I saw Sicko from Michael Moore Yesterday..

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

imported_cinder

Senior member
Sep 19, 2006
258
0
0
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
Originally posted by: jmanny
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: jmanny
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: jmanny
Did you ever spend a day at the DMV, Social Security Office or any other State/Federal Government office?

Picture that.....totally uninterested employees, rude, they couldn't care if you came in holding your severed foot in your hand.....you have to take a number and wait. The system might start out effecient, but the bureaucracy and inefficiences of governemnt will rear it's ugly head until it turns into something that nobody expected when it started. Then the conventional wisdom of throwing more money at a problem will start until we are taxed at a rate that nobody expected to pay for system.

People will argue that this wouldn't happen, but it is the reality of bureaucracy. No one can make decisions, for that fact nobody even wants to make one for fear of losing the cushy government job they have. Just look at our Congress right now....nothing gets done, all that ever happens is the left argues with the right and neither party gives a crap about the people that voted for them until election time rolls around, then things start to happen.

Just my opinion, but I am happy with the system the way it is now. Being able to visit a doctor of my choice when I need to and where I need to. I don't need the government to tell me when, where and who I can see as a doctor. Then tax me to death for that privilige.
HOLY TALK RADIO PROPAGANDA BATMAN!!

I don't really understand how what you described is worse than an insurance company. I've never been to their offices, so I don't know if their employees are "uninterested", but I have a hard time believing they care about me more than profits. The one time I HAVE used my insurance, they turned it down for no apparent reason, and I don't have the time or desire to deal with it so I let it go. Again, I never saw any of those people, so it makes no difference to me whether they are interested or not.

I don't understand this BS about Congress "not getting things done"... Sounds like the standard Republican doublespeak for "they didn't pass my bill". Do you understand that this is a democracy and they are elected representatives? They aren't a task force created to get things done. They vote on bills. Did Bush not get the child healthcare bill done by vetoing it? What a slacker!!
Whatever...I'm too busy working to listen to Right Wing Radio as you think. As a matter of fact I'm between interviews for candidates looking for Jobs. I'm in the staffing industry.

Just finished interviewing a candidate who won't work because she will lose her food stamps/medicare because she might make too much money to keep them. I can't tell you how any times I've heard that. See, food stamps are a government program, but it keeps people from wanting to work.

Can you really truthfully name a program run by the government that works, except maybe the Military, even they have massive inefficiencies and red tape. Think hard....The schools? Boy, that's a federal program we can all get behind. The TSA...I've never read about people being able to sneak weapons on planes because there so good at what they do have you?. Medicare/Medicad I've never heard about people waiting on care, Medicare paying 10 times what they should when audited. The VA hospitals, I've never read about leaking roofs, rats in rooms, bad care, that's another wonderfully run government healthcare system.

You can't name one because there aren't. Never were...Never will be. It's the nature of the beast.

As for the insurance companies, they are not perfect either and I agree with the fact that the system is broken, but turning to the government isn't the answer. You said you don't have the time to follow up on a denial? Your loss at that point. Wish I had enough money to just not a fight a claim that was denied. So, I guess you've got no problem being taxed at a 50% rate then. More power to you then. I personally can't afford that.

I don't know what the answer is, wish I did.
NASA
NPS
NOAA
CDC
USAID
DOA
USGS
NSF
DHHS
DOT

Do you use the internet? Thank the government for pioneering it. Do you use GPS? Thank the government. Satellite imagery? Thank the government. Nautical charts? Fluvial data? Oil? Coal? Wood? Interstates?

UHC != government hospitals. Read the France article. http://www.boston.com/news/glo...del_healthcare_system/
They pay less per capita for healthcare, because a lot less goes to insurance cos as profits. That's efficiency.

Getting the claim filled would have saved me $25, so that's why it wasn't worth the effort.

