to pounce on the first idiot that says something anti-free speech, like "This movie should be banned from all theaters!" Personally, I find it all rather pathetic either way. Michael Moore is an American that has the backing of Hollywood to get his socialis... err wacky.. err clever ideas out to the public. So, more power to him. It's also worth noting how this little convulsion by Moore's fans helps create free press for Sicko.

So far, I'm enjoying the show:

1. Moore's fans finally get another chance to let some of their pent up anger out
2. Google Ads get free press (Google employer is taking out of context)
3. Sicko gets free press

What's next?

difficulty in criticizing the non extant

[p'g,fr4g.r]

"You can't criticize Jesus." true, though one can criticize some people's various figments** that those people label as "jesus". :/ ** look boss! da toast, da toast! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptions_of_religi ous_imagery_in_natural_phenomena http://skepdic.com/pareidol.html http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Fantasy-Island-Ph otograph-I10042195.jpeg, amen

sure they have one, but

[p'g,fr4g.r]

it's only available in bureaucracese, farsi, or arabic

"Anyone know if they have a defense industry advertising blog? I'd love to see that one."

all's fair in love of evil and bidding war

[p'g,fr4g.r]

"Google were evil if they tried to pick and choose who can use them to advertise."

so if al quaida can afford recruiting ads, google should sell the ads. just as the soviets selling tanks to saddam hussein weren't evil. or republicans selling weapons to khomeini weren't evil. they're just hard-working entrepreneurs making a buck in the free-market supply and demand system. worship them!

btw, i should mention that google's anti-sicko advert initiative isn't as heinous as many other "entrepreneurial" organizations, so google isn't terribly (relatively) evil.

'earning' income doing job may | may not be evil

[p'g,fr4g.r]

yep, the income is irrelevant. the act is what may or may not be evil. http://www.google.com/search?q=+just+to+%22pay+the +mortgage%22+author+Christopher+Buckley+nazis

fwiw, lauren's self-fup 2 days later (url)

[p'g,fr4g.r]

http://google-health-ads.blogspot.com/2007/07/my-o pinion-and-googles.html

11% Tax Hike

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in the UK - here we pax 11% of our saleries for our socalist health case system...

would every american want to pay 11% of their salary for national health care?

would the corrupt businesses of your health care allow it?

Re:Mod Parent Down!

[painlord2k]

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/06/sicko-and-hail -mary-medicine.html

This is an example, in Sicko, that Michael Moore play loose with facts.

People get free transport if needed.

[jotaeleemeese]

Here in the UK you can request free transport from and to hospital if needed as far as I know.

People do fall through the system, since the service above is not provided automatically and perhaps a frai lady may not have been aware that she could request this.

Re:People get free transport if needed.

[sumdumass]

Well, it was more then just transportation. It was money for medicine and lunch too. He made it sound like you estimate how much it will cost to goto the drug store on your way home, ad in a meal allowance and transportation fees and goto the cashier winder and they will give it to you. and he made it sound like this happens every time you goto the hospital as if it is automatic.

Slipping thought the cracks happens. But it sounds like it isn't as he was saying.

solution: expand federal system

[Anonymous Coward]

The biggest problem with the US system is that health insurance is tied to who your employer is. Why should my employer have any say about what company provides my health insurance? If my employer want to provide a subsidy as part of my benefits, then great. But I should be able to apply the subsidy to any company I want.

Making this one change would do wonders, as it would expose the insurance companies to competition. I've personally seen this work.

I was a federal employee for many years. Each year, there was an open season where you could choose from a very large pool of insurers, everything from full-service to HMO. Over the years, insurers that did not provide good service dropped out. Many insurers improved their service over the years. Expanding this system so that everyone could make the same choices regardless of employer or lack of employment would not be technically difficult.

My wife was recently diagnosed with a brain tumor. In doing research on where to get treatment, I was struck with how wonderful the US is for treating this as compared to any other country. There really is no comparison. The US has more and better doctors, more and better equipment (for radio surgery), and this equipment is much more widely available. The Canadian system is particulary insidious, as they ration access to diagnostic equipment. As a result, they are able to keep the surgery wait lists down (try to prove your wife died of a tumor when you cannot get access to an MRI). Where we're going to get treatment, over half the people come from other countries, and most of them are from countries with government healthcare the MM says is so great.

Re:Mod Parent Up!

[in5ane]

I went to A&E last month in the UK, and was seen in *under* 45 minutes.

Michael Moore - Idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Michael Moore's whole premise on this one is idiotic for one simple reason - the demand for medical care is unlimited.

