Hello its a pleasure to back on here again. Its been a while so I've had the time to check out some things. All thats going on in this city and the world (HOW CAN A MAN BE SHOT BY OUR POLICE 85 TIMES-21 EXIT WOUNDS?)and some things don't change. But my latest beef if you can call it that is this Mike Moore movie. This movie SICKO made my look at life in a different way . It made me ask this simple question, HOW BEDROCK HAVE WE BECOME AS A SOCIETY IN THIS COUNTRY?
Mike never fails to amaze me when he comes up with these mockumentaries. Its like he's looking at a private lens of ourselves that the rest doesn't have access to. Its almost like this world that he's showing with his directors lens doesn't exist. Have we gone back that far into the stone age? And I can see where our President could question his patriotism with these movies, but this is TRUE LIFE STORIES!!!
But back to my personal beef. There has been a period of time where I didn't have health care, some of that was after college. Not all had the nice health care that came with the wonderful job. Benefits means nothing to this country anymore. Some benefits have crippled companies (CHYRSLER), then some are trying to take a city under(SEPTA). But when it comes to being able to afford to go to any doctor you feel, wouldn't that become a major priority in this city? Its already enough that we have terrible doctors with wrong prognosis, now we can't even afford as a nation to send our citizens to these crappy doctors . When you watch these movies makes you more and more ashamed to call yourself a American. Especially under this fraudulent Administration. How can a nation where only 1% of the population are wealthy really care about universal health care? I don' t care how much our politicians say they want to bring universal health care to our country, the truth is that people have a better chance of getting the latest IPhone ($600/8gb) than good health care.
I don't know where to begin when it comes to this movie. Lets start with the biggest insult of the year. Could you imagine going to Osama Bin Laden for a business loan to save the economy? That's how I took it when our citizens that risked their life on 9/11 had to go to all places CUBA for health care? That's like going to HELL for a Slurpee because the machines are down at 7-eleven. How we become like this is only our faults. We elected these millionaires into office that could give a damn about our welfare. You won't know how it feels until your bad day becomes the day that you lost your health care or that stroke could bring your financial situation to ruins. Who would have thought that a heart attack could make a person file bankruptcy. To watch these people travel into dangerous territory just for health sickens my heart. How our own government told these people that they risked their life for nothing cause they wasn't on the government payroll!
On 9/11 our cameras were quick to show the heroic feats and the unity our country faced during the attacks. But sometimes those same cameras don't show the aftermath because they are to quick to follow behind Paris Hilton and Linsey Lohan. There are people dying in our country , some are feeling to other countries cause there are no co-pays at hospitals. Some don't pay for hospital visits and it cost nothing to deliver a baby at some hospitals. Its enough to have the bills pile the kitchen table but to have these outrageous debts we occur at these hospitals that our good-for-nothing HMO's don't want to cover is a shame. I thank Mike again for showing light to areas that we like to cover up. I'm waiting for the govt to wash my laundry too......
I pose this question?????
It reminds me of my son fave movie "The Incredibles" where there is a scene in the movie about insurance companies. The boss told the main character about how to keep the company in the black and not in the red. Are insurance companies any different than any other companies? They want to stay in the black just like Microsoft and Walmart. Giving benefits to patients that needed ( what they are paying for )is not keeping companies like BLUE CROSS in the black. Saving lives is not keeping companies in the black. Giving support and payment so we can receive adequate health care is not keeping AETNA in the black. So what is it all for, why should we pay for insurance if all they're going to do is deny our claims?
Plus in the movie you have to love Bush for his line about OBGyn and their love for women.
Junior Williams
juniorwililams007@earthlink.net
http://mycityscapephily.eponym.com/blog
A fundamental fact
One fundamental fact has to be kept in mind regarding capitalism at all times: the only intended result of any enterprise where profit is the motive is profit. Any other outcomes from a for-profit enterprise are side effects. So, if Businessman X. decides to start a company making widgets, and needs to hire 10 people to do, he needs to pay them. That means that Mr. X's clear goal goal of generating a profit has had the side effect of creating 10 jobs.
