Michael Moore does make documentaries. Just because you don't agree with his stance doesn't change that. He does take a lot of material to the editing room floor in order to show his side and may not do it in the most objective way, but it's still a documentary whether you choose to think so or not.
Phokus
Lifer
- Nov 20, 1999
- 22,995
- 775
- 126
I'm a very free market oriented person, but i've changed my stance a little bit on healthcare. I'm waffling on the idea of a market driven healthcare system now because it seems that there is a big market failure in healthcare. If you're an insurance company, to make profit, you don't want to insure the sick, you want to insure the healthy. Also, the overhead in private healthcare is like 13 - 28% or more (you have to pay the CEO's, the accountants, the salespeople, etc. etc. etc.) whereas the overhead in a universal healthcare system like medicare is only 1-3%.Originally posted by: jmanny
Touche...you took my dare and owned me, they are all good programs and started out well until they had to fight for funding and the beauracratic BS set in.
But I'll pose this question:
Are they efficient? No cost overuns, no signs of waste or mismanagement? None of those agencies ever fights at the government trough for their very survival? NASA has never launched a mission because cancelling it would cost too much money, how did that work out for them? Yes, I do thank the government for the internet, but now I have to be aware of whether they will tax it...regulate it...censor it. Don't know where you're from, but the DOT around me is not very good or efficient, I run over potholes and get stuck in traffic on the poorly designed roads in this area almost daily.
I haven't read the UHC article about France yet, I will when I have the time maybe it will change my mind. But I see all around me how OUR government could F@#k up just about anything it touches. I don't feel it will be any different with healthcare. All the wishifull thinking that "things will be different if we have UHC" is just that, wishful thinking.
As for the person refusing work to keep the benefits. I do work for a staffing agency that offers employees health insurance for a nominal cost. It is not as comprehensive as other programs, but it is health insurance and it is available, some people CHOOSE to stay on social services programs.
We are certainly not going to solve it in this thread, as I said before I wish I had the answer.
Hey this is getting to be a P&N thread now.
Note: there's a BIG difference between having socialized healthcare delivery and socialized payment of healthcare. I think how Canada and France have their system setup is that the 'insurance company' (which would be the government) sets up fee schedules and pay private doctors/hospitals/etc. for services rendered. I believe the UK has socialized insurance and socialized delivery.
Slew Foot
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2005
- 12,381
- 95
- 86
Working at the VA was perhaps the most disgusting part of my medical training. Patients rooms wouldnt get cleaned for days, there would be piles of trays in the corner covered in flies. Wound dressings wouldnt get changed, nurses wouldn't check on patients overnight, it was pretty scary. And this was in Orange County, a supposedly wealthy place.
You mean stay good? How terrible. You're probably getting your results from government run facilities for the good folks that don't want to work. Those are not for profit. Go to a 'for profit' health care facility and you shall see that it's profit that brings care and sophistication, not government good will.
We just need more hospitals and doctors. Right now the AMA is artificially limiting the number of doctors introduced into the field to keep salaries of medical personnel high $$$$$$$$$.
In the US, becoming a doctor is one of the hardest professions to get into. In other countries becoming a doctors is a lot easier. Even though becoming a doctor is harder here, one would assume that the US has the best doctors... This is incorrect as witness by the WHO rankings...
Health insurance companies aren't the culprit. Health insurance companies pressure doctors to lower their prices. Without them, cost would skyrocket.
In the US, becoming a doctor is one of the hardest professions to get into. In other countries becoming a doctors is a lot easier. Even though becoming a doctor is harder here, one would assume that the US has the best doctors... This is incorrect as witness by the WHO rankings...
Health insurance companies aren't the culprit. Health insurance companies pressure doctors to lower their prices. Without them, cost would skyrocket.
Who or what is the WHO and why do their rankings matter? I know they rank us 37 but I don't know why or what they base their conclusions on nor do I know the credentials of the WHO. Without those questions answered, which I'm hoping one of you can, I see the WHO rankings as useless statistics.