Because of that his criticisms of the current system are irrelevant. His solution (Gov't medical care) is no better than what we have, which is rationing.

I think that health insurance should be made illegal and people should only get the care they can afford to pay for. Painful at first, but soon the cost of medical care would plummet.

WTF is everybody's problem with Michael Moore?

[Captain_Chaos]

Seriously, what the fuck is everybody's problem with Michael Moore? I've seen his movies and read his books, and what I see is lots of indisputable facts and clear, reasoned arguments. You may disagree with the propagandistic style of his movies or Moore's antagonistic interview style, but aren't we here clever enough to see past that and not let it distract us from the underlying message?

Why does everybody attack the man instead of respond to the arguments? I expect better from the /. crowd. Maybe that just shows how naive I am...

Rich flavor?

[hey!]

According to the link, Moxie was popular because of its "rich flavor." Pfft.

If humans had propylene glycol in their blood instead of water, their piss would taste like "Old Fashioned Moxie". You kids and your newfangled good tasting tonic.

Don't be evil

[Overd0g]

Opposing Michael Moore, and his transparent love of socialism in all it's insidious guises, is the precise opposite of "evil". As usual, he exposes the problems with the system he is critical of, but hides the flaws in the system he admires. He is a liar.

Well said!

[Anonymous Coward]

PArent post does have real problem. You are real problem!

Re:Mod Parent Down!

[Captain Splendid]

Yes, because your taxes ONLY go to lazy assholes.

I understand your frustration, but you need better points.

I'd also counter it by saying that any system that prioritizes the needs of corporations over those of its citizens is in DEEP fucking trouble.

Re:Mod Parent Up!

[Captain Splendid]

How did you get that backwards b?

Thank you for confirming I spend too much time on the internet. I actually got that joke.

People without insurance are dogs

[gosand]

Don't you DARE say that the health care system in the USA is fair or equitable! It isn't...and I'm LIVING PROOF OF IT!!

I feel for you... I lost my job a year ago, and had to go into consulting. The pay is good, but healthcare is REALLY expensive. And the coverage SUCKS. My plan only pays 70% of covered expenses. We just had our 2nd child, and we estimated it is going to cost us about $7000. And that is just our estimate, we won't know for sure until the bills start rolling in.

For the last 13 years, I had really good healthcare coverage. Our first child was born 2 years ago, and we paid about $1000 total. Luckily, I've never really been sick, and neither has my wife. So if all my money over the years has gone to pay for other people, so be it. People like to bitch that "hey, I'm young and healthy, I am not paying for your medical bills!". Well, you won't be like that forever. Why don't we THINK a little bit here?

We got a wake-up call with this pregnancy. I had a month between consulting gigs, and had to pay a month of COBRA coverage. Well, of course there was some snafu in the system, and when my wife went in for one of her appointments, at 8 months pregnant, they said her healthcare coverage was denied. She explained to them that we paid for COBRA that month, and that the paperwork just had to clear on the insurance company's side of things. What followed was pathetic. She was treated like a dog. They actually started talking slower to her, saying "Do you have healthcare coverage?" "Yes, we do... our regular coverage runs out at the end of this month, then we will have COBRA coverage" "Well, If you don't have coverage, then we may need to reschedule your appointment until you do." Then it got really disgusting. She was having a C-section, because our first child was born via emergency C-section. So it was scheduled for June 4. In May, the doctor's office called our insurance provider to find out if we had coverage. The insurance provider said "yes, they are covered through May" (because they could only see on their computer screen that our coverage ran through the current month, and they can only see a month at a time.) The doctors office tried to re-schedule her C-section May, because they thought we might not have coverage in June.

We got it cleared up eventually, and had the baby on the planned date. But they were willing to deliver our child weeks early, simply because they thought they might not get paid. And the way they talked to us when they thought we might not have coverage was horrible. All of a sudden instead of nice and polite, they were brusk and slightly rude. They actually talked slower to us, and were less patient when we tried to explain the situation. I can't imagine that this is a unique experience, and I can't imagine the hoops that people without insurance have to jump through just to make sure that they can get medical attention. Not to mention that when you need medical attention is a very stressful time ANYWAY. Being treated like a lower-class citizen really makes the situation much much worse.

GAAP makes SEC filings worthless

[alexhmit01]

The problem with what you're looking at is GAAP numbers, which work wonderfully for manufacturing companies, not so great with IP companies.

Basically, R&D is expensed as incurred, but the benefits are in the future. However, since we don't know how to actually value that asset with precision (if you expect a 150% ROI on your research dollars, theoretically you should have an asset to amortize), GAAP says to make it simple, we call it $0.