Your client wouldn't be concerned about going from having Medicare to NO care by getting work, if we had UHC. There would be no such thing as anti-capitalist job locking with UHC either. Every other developed country as turned to their government for healthcare, while we turn to employers and a corrupt private insurance system. Their healthcare is rated better than ours, and they ALL spend less.
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. :D
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%.

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.

 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,265
7,759
126
Originally posted by: Scouzer

How much you think the government pays for 15 minutes with a GP? $28.00

Yet the standard run of the mill GP still makes well over $100k. Sounds like everyone wins for me.
i think GPs make double that here. average starting salary is well over $100K. and we're actually facing a shortage of GPs because everyone wants to be a specialist.
 

NanoStuff

Banned
Mar 23, 2006
2,981
1
0
Originally posted by: Modelworks
As long as healthcare is for profit and not for the people it will stay the way it is in the USA.
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.
 

eleison

Golden Member
Mar 29, 2006
1,319
0
0
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.
 

imported_cinder

Senior member
Sep 19, 2006
258
0
0
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.
 

Paperdoc

Platinum Member
Aug 17, 2006
2,142
204
106
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
the problem with mm is that he makes films that are so discreditable he does nothing that helps his supposed side.
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!
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: eleison
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.
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.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,005
2,969
126
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Noobtastic
Far from truthful.

According to the wonderful internet, he was chauffeured by some state-public relations officers to the most respected and well-equipped hospitals and health agencies. In reality, Cuba suffers under one of the most extreme and poorly managed health services in central America.
Why resort to comparisons with Cuba? Are you trying a little too hard to make the US look good? Pick a modern "western" nation (they all rank higher than the USA at 37):

1 France
2 Italy
6 Singapore
7 Spain
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
23 Sweden
25 Germany
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
34 Denmark
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
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. :D
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.

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
Originally posted by: DefDC
Moore haters are funny. They hate him because:

Roger and Me:
GM made a perfectly moral decision to destroy Michigan. For more profit. When they were insanely profitable.

Bowling:
America DOESN'T have a problem with violence and guns. Anyone who thinks so is a commie.

F911:
GWB is a GREAT president, and DIDN'T even avoid his Guard service, and wasn't a poor businessman, cokehead, drunk... And his family had no business dealings with our "enemy", and didn't use fear tactics to distract the public from blatant moneygrabs that caused mass amounts of loss of human life and then lied to cover it up. We certainly didn't attack the wrong country. All the hijackers here Iraqi, right?

Sicko: Poor people are leeches on society. They should just die if they can't pay. That's the American Way and the way Jesus would want it.

Oh, and Michael's FAT. And ugly. That's why his movies suck and he lies so much.


No wonder this country is in the toilet. If anyone tries to EVEN PRESENT something against the status quo, the rabid right will lie, and then personally attack the person. The majority of Americans are happy to join on ANY "Hate-Bandwagon". So disgusting...
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
Originally posted by: Exterous
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Noobtastic
Far from truthful.

According to the wonderful internet, he was chauffeured by some state-public relations officers to the most respected and well-equipped hospitals and health agencies. In reality, Cuba suffers under one of the most extreme and poorly managed health services in central America.
Why resort to comparisons with Cuba? Are you trying a little too hard to make the US look good? Pick a modern "western" nation (they all rank higher than the USA at 37):

1 France
2 Italy
6 Singapore
7 Spain
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
23 Sweden
25 Germany
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
34 Denmark
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
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:p
 

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.
 

jmanny

Member
Apr 12, 2007
116
0
76
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
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. :D
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.

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?
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!

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:D
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,521
4,943
126
Originally posted by: jmanny
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
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. :D
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.

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?
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!

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:D
1 Government Bureaucracy is pretty bad, no doubt, but imagine how bad multiple Insurance Industry Bureaucracies are to deal with.
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,923
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: jmanny
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
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. :D
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.

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?
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!

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:D
1 Government Bureaucracy is pretty bad, no doubt, but imagine how bad multiple Insurance Industry Bureaucracies are to deal with.
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)

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
Originally posted by: Eeezee
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)

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.
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?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY