Slashdot Mirror
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."
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).
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.
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.
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.
I'd say more, but my guild is raiding.
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.
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.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
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.)
... 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."
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'.
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>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
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.
A-Bomb
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
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
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.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
...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.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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.
...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.
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.
(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":
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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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.
... 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.
My english is sow-sow. Sowhat?
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.
Because you can - or because you should?
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.
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.
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.
...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.
Try not being a GOP puppet. Thinking for yourself isn't nearly as hard as you might imagine.
This is my favourite though:
People feel they are entitled to NOT DIE. Fancy that!Goddam fucking idiot....
Nothing to see here. Move along.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
>>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.
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
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
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.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!