I agree, but Moore's films are so obviously biased that we all can see it. That does not negate everything he says, although we need to recognize we don't get a balanced story from him alone.
On the other hand, it is REALLY hard to get balance anywhere else. We live in an age when objective balanced journalism has been replaced almost completely by advocacy reporting and News as Entertainment. In that environment, the majority of information in the mainstream media, entirely dependent on advertisers for revenue, will tend to support the status quo, or offer only mild criticism for "tweaking" adjustments. The tough part is that all of these info sources portray themselves as responsible balanced sources, unlike Moore.
The only solution is that we all are responsible for seeking and evaluating information from many sources, then drawing our own conclusions. Seems to me OP is doing just that here. The fundamental basis of a democratic society is an informed electorate. And that requires MUCH more than passive acceptance of CNN and the like!
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
The WHO study used the following metrics to determine their rankings:
"WHO?s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system?s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs)."
iow, their list really isn't indicative solely of the actual quality level of health care.
Anecdotally, when the people around the world with money need the best health care possible they generally come to the US to get it. They don't fly to France, Italy, or Singapore. There's probably a valid reason for that.
Two things to keep in mind about that list. The first is that the US is the most non-homogeneous nation in the list - which can lead to large disparities in data. For example - we rank low in the infant mortality rating, however, the infant mortality rating for Caucasians is 6.3 - in line with the common rating of 7 in the list above. However, hispanic at around 8 and African Americans at around 14 push the overall rate much higher. Typically these races have a higher infant mortality rate than Caucasians (which dominate the list)
The other issue is population density rank of the US is 180 out of the countries. With the exception of Canada and Australia (and while their country land size is greater - their population is concentrated in a smaller area). That means our health care system will have to work harder to reach everyone than say singapore which is 4 or germany which is 53.
A better option would to be looking at WHO's potential rating and attainment rating. These rankings take into account the items I listed above and many other demographic concerns. The US potential rating is 15 and attainment is 37.
This obviously means there is a lot of work that needs to be done on the HC system in the US but I feel the above list is thrown around too much without proper context
Throckmorton
Lifer
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,830
- 2
- 0
I'd guess all those government agencies and offices are as efficient as the private sector, if not more so. They have to do a lot with limited funds. Look at the military. A soldier is paid what, 1/5 as much as a Blackwater employee? And which, in general, does a better job? I was an intern at Yellowstone in 2006, and everyone worked extremely hard because of their dedication. My boss probably worked 60+ hours a week. She didn't have job security either-- she was a term employee who just had her term renewed every year. It would take no effort at all to lay her off.Originally posted by: jmanny
Touche...you took my dare and owned me, they are all good programs and started out well until they had to fight for funding and the beauracratic BS set in.
But I'll pose this question:
Are they efficient? No cost overuns, no signs of waste or mismanagement? None of those agencies ever fights at the government trough for their very survival? NASA has never launched a mission because cancelling it would cost too much money, how did that work out for them? Yes, I do thank the government for the internet, but now I have to be aware of whether they will tax it...regulate it...censor it. Don't know where you're from, but the DOT around me is not very good or efficient, I run over potholes and get stuck in traffic on the poorly designed roads in this area almost daily.
I haven't read the UHC article about France yet, I will when I have the time maybe it will change my mind. But I see all around me how OUR government could F@#k up just about anything it touches. I don't feel it will be any different with healthcare. All the wishifull thinking that "things will be different if we have UHC" is just that, wishful thinking.
As for the person refusing work to keep the benefits. I do work for a staffing agency that offers employees health insurance for a nominal cost. It is not as comprehensive as other programs, but it is health insurance and it is available, some people CHOOSE to stay on social services programs.
We are certainly not going to solve it in this thread, as I said before I wish I had the answer.
Hey this is getting to be a P&N thread now.
They are almost all underfunded. That's not their fault. It's politicians' fault, and our fault for not supporting more funding. In fact it's a credit to public servants for doing so much with relatively meagre funding.