As a result, Pharma companies do some research in house, but most of what gets done is a lot of seed money gets put into little research shops, and if the drug is a success, you buy the research shop. That way, you can put the R&D on your books as an asset.

Basically, if I spend $10m on R&D, I have a $10m expense. If I put $1m as investments into 10 different little shops, I have no expenses, because I have $10m in assets (my investments). In 5 years, 1 panned out, 9 flopped, so I write off $9m off the flopped shops (though I can do it over time to not eat the expense in 1 year, write one off each year, leave rest as shells), and buy the remaining shop for $10m. I then put the company on my books for $500,000 in assets (the lab equipment), and $9.5 million in good will.

As a result, Big Pharma doesn't do as much research in house as they do with seed money plus buying anyone who does anything cool. The in-house team is focused on FDA trials, not drug research. Look at that filing in front of you, look at the income statement for "minority interest" or whatever they call it. That means that the company owns over 80% of a firm (so consolidates the financials), but pays out the minority holder. So if they bought 90% of the research company, they essentially leave a 10% royalty to the guys that did the work, but instead of a royalty payment, it's in the much sneakier minority interest section.

The FDa trials can't always be amortized. Costs that have an unknown benefit in the future have to be expensed today, can't be amortized over time. I understand what you're saying, but you have to appreciate the damage that GAAP's rules have done to our pharma companies and how they operate.

Remember, you don't get a patent on a medication, you get a patent on the process to create the medication. Your 20-year clock starts upon developing the drug. If it takes 10 years to get through trials, you only have 10 years left on the patent.

My buddies aren't that low on the pole, aren't lying to me, and the situation is much more complicated than you think. If it was such a money mint, they'd be doing WAY MORE research in house. There are good things with the American system, and bad things, but if you take America out of the free market health care game, there will be a LOT FEWER dollars chasing new drugs. Medical research WILL SLOW DOWN, and that's a risk I'm uncomfortable with. The fact that the rest of the world free rides on us, because we are the only ones paying the premium to chase new drugs, is unfair, but I don't know how to fix it. A senator (who I won't name), stunned my friend when addressing the company's employees/friends/PAC at some event, and talking to people later, told them that if they don't want cheaper drugs re-imported from Canada, they should stop selling to Canada. There is a growing realization that letting the companies negotiate lower prices with Canada ENCOURAGES that free-riding. If there was legal re-importing, our costs would go down at first to the level of Canada's, but you won't see Canada getting such cheap pricing in the future.

I support the re-importation of drugs (at least from Western countries... I wouldn't allow it from Africa, because I want the companies to sell cheap stuff to the third world to help them build up). Our costs would go down, other countries would pay more, and the giant American subsidy of Canada and Europe would go away. I bet the Big Pharma companies would make more in the end, because Canada couldn't beat them up on pricing when the company knows that they essentially have to sell in the US for what they sell in Canada because of re-importation.

wooooo

[treak007]

google: 1 misinformation and propaganda: 0

Re:The US system is probably worse than you think.

[vecctor]

I think the whole "public healthcare raises taxes" argument is lost right there -- if the States had a system anywhere close to the efficiency of other industrialized nations', they could theoretically be spending just as much at the government level and chuck most of the private health costs. Of course, that's probably unrealistic in that it would likely be politically difficult to build a system like that out of the one in place now. I think you hit upon it right here. People think it will cost more if the government does it because state proposals for gov-funded healthcare come with giant spending/tax increases. (My state is attempting this right now)

If you told people "we can give you universal healthcare for no extra money" as you are saying could be done, then they would jump on it. But that never happens.

uh, lol

[everphilski]

it's hard to dispute Moore's facts

Not really. For example, take his Cuba trip. Yea, foreigners with large pocketbooks, for example, say, an independent movie producer trying to make a point, can get top-notch health care in Cuba from a really good medical facility. However, the Cuban population in general does not have access to said health care. To drive the point home further - when Castro went through his ordeal last year, did he have his operation performed by a Cuban doctor? No. He had a Spanish doctor.

Re:uh, lol

[pjp6259]

I saw Moore claim that they also sent in an an unknown person who posed as a Cuban citizen, and got the exact same treatment.

Re:uh, lol

[everphilski]

Well, several doctors from cuba disuptes this, I refer you to this article

fta:
"But for Cubans, it's different. Unless you work with tourists or have a relative in Miami sending you money, you will not be able to get what you need if you are sick in Cuba. As a doctor, I find it disgusting."

