Health care
Media amazes me. I have repeatedly heard Moore use the analogy that fire protection, provided as a socialized necessity, is an example of how medicine should also be socialized. No report about that analogy has brought attention to the fact that most homeowners carry private fire insurance. Although a “fire department” will try to save life and property, and prevent a fire from spreading to the next house, they do not provide compensation for losses.
Most homeowners pay fire insurance as part of their PITI house payment every month. PITI is an abbreviation for Principal, Interest, Taxes, and Insurance. Fire insurance is priced according to the value of the property or the value of the mortgage on a property.
A fire department emergency response might be compared to how a government will respond to a “public health” crisis, but individual medical needs are more comparable to the choices we make for private fire and mortgage protection insurance. We have choices not a government edict.
If Michael Moore has a toothache, it is not my responsibility to pay for his dentistry. If it were, then I would have the right to tell him not to eat sweets. I don’t want that kind of government-paid medical policy. Do you?
This letter has not been edited.
Steve:
"Egotistical filmmaker Michael Moore visited my Columbine Memorial building in early 2001."
Is Michael Moore so egotistical that he would call a Columbine Memorial "mine"?
Posted by Charles B on June 30, 2007 02:56 PMBoth of the popular solutions are equally bad.
Michael Moore's solution does solve the problem of having millions of people without insurance. Rationing is inherent is inherent in almost any system, given the finite amount of resources. The problem with nationalized health insurance is that the countries that have it have long wait times, in some instances by the time treatment is no longer useful or the disease has progressed to a dangerous degree. For instance, 20% of those needing a heart bypass Die before they can get one. Or people under nationalized systems cannot get in biopsy in time to get needed treatment.
The so-called market based solutions lead to self-ration because people cannot afford treatment they need. Markets exist to make money not to take care of people
Any solution to healthcare will have to incorporate both affordability and the ability of people to get coverage. Many people have had great difficulties getting coverage because they had a condition the insurance companies didn't like.
Posted by Louis on June 30, 2007 02:56 PMLouis claimed:
"The problem with nationalized health insurance is that the countries that have it have long wait times, in some instances by the time treatment is no longer useful or the disease has progressed to a dangerous degree. For instance, 20% of those needing a heart bypass Die before they can get one. Or people under nationalized systems cannot get in biopsy in time to get needed treatment."
Please cite your sources!
Posted by Charles B on June 30, 2007 06:05 PMAmericans First !
Illegals second !
In all things.
Our existing public health system did work OK for a long time but in the past 10 years it has become overwhelmed by both illegals and an increasing number of uninsured Americans since many jobs todya have few or no benefits. It's a complex problem that our mostly for-profit health care system can't and won't address. Some kind of expanded socialized health care system is needed.
Posted by [jerry] "csh" on July 1, 2007 01:50 PMLouis: "The problem with nationalized health insurance is that the countries that have it have long wait times, in some instances by the time treatment is no longer useful or the disease has progressed to a dangerous degree. For instance, 20% of those needing a heart bypass Die before they can get one. Or people under nationalized systems cannot get in biopsy in time to get needed treatment."
What Louis did not mention is the dollar factor. No matter what the system, if you don't put enough money into it, it will have serious problems. That is the case with socialized medicine in most countries that have it.
They put half or less of the amount of money into health care than we do in the United States. Of course that will show up in the quality of treatment, regardless of whether it is privately or publicly financed. They have half of less of the number of doctors we have in the United States per capita; of course that will show up in the quality of treatment, regardless of whether it is privately or publicly financed.
For me, the question is not how good the health care systems are in other countries, but rather how good would they be if they spent as much on health care as we do in the United States?
It goes back to that old adage about trying to compare oranges and baseballs. I think the figures show that these other nations that use socialized medicine get a bigger benefit per dollar spent that we do in the United States. Why? Socialized medicine.
For example, according to the statistics below, the United States has over three times as many doctors per 100,000 people as England. How much faster would the service be in England if it tripled the number of doctors?
The United States spends over 2.5 times as much on medical care per capita as Canada. How much better would health care be in Canada if it increased its expenditures 2.5 times?
I wonder how it would affect the quality of health care in the United States if we reduced our spending on health care by half? Or if we reduced the number of doctors by half?
Here are some statistics from the Human Development Index:
Column A: Private funds as a % of GDP
Column B: Public funds as a % of GDP
Column C: Average amount spent per capita
Column D: Number of doctors per 100,000
I thought I'd see how this will work.
....................A.......B....... ........C.......... D
USA............6.6... 8.0 .............5,274 ....549
Canada ......6.7... 2.9 .............2,931 .....209
Norway ......6.6 ...1.6 .............3,409 .....356
Australia ....6.5 ....3.0 ............2,699..... 249
Sweden .....7.8.....1.4........... 2,512 ......305
Japan ........6.5.....1.4 ...........2,133...... 201
Finland ......5.5.... 1.8........... 1,943...... 311
Denmark ...7.3.... 1.5........... 2,583..... .366
England ....6.4.... 1.3........... 2,160...... 166
France ......7.4.....2.3........... 2,736........329
Germany ...8.6.....2.3........... 2,817 .......362
Spain ........5.4.....2.2 ...........1,640....... 320
We have a bad case of socializephobia in the United States. Much like the communistphobia of the Joe McCarthy period. There are still posters here who are living in the nineteenth century and think the government should not even have a concern about such things as child labor, industrial safety, food and drug safety, etc. If anything is clear, it is that we have socialized capitalism in the United States and have had for many years. That is, the predatory capitalism of the late nineteen and early twentieth century has been socialized, made fit to benefit rather than exploit the people. Capitalism can be likened to a wild horse. With predatory capitalism, there are no reins on the horse and it does great damage. With socialized capitalism, there are reins on the horse and it does great good. The greed that motivates the capitalist model cannot be left to its own devices.
The great and unique beauty of the socialized capitalism we have today is that harnesses that human vice to the advantage of the people. It does not take the wind out of its sails, but rather makes sure that those sails are moving in the right direction, toward the people, not away from them.
Does it work perfectly? Are you kidding? What does? It needs constant vigilance; wild horses don't tame easily.
Posted by Truth on July 2, 2007 08:52 AMTo sum up what Truth is saying. We could have a better socialized health care system, compared to other countries, as long as this government puts a lot more of OUR money into it.
Nice concept.
Posted by KW on July 2, 2007 11:04 AMKW said with a typical lack of understanding:
"We could have a better socialized health care system, compared to other countries, as long as this government puts a lot more of OUR money into it."
You always leave out the part where you actually pay less because you don't have to purchase private insurance.
I guess math isn't your strong suit.
Posted by Charles B on July 2, 2007 02:44 PM"You always leave out the part where you actually pay less because you don't have to purchase private insurance."
Charles,
Do you have any numbers that show what this 'wonderful' program will cost? What kind of tax rate?
Posted by Mike on July 2, 2007 08:23 PM