My YNP boss didn't qualify for government health insurance, and when she got diagnosed with leukemia, she was SOL. They kept her as an employee through the treatment, so at least she still has her job, and is as dedicated as ever. Why? Because that's how public servants are. I know a lot of government employees, in the NPS, DHHS, DHS, Army, Congress. I don't know how they do their jobs but I'd have a hard time believing they didn't do them to the best of their ability. I'm also an immigrant and my family has had extensive experience with the INS. We never had any issues with them, except that it took forever to get citizenship because of understaffing.
Edit: And you're thinking of state DOTs. I was referring to the federal DOT. Ever seen a pothole on an interstate?
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 49,615
- 12,209
- 136
Except these aren't the counterpoint arguments at all. Not any of them.
So, although unintentionally, you did present exactly why people don't like Michael Moore. You see, there are two kind of political pundits in this world: the kind you can respect even if you disagree with them, and the windbags you can't respect even when you do agree with them. And MM, like Rush Limbaugh, is the latter. "Blah blah blah if you don't agree with every word I say then you must be my enemy." And wrapping it up in bitter sarcasm doesn't make it any less sophomoric.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,862
- 84
- 91
our doctors would really sh*t themselves if they got paid french doctors salaries lol
its a fraction of what ours are paid. its how you afford healthcare on a large scale.britains closer to ours while still being free, but well, its in perpetual financial ruin
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 49,615
- 12,209
- 136
BTW, if anyone is interested in what a REAL leftist liberal is like, someone who is absolutely nothing like MM (even though I'm sure MM would love to claim the same ideological banner), PBS is currently running a documentary on Pete Seeger. Check your local listings or the PBS website. Absolutely fantastic. One of the greatest persons of the 20th century.
I don't disagree at all that there are many dedicated public service sector employees, especially the military. I work with some everyday at a State employment agency. Yes the budgets are meager and yes they do the best they can with the funding they have. But bureaucracies are inherently inefficient, it's the nature of them it can't be helped it's the red tape, regulations and such. Think of it this way...how many forms do you have to fill out to file your taxes. You probably don't know and pay someone or buy a tax program to do it. It's so complicated and people spend so much money to do them because it's a GOVERNMENT PROGRAM or how many regulations were there at the park service, I'm sure their was a huge book of them, That's the type of system we will get with universal health care, Speaking for myself I do not want!Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I'd guess all those government agencies and offices are as efficient as the private sector, if not more so. They have to do a lot with limited funds. Look at the military. A soldier is paid what, 1/5 as much as a Blackwater employee? And which, in general, does a better job? I was an intern at Yellowstone in 2006, and everyone worked extremely hard because of their dedication. My boss probably worked 60+ hours a week. She didn't have job security either-- she was a term employee who just had her term renewed every year. It would take no effort at all to lay her off.Originally posted by: jmanny
Touche...you took my dare and owned me, they are all good programs and started out well until they had to fight for funding and the beauracratic BS set in.
But I'll pose this question:
Are they efficient? No cost overuns, no signs of waste or mismanagement? None of those agencies ever fights at the government trough for their very survival? NASA has never launched a mission because cancelling it would cost too much money, how did that work out for them? Yes, I do thank the government for the internet, but now I have to be aware of whether they will tax it...regulate it...censor it. Don't know where you're from, but the DOT around me is not very good or efficient, I run over potholes and get stuck in traffic on the poorly designed roads in this area almost daily.
I haven't read the UHC article about France yet, I will when I have the time maybe it will change my mind. But I see all around me how OUR government could F@#k up just about anything it touches. I don't feel it will be any different with healthcare. All the wishifull thinking that "things will be different if we have UHC" is just that, wishful thinking.
As for the person refusing work to keep the benefits. I do work for a staffing agency that offers employees health insurance for a nominal cost. It is not as comprehensive as other programs, but it is health insurance and it is available, some people CHOOSE to stay on social services programs.