So Moore likely cherry-picked a local that would be seen or paid in advance.

Moore's Evil

[jasontromm]

I think Moore's the evil one in this debate. His crockumentaries contain very few "facts." His main goal, his template, is to embarrass the Bush administration. He is a hypocrite because all his films have a hate America viewpoint, yet he makes millions of dollars from the American consumer. Get a life Michael!

Re:Initiation rites are part of the occult science

[afxgrin]

The light is a comin'....

Just Blackhole Google Ads -- No Big Deal

[wagadog]

add this line to your hosts file

127.0.0.1 ads.google.com

And you'll never see another google ad again.

Re:Just Blackhole Google Ads -- No Big Deal

[wagadog]

oooh they're getting clever! you'll have to add this line now too: 127.0.0.1 pagead2.googlesyndication.com

How to fix the broken health-care system

[c0d3h4x0r]

There are three principles that need to be applied to fix the broken health-care system here in the U.S.:

1. Transparency and accountability
These drive up quality and drive down costs. When patients can see that a particular doctor or particular hospital overcharges relative to others, offers no corresponding advantage in care quality, or actually has a track record of medical malpractice, then patients will go elsewhere. That would create incentive for hospitals and doctors to improve the quality of care and/or drop their prices.

Today the costs are hidden from most patients because insurance picks them up (in part or in full), and that means there's no competition among healthcare providers to keep costs down. That's why you see hospitals charging ridiculous amounts (like $200 for an ACE bandage).

Healthcare providers should be required by law to clearly publish all over their premises:
  - their costs (boiled down to some kind of a "score" that patients can easily understand)
  - their quality (again, boiled down to some kind of a "score")

The method for calculating the "score" should be defined by the law in a standard way that the public can inspect and challenge, and federal inspectors should be able to revoke a healthcare provider's license and shut them down if their scores are found to be inaccurate or beyond certain threshholds. The law should require scores to be updated monthly.

2. Supply and demand
The number of patients (demand) is increasing far faster than the number of healthcare providers (supply). This drives costs (and long waits) up, and quality of care down (as doctors are overworked and tired and make more mistakes). The only possible solution here is to increase the rate of supply creation until it is actually faster than the rate of demand increase. The way you do this (as others here have correctly noted) is to fix the broken medical schooling system so that it's not so unnecessarily hellish to become a doctor, nurse, surgeon, etc. People shouldn't have to give up their own lives and families and run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in college debt in order to enter the medical profession.

The most immediate way to fix this broken system is to grant federal funds to state colleges ONLY if they offer medical programs that charge less than $5,000/year for tuition and that require no more than 6 years (total) of schooling to graduate with a medical degree.

3. Timeliness of medical care and burden of proof
Just because a medical condition is not immediately life-threatening, that doesn't mean it's a wise idea to postpone medical care. Postponing minor medical treatment almost always results in bigger medial problems later, which end up costing more, which is bad for everyone involved (the patient, the medical provider, the insurance company, etc).

The reason most people don't get medical care when they ought to is that they know it will put them into debt. They know that after they've received the treatment, they won't be able to pay it off without going bankrupt and losing their home or other basic possessions. So the only way to fix the system so people get medical care early is to give patients peace of mind that their legitimate medical needs will always be covered.

Federal law should REQUIRE insurance companies to pay for all medical costs, so that the patient never owes ANYTHING to an insurance company. Federal law should ALSO REQUIRE an insurance company to then PROVE before a CIVIL COURT that a patient actually DEFRAUDED them in order to recoup payments made on behalf of a fraudulent claim. In other words, the burden of proof needs to be shifted from the patient (from having to prove the legitimacy of their need for medical care) to the insurance company (to have to prove that a claim was indeed fraudulent), and coverage should only ever be denied based on actual FRAUD.

Kurt

[McGurk]

MM better get Google to protect him from Kurt Loder's review of Sicko.

Nonsense!

[smagruder]

If you what you said was true, the Supreme Court would have already rolled back mountains of law passed by this Congress. It hasn't.

The Constitution uses the phrase "promote the general Welfare" in the Preamble. And obviously, the Bill of Rights is about what the Government cannot restrict. This is basic Constitutional understanding.

Amendment X, as you say, reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Fair enough. But Congress indeed has the delegated power you say they don't. In Article 1, Section 8, it reads (and read closely): "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States". Since the Congress also has the delegated power of legislation, and if legislation passes both Houses and is signed into law by the President (or becomes law without his signature), if the Congress decides it is in the general welfare of the country to pass Single Payer health insurance, it can and is fully backed up by our U.S. Constitution.