A Need Versus A Right
First off, I would like to thank the numerous people lately who have written me calm, thoughtful, sincere emails. The hate mail seems to have generally died down, and many people around the world are seeing Sicko, then writing in with questions or comments. The problem is that I have received so many of these letters lately that answering them all would virtually be a full-time job. So, please accept my apologies for not being able to respond to everyone. Now, I just received an email from a reader in the UK which I think brings up a lot of points I think should be addressed, so I’ve decided to answer it.
Hi I’m from England and I have just watched Sicko. I personally find Michael Moore VERY condescending and preachy however I do have some problems with your take on medcine.
Fair enough.
I cannot see how it can be a problem for the government to pay for medicine. You state that you have paid more than $250 for a meal but this does not make it ok to pay that much for health care.
I put that in there for foreign readers who might not be aware of how much $250 dollars is. The reality is that it’s not very much. The minimum wage here in California is $7.50, so even with taxes taken out $250 is roughly what the poorest-paid workers in the state make in a week. $250 is $150 less than an XBox 360, roughly the same price as a Nintendo Wii, and about twice the cost of a Playstation 2. It’s in the same ballpark as what the latest and greatest pair of basketball shoes will cost you.
Let me tell you something. In America you see a WHOLE lot of poor kids wearing $200 basketball shoes.
As America is the economic powerhouse of the world it is unthinkable that they could nt setup a very effective health care system and why should people pay. The reason that people pay taxes is to have their basic needs paid for by the state surely medicine is included in this.
Perhaps in the UK people pay taxes to have their fundamental needs met, but not here. Let’s assume, however, that this is true. Isn’t food the most fundamental of all needs? Why doesn’t the state provide everyone with food? Why are there supermarkets where people are forced to pay for that most basic of needs? And what about a place to live? Why isn’t the government paying for everyone to have a place to live? Why are you allowed to choose where to live? To rent or buy? Why should capitalism be allowed to enter into these transactions, for food and shelter, two needs which are far more immediate than medical care?
Simple. The free market is the most efficient means of equitable distribution of wealth that has ever been devised. Period.
“But Lee! The government does give food and shelter to poor people, so you’re not making much sense here!” The operative word there, of course, is poor. If the government provided everyone with a house they’d all be identical gray cinderblock buildings with square apartments. If the government provided everyone with food it would be a flavorless gruel of some kind. In fact, if you want to see what these services are like when provided by the state, look at North Korea. The best thing to do is to give help only to those people who actually need it and let everyone else be free to do as they choose. So the poor get food stamps and live in a council flat, while the rest of us buy cars and houses.
Why should healthcare be any different?
Also there are many people who cannot afford $265. What do they do? Its an unfortunate fact of life that many people do not earn enough to be able to afford these fee’s and it seems that your attitude is “well the system works works for me so there is nothing wrong with it.”
As I said before, $265 is not much money. Most people, even those of modest means, could afford it. Yes, not everyone will be able to. Then again, not everyone will choose to , either. When healthcare is paid for by taxes you’re forcing people to buy health insurance, and there are some people (usually young, healthy people) who skip the insurance because they’d rather have the money.
I know that the NHS (english national health service) is in a **** state at the moment but that is down to EU beaurocracy and there are many countries where a NHS works well.
Thank you for proving my point. You know what I do when I deal with a shit doctor or a shit hospital or a shit insurance company? I go somewhere else. You, I’m sorry to say, are stuck with the NHS.
Basically what I am saying is that healthcare is a human need and it does seem that the USA denies this to many people and that is wrong and I do not think you should at the very least be able to accept some of the intelligent critisism from Moore’s film.
Healthcare is a human need. It is not a human right, and that is the distinction. Neither Jim nor I nor the vast majority of Americans have any problem providing healthcare to the poor. We already do this through programs like Medicaid. What he and I are opposed to, and will fight tooth and nail, is single-payer healthcare like in the UK. It’s a disaster, and I want no part of it.
Helping people who need help is one thing. Doing so by lessening the quality of the care you receive yourself is another thing entirely.