We are certainly not going to solve it in this thread, as I said before I wish I had the answer.
Hey this is getting to be a P&N thread now.
They are almost all underfunded. That's not their fault. It's politicians' fault, and our fault for not supporting more funding. In fact it's a credit to public servants for doing so much with relatively meagre funding.
My YNP boss didn't qualify for government health insurance, and when she got diagnosed with leukemia, she was SOL. They kept her as an employee through the treatment, so at least she still has her job, and is as dedicated as ever. Why? Because that's how public servants are. I know a lot of government employees, in the NPS, DHHS, DHS, Army, Congress. I don't know how they do their jobs but I'd have a hard time believing they didn't do them to the best of their ability. I'm also an immigrant and my family has had extensive experience with the INS. We never had any issues with them, except that it took forever to get citizenship because of understaffing.
Edit: And you're thinking of state DOTs. I was referring to the federal DOT. Ever seen a pothole on an interstate?
Private doctors and hospitals will ALWAYS be more efficient than one that will be run by the government (and contrary to the popular belief on this board not ALL private companies are out to screw everyone, profit is not teh EVIL). Most if not all private corporations are able to better serve people because quite literally the paychecks of all the people who work there depend on it, if they don't people will move on down the road to another. With universal care you don't have that choice it's the govs way or the dieway. If the US sets up a system where it can continue using private Dr's and hospitals it may work. But if it is run solely by the gov. as a non-profit agency like the VA it will fail miserably and we all will be waiting 6 months for a cat scan.
As for your comment about it not being civil servants fault, you are completely correct. The ONLY people to blame are the voters, myself included who have continued to vote politicians into office who quite frankly don't give a shiat about the people who sent them there.
And yes I have seen potholes on interstates, that's what I was referring to
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 69,521
- 4,943
- 126
1 Government Bureaucracy is pretty bad, no doubt, but imagine how bad multiple Insurance Industry Bureaucracies are to deal with.Originally posted by: jmanny
I don't disagree at all that there are many dedicated public service sector employees, especially the military. I work with some everyday at a State employment agency. Yes the budgets are meager and yes they do the best they can with the funding they have. But bureaucracies are inherently inefficient, it's the nature of them it can't be helped it's the red tape, regulations and such. Think of it this way...how many forms do you have to fill out to file your taxes. You probably don't know and pay someone or buy a tax program to do it. It's so complicated and people spend so much money to do them because it's a GOVERNMENT PROGRAM or how many regulations were there at the park service, I'm sure their was a huge book of them, That's the type of system we will get with universal health care, Speaking for myself I do not want!Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I'd guess all those government agencies and offices are as efficient as the private sector, if not more so. They have to do a lot with limited funds. Look at the military. A soldier is paid what, 1/5 as much as a Blackwater employee? And which, in general, does a better job? I was an intern at Yellowstone in 2006, and everyone worked extremely hard because of their dedication. My boss probably worked 60+ hours a week. She didn't have job security either-- she was a term employee who just had her term renewed every year. It would take no effort at all to lay her off.Originally posted by: jmanny
Touche...you took my dare and owned me, they are all good programs and started out well until they had to fight for funding and the beauracratic BS set in.
But I'll pose this question:
Are they efficient? No cost overuns, no signs of waste or mismanagement? None of those agencies ever fights at the government trough for their very survival? NASA has never launched a mission because cancelling it would cost too much money, how did that work out for them? Yes, I do thank the government for the internet, but now I have to be aware of whether they will tax it...regulate it...censor it. Don't know where you're from, but the DOT around me is not very good or efficient, I run over potholes and get stuck in traffic on the poorly designed roads in this area almost daily.
I haven't read the UHC article about France yet, I will when I have the time maybe it will change my mind. But I see all around me how OUR government could F@#k up just about anything it touches. I don't feel it will be any different with healthcare. All the wishifull thinking that "things will be different if we have UHC" is just that, wishful thinking.
