National Health Care
 

I watched Sicko last night. Mike mentioned that it was worth a watch, so I checked it out. Although some parts were over the top (loving adoration for all parts of the french social system for example), it certainly makes one think about health care. I recommend it.

I particularly was interested in the segments on the Canadian and British national health care systems. When asked about compensation, a British doctor explained that a large component of their compensation is based on outcomes. I.e., if they can get patients to quit smoking or reduce blood pressure, they get paid more. I think that makes great sense.

As for the Canadian system, for as long as I can remember I have heard Americans say "Socialized medicine is awful in Canada - people die waiting for operations due to equipment and doctor shortages." However, I have known lots of Canadians and I have yet to meet a single one that had anything bad to say about the health care system. Without exception, they have all been passionate advocates. Maybe I just haven't met the right people. Furthermore, it seems that there are far more Americans dying off due to lack of access to health care. Thousands of poor and uninsured die each year in the US due to the prohibitive cost of cancer treatments, heart surgery, etc. And Canadians and Brits are far healthier than we are in the US, on average. That could have multiple explanations, but it makes one think.

We have a different culture and I truly doubt you can find many people dying from lack of access.

We have persons on drugs, alcoholics, and with poor eating habits that die. And people in the slums who probably don't get good health care, even if they qualify for Medicaid. Sometimes, we ignore the adage, that poor people have poor habits.

By no means do I have all the answers to access and affordability. And I never understood when health care changed from a service to a God given right, but society has some how magically made that transition.

But I don't see the linkage between health care, i.e., having operations or stuff diagnosed as affecting people as much as lifestyle. I don't visit physicians unless I'm in a sports accident. Every couple of years when I do, my good health habits, excerise habits and reasonably good constitution have produced a moderately healthy individual.

I work in health insurance, heath systems analysis, and the structural aspects of health care every day. There are significant communication problems, some difficulty in finding affordable assurance, but there also lots of stupid people who place themselves in dire situations. Yet many believe it's society's responsibility to care for the mistakes of stupid people. At some point, an adult shoulders the responsibility for his own health. We have many persons in our society shirking that responsibility.

Translation:

Their anecdotal evidence blows, but mine is rock solid.

I really enjoy MM movies. Most people bash them without ever having seen them.

I recently re-watched "Roger and Me" and "Bowling for Columbine," both of which I thought were very interesting.

I bet if you asked 10 folks what they thought of Bowling for Columbine was about, they would answer that it was left wing anti-gun propaganda. When in reality, it is not anti-gun at all. It is an attack on our media.

Sicko was equally such. Most people were bashing it before it even came out. MM went on the Today show or something to that effect last year before the movie even dropped. When was this....maybe June? A copy of Sicko had been leaked on the web and was being downloaded. MM said he didn't mind at all, so that weekend I downloaded it and watched it. I enjoyed it and the message I took from it was a bi-partisan critcism on our health care....it wasnt saying that socialism was the answer, only that we should look to other countries to see what we can take to improve our current system. Yet on CB (again, not a good litmus, I know), everyone was bashing it saying that it was the usual MM anti-republican rhetoric. Simply not true.

MM is a honk and a self-promoter, but his documentaries are interesting and worth the watch.

Which begs a different question: why does America have such a large underclass?

Not "God-given", but perhaps granted by society.

I am a strong believer in public education, as are a majority of Americans. Admittedly, public education is basically "socialized education". The question is, why not health care?

Well, no system is perfect or 100% fair. But regardless of your lifestyle, you can still get a terminal illness. And for some people, even $50K or so for treatment is beyond their reach. And they end up dying.

I never said that, Lingo. Try again.

I also downloaded Sicko after MM said it was cool and quite enjoyed it. Having serious concerns about universal healthcare, I enjoyed how the thrust of the movie is that our current system sucks, not necessarily that socialized medicine is the answer. I was already painfully aware of how much our current system sucks, but I think a lot of people don't realize that yet.

It makes sense to me that we should look to other countries and identify pros and cons and see what we can do to fix our system without running into the same issues. It seems to me that an awareness of the problems of our system is requisite for there to be any motivation to fix it, and in that regard Sicko is very effective.

I just wanted to see what it felt like to misconstrue someone else's statements, ala The Big Leb.

Kinda nice.

I'm gonna have to guess Triple D is trolling here. 95% of what he says is completely disingenuous; I think this is just par for the course.

I watched Fahrenheit 9-11 and it's a bunch of crap. There are countless examples of flat-out lies and even more times when Moore ignores evidence that doesn't support his twisted view of the world.

If he wants to make movies that promote his agenda, fine.

But people who think he's going out to find the truth about controversial issues are up in the night.

I figure it's common knowledge that MM makes editorials, not objective documentaries. That doesn't make them any less effective for what they are. He's no more dishonest than any of the blowhards that do tv/radio/newspaper op-eds; he just chooses a different medium.

Let me put this another way. The reason I posted my anecdotal evidence is that I would genuinely like to hear what others have encountered when discussing the issue with Canadians. Including you, Lingo.