Once you realize this, you can apply the same logic to health care. In a for-profit insurance company- Aetna is an excellent example- the primary goal is to create profit for the ownership. How do they go about creating profit? By taking in peoples' insurance premiums and paying out less in claims than they take in. Simple logic:
The end goal of for-profit insurance is to turn a profit;
Paying out claims makes it difficult to turn a profit;
Ergo, a for-profit insurer must avoid paying claims it at all possible.
Now, not-for-profit insurers, like Blue Cross-Blue Shield, may seem to have less reason to deny claims, since, in theory, they're not beholden to the profit motive. But, sadly enough, this is not the case. As I understand it, BCBS is, in effect, two different companies, one which loses money (the traditional insurance portion, which retains its non-profit mission), and one which makes money (the HMO/PPO side). Combine the money-making + money-losing sides, + you get a single, roughly revenue-neutral, entity.
As long as profit is the motive driving health care in the US, the outcome of a healthy citizenry cannot be the primary goal; it's just illogical to expect that it will be. And, if the health of the citizens is not the goal, why the heck do we continue to spend more money per-capita on health care than any other country in the world?
If the answer is to make the health care owners richer, let's just say up front, + end the charade that this is a health care system. Clearly, it is a profit-making plan, + nothing more.
-Z
The problem is not
The problem is not capitalism, the problem is resources. Each system has finite resources and they have to be handled.
As "free healthcare" isn't free (it comes form taxes) there are still budgetary concerns. It isn't a situation that the government can just keep raising taxes if health costs increase. It usually means something has to give. Usually this involves lack of updated equipment, prioritization of medical cases creating waiting lists, elimination of staff or medical "short cuts", etc.
In regards to the Michael Moore movie, I agree it was good to bring awareness to some of the problems of American health care, but unfortunately he refused to mention any of the problems of his utopian examples.
A single example of this is his foray into Hammersmith Hospital. There are several articles over the years that have mentioned NHS and Hammersmiths problems. Hammersmith is facing horrible budgetary concerns and is slashing jobs. One article even mentions doctors using too much radiation to save time and money.
Healthcare in the US is a problem, no argument. Just don't take everything said at face value about other solutions.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
Don't you think that
Don't you think that everyone understands that 'free healthcare' isn't free?
On this site, probably. In
On this site, probably. In general, no or at least not to the level of taxation involved.
The problem is, some people are purposefully putting on "free" as a form of deception. It sounds a lot better than "tax-based health care".
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
The problem is mixing capitalism with healthcare
Providing healthcare for profit is immoral.
"Not free" healthcare isn't free either. Many of our current tax dollars already go for providing healthcare.
Personally, I just love paying my for my own damn health insurance every month - generally not needing it, and then paying co-pays and sucking up deductibles when I do need it, so that the insurer can determine that what my doctor recommends isn't medically necessary.
Ain't capitalism mixed with healthcare just a thing o' beauty?
Again, I didn't say the
Again, I didn't say the current system is working.
And in the social systems, you still have bureaucrats saying what is and is not allowed or the time frame it is covered.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
The Free Market Case For Universal Health Care
My position is that the lack of universal health coverage and our model of employer-subsidized insurance-based coverage actually is fundamentally opposed to capitalism. This happens in two ways.
First, since your insurance is tied to your employer, you're less likely to change or switch jobs, since that would in most cases lead to a coverage gap, which stiffens the already asymmetric labor market. This also compounds the problem of job loss, turning layoffs or temporary unemployment into an unqualified disaster. Universal health care would cushion workers and employers against the instability of the free market. And in turn, universal health coverage cushions the market against the loss of a worker -- all of the education, skills, and experience invested in your average American worker is squandered if that worker can't get the health care he/she needs.
Second, insurance networks binding payers to physicians/institutions greatly reduce your freedom in choosing a health care provider. You can't choose to support the best or even the most convenient providers, but instead are stuck with the institutions and providers your insurance assigns you. This already-existing bureaucracy contributes to wait times, poor service, rationing of care, etc. In short, we already have the long list of ills attributed to socialized health care, without any of the benefits.