As for the person refusing work to keep the benefits. I do work for a staffing agency that offers employees health insurance for a nominal cost. It is not as comprehensive as other programs, but it is health insurance and it is available, some people CHOOSE to stay on social services programs.
We are certainly not going to solve it in this thread, as I said before I wish I had the answer.
Hey this is getting to be a P&N thread now.
They are almost all underfunded. That's not their fault. It's politicians' fault, and our fault for not supporting more funding. In fact it's a credit to public servants for doing so much with relatively meagre funding.
My YNP boss didn't qualify for government health insurance, and when she got diagnosed with leukemia, she was SOL. They kept her as an employee through the treatment, so at least she still has her job, and is as dedicated as ever. Why? Because that's how public servants are. I know a lot of government employees, in the NPS, DHHS, DHS, Army, Congress. I don't know how they do their jobs but I'd have a hard time believing they didn't do them to the best of their ability. I'm also an immigrant and my family has had extensive experience with the INS. We never had any issues with them, except that it took forever to get citizenship because of understaffing.
Edit: And you're thinking of state DOTs. I was referring to the federal DOT. Ever seen a pothole on an interstate?
Private doctors and hospitals will ALWAYS be more efficient than one that will be run by the government (and contrary to the popular belief on this board not ALL private companies are out to screw everyone, profit is not teh EVIL). Most if not all private corporations are able to better serve people because quite literally the paychecks of all the people who work there depend on it, if they don't people will move on down the road to another. With universal care you don't have that choice it's the govs way or the dieway. If the US sets up a system where it can continue using private Dr's and hospitals it may work. But if it is run solely by the gov. as a non-profit agency like the VA it will fail miserably and we all will be waiting 6 months for a cat scan.
As for your comment about it not being civil servants fault, you are completely correct. The ONLY people to blame are the voters, myself included who have continued to vote politicians into office who quite frankly don't give a shiat about the people who sent them there.
And yes I have seen potholes on interstates, that's what I was referring to
Now multiply it by the fact that the multiple insurance industry bureaucracies are seeking to make a profit for the CEO and stockholders (whereas if a government system makes a profit, you and I make a profit)Originally posted by: sandorski
1 Government Bureaucracy is pretty bad, no doubt, but imagine how bad multiple Insurance Industry Bureaucracies are to deal with.Originally posted by: jmanny
I don't disagree at all that there are many dedicated public service sector employees, especially the military. I work with some everyday at a State employment agency. Yes the budgets are meager and yes they do the best they can with the funding they have. But bureaucracies are inherently inefficient, it's the nature of them it can't be helped it's the red tape, regulations and such. Think of it this way...how many forms do you have to fill out to file your taxes. You probably don't know and pay someone or buy a tax program to do it. It's so complicated and people spend so much money to do them because it's a GOVERNMENT PROGRAM or how many regulations were there at the park service, I'm sure their was a huge book of them, That's the type of system we will get with universal health care, Speaking for myself I do not want!Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I'd guess all those government agencies and offices are as efficient as the private sector, if not more so. They have to do a lot with limited funds. Look at the military. A soldier is paid what, 1/5 as much as a Blackwater employee? And which, in general, does a better job? I was an intern at Yellowstone in 2006, and everyone worked extremely hard because of their dedication. My boss probably worked 60+ hours a week. She didn't have job security either-- she was a term employee who just had her term renewed every year. It would take no effort at all to lay her off.Originally posted by: jmanny
Touche...you took my dare and owned me, they are all good programs and started out well until they had to fight for funding and the beauracratic BS set in.
But I'll pose this question:
Are they efficient? No cost overuns, no signs of waste or mismanagement? None of those agencies ever fights at the government trough for their very survival? NASA has never launched a mission because cancelling it would cost too much money, how did that work out for them? Yes, I do thank the government for the internet, but now I have to be aware of whether they will tax it...regulate it...censor it. Don't know where you're from, but the DOT around me is not very good or efficient, I run over potholes and get stuck in traffic on the poorly designed roads in this area almost daily.