The best analogy for state-supported universal health care, in my opinion, is state-supported universal education. Just as tax-supported education for all helps the free market (and our democracy) work by identifying and developing the skills and intelligence of the population, universal health care helps the free market by preserving that human capital.
The "limited supplies must be rationed" argument has always struck me as bizarre, for just this reason -- no one ever points to inequality in our educational system and says, "education is a finite resource, and it must necessarily be rationed." While failures in our educational system may and do occur, virtually no one is willing just to accept them as part of the cost of doing business, or advocates abandoning universality in order to allocate our resources differently. The U.S. has the skills, institutions and resources to make health care work for everyone. We just refuse to do it.
I want to touch on one of
I want to touch on one of your points. Layoffs and unemployment. I think this is a point where issues can be addressed on a smaller scale.
We currently have paid unemployment in the United States. The reason for this is obviously to allow people to be able to retain shelter and eat amidst a temporary employment setback.
Why not offer the same thing for medical coverage so as to prevent disaster? Even if it isn't "cover everything", a type of catastrophic coverage while unemployed would help alleviate that situation.
I am not going to flush out the details, but I think the general idea may be a good piece to work towards. It logically fits the american unemployment philosophy and would be "relatively" easy to implement and theoretically with minimal financial burden to the government and can be paid for the same way monetary unemployment benefits are handled.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
Baby steps
An unemployment-insurance-style solution for health care would solve the layoff problem, not the other market failure issues, but it (along with universal coverage for children) would be a great first step.
As for the public education
As for the public education analogy, actually it is a prime example of the concerns of public health care.
Look at how Philadelphia has handled public eduction. How do you think a healthcare program would look if it was maintained the same way?
And yes, public education is significantly rationed due to lack of resources. As example:
1) Lack of school books
2) canceled athletic programs
3) over crowding of schools
4) employment levels and costs
These are all huge examples of how the government, with finite resources, cannibalizes public programs... and this is a program that the overwhelming majority of the population believes in!
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
Yes, all of those things
Yes, all of those things happen in public schools -- but virtually no one says, "Yes, this is the way it should be -- we can't do any better." And what's common to both the current system of public education and the current system of private health care is that both screw over the people and institutions in poor neighborhoods.
I agree. just saying it is
I agree. just saying it is a very good example of how government controlled is obviously not a foolproof solution either.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
My other concern, at least
My other concern, at least for America, is that our government has not shown it is capable of long term large scale budgeting in the social sector. On a national level, social security is a good example. On a state level, public transit. On a local level, the City's pension fund is another.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
Counterpoint
Medicare, which certainly qualifies as a 'long term large scale' program, has higher rates of approval and lower administrative overhead than any private health insurance plan in the country. This provides perhaps the single best argument for nationalizing health care in the US. It's also the rationale behind so-called 'Medicare for Everyone' legislation.
Of course, this faces vicious opposition from entrenched forces which benefit from the current system, specifically private insurers.
-Z
And doesn't it have
And doesn't it have significant budget problems?
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
Deficits, but...
A few things need to be considered when discussing budget deficits in Medicare:
1) Much of the deficit comes from Medicare sending money to for-profit insurers to handle part of the coverage.
2) Much of Medicare's new costs come from the miserable drug benefit, which was designed specifically to not allow Medicare to negotiate w/drug manufacturers for lower prices.
3) Economies of scale suggest that, were all national insurance claim forms replaced w/a single, Medicare claim form, health care costs related to health insurance, but not directly inside of Medicare, would drop precipitously.
This being the case, it should also be noted that a single-payer system, such as Medicare for All, is not the only option for national health care. A better alternative, given the current glut of private insurers in the US, might resemble the German system, which consists of a system of heavily-regulated, non-profit, but private insurers. Remove the profit motive from health care, and it's possible that care will improve. Certainly, only a great fool- or insurance company executive- would think that we currently have a better alternative in the US.
-Z