I haven't read the UHC article about France yet, I will when I have the time maybe it will change my mind. But I see all around me how OUR government could F@#k up just about anything it touches. I don't feel it will be any different with healthcare. All the wishifull thinking that "things will be different if we have UHC" is just that, wishful thinking.
As for the person refusing work to keep the benefits. I do work for a staffing agency that offers employees health insurance for a nominal cost. It is not as comprehensive as other programs, but it is health insurance and it is available, some people CHOOSE to stay on social services programs.
We are certainly not going to solve it in this thread, as I said before I wish I had the answer.
Hey this is getting to be a P&N thread now.
They are almost all underfunded. That's not their fault. It's politicians' fault, and our fault for not supporting more funding. In fact it's a credit to public servants for doing so much with relatively meagre funding.
My YNP boss didn't qualify for government health insurance, and when she got diagnosed with leukemia, she was SOL. They kept her as an employee through the treatment, so at least she still has her job, and is as dedicated as ever. Why? Because that's how public servants are. I know a lot of government employees, in the NPS, DHHS, DHS, Army, Congress. I don't know how they do their jobs but I'd have a hard time believing they didn't do them to the best of their ability. I'm also an immigrant and my family has had extensive experience with the INS. We never had any issues with them, except that it took forever to get citizenship because of understaffing.
Edit: And you're thinking of state DOTs. I was referring to the federal DOT. Ever seen a pothole on an interstate?
Private doctors and hospitals will ALWAYS be more efficient than one that will be run by the government (and contrary to the popular belief on this board not ALL private companies are out to screw everyone, profit is not teh EVIL). Most if not all private corporations are able to better serve people because quite literally the paychecks of all the people who work there depend on it, if they don't people will move on down the road to another. With universal care you don't have that choice it's the govs way or the dieway. If the US sets up a system where it can continue using private Dr's and hospitals it may work. But if it is run solely by the gov. as a non-profit agency like the VA it will fail miserably and we all will be waiting 6 months for a cat scan.
As for your comment about it not being civil servants fault, you are completely correct. The ONLY people to blame are the voters, myself included who have continued to vote politicians into office who quite frankly don't give a shiat about the people who sent them there.
And yes I have seen potholes on interstates, that's what I was referring to
US insurance companies are horribly inefficient. Government systems would be no worse.
Let's be reminded that the French use one giant government-backed insurance company for all of their medical insurance - each person pays less than half of what we pay for universal healthcare that covers any medical problem you can imagine. How is that worse than what we Americans have now? They pay less AND get better coverage.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 49,615
- 12,209
- 136
The problem is how healthcare dominates the political systems in the UK and France. Think of it as being comparable to how the defense industry in the US.
Democratic socialism is certainly better than any other kind of socialism, but its flaw lies in the democratic process, in which a single interest can take undue control of the government through its influence.
In France, its not so bad. The ministry of health only pays out ~70% of health care costs (compared to ~50% in the US), those who can afford it get supplemental private insurance, and doctors are private practice.
In Britain though, the NHS is the world's 3rd largest employer, with 1.4 million employees (2.5% of the total population), and a government-funded budget of more than £104 billion.
Were such a system brought to the US, it would employ more than 10 million and have a budget of more than $1 trillion. And through the nature of our democracy, it would essentially control the entire federal government.
And while many would argue (and I would agree) that having a health system run the government is certainly preferable to the way our defense and banking industries run the government now, it is still an issue that needs to be addressed prior to any implementation. Two wrongs don't make a right, especially if we haven't fixed the prior wrongs first.
So, we all know our current system need fixing. But surely we can do better than just copy someone else's system, eh?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 19K
-
-
Solved! Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 12K
-
-
Question KrisFix Germany video on 6800 and 6900 cards dying while running Adrenaline 22.11.2- Started by Puffnstuff
- Replies: 182
Facebook
Twitter