However I will agree that the man is a complete nob jockey but people should not have to pay for medicine
Well, I’ll agree with you on the nob jockey part. :)
Comments
Basically what I am saying is that healthcare is a human need and it does seem that the USA denies this to many people and that is wrong
Little matter of language, here… the USA does not “deny” healthcare to anyone. It simply does not provide it to some at the expense of everyone else. Pretty big difference between the two.
The fact is, as has been pointed out on numerous occasions that I can recall, anyone who needs healthcare in this country, gets it.
Whether through Medicaid, other state-subsodized health insurances or just a trip to the emrgency room where it is illegal to refuse treatment to anyone, they receive it.
The worst case scenario for the poor of this country is not denial of care. That’s not even a possibility, really. No, the worst they could look forward to is a government-funded system… you know, like all of the UK has, without a choice. That is their worst case scenario, as it stands.
But in the end, and I cannot say this clearly enough… nobody gets denied health care. Period. Get it?
and I do not think you should at the very least be able to accept some of the intelligent critisism from Moore’s film.
I agree… except that, after seeing the film, there just doesn’t seem to be any “intelligent criticism” in it.
There are ample opportunities for it in the film. There are perfect set-ups for it. There are a plethora of issues that could have been intelligently dissected and criticized…
but no actual “intelligent criticism” to be found.
Just a 90-odd minute commercial for a system far more broken than the one Moore’s attacking.
It’s a propaganda piece for socialized medicine, and little else. Moore, unfortunately, has missed the train on his opportunity to start a real, honest debate on anything substantial in favor of pushing a far-left political agenda… and it’s a shame.
Lee, that was a very good response.
Your responses to this email were laughable. What I got out of it was that, You can afford to pay 265 a month, That 265 is less than the cost of a xbox360 and more than half the amount of a PS3. Good job, really. Looks like you did some research.
Your argument is relative, meaning that just because 265 is not alot of money for you, does not mean that it is affordable for someone else. You do live in whats called a society. When you live in one of these it usually contains other people. And when these people are subjected to unfair or self serving governments or situations we need to come together and work out a solution in which the majority can flourish.
You revel in the fact that you do not have to pay high taxes, and that a single payer system would drown everyone. Currently your tax dollars are being poured into Iraq. We have a vast national debt that is accruing from borrowing money from the PRC. Soon we will have to pay the piper. The economy will inflate, HMO costs will rise, and more and more people will be unable to afford insurance.
These european countries have better, greener, free(er?) more democratic societies. Yes they have kinks in the sytem (treatment times, sanitation etc..) But I think many would agree that it would be better to be cared for than to be turned down at the door.
Do the Moore-ons ever actually read the articles to which they respond?
Mactonite, obviously the majority is flourishing if only 47 million people dont have insurance. I wonder how many of those dont have it because they choose not to? Also we have the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, the federal law that makes it illegal to deny care if the patient cant pay. No one is getting turned down at the door.
It’s not the U.S. government’s job to provide health care to its citizens. Period.
Got a problem with that? Fine - show me where it says otherwise in the Constitution. If you can find it, I’ll change my position on the subject.
Why does everybody feel so fucking entitled to “free” healthcare? Because France and Britian do it? These are probably all the same people who join the “Club” at the grocery store to feel special; to feel like they’re a part of something more meaningful than their pathetic lives actually are.
Giving the government control of the health and well being of the citizens of this country would be a total and complete disaster. Look at the state of public education and social security if you need some proof of how they mismanage large systems.
Posted by wargord on 08/08/2007 at 10:37 AM (Link to this comment | )
We dealt with than in another thread.. the vast majority either by choice or they actually do have insurance. People eligible for state covered medical care are counted (re: they technically have coverage since they’re eligible for state covered care.. even after getting sick), then there are 20 year old something’s who can afford insurance but choose not to get it… the last block was people included in the number who only went without insurance for a part of a year because they were between jobs… but then got it again (people without it for three weeks get counted as ‘not insured’…)… Then there are illegals.. should they be counted? Do we need to tear up our medical system to cover people who shouldn’t be here?.... anyway, when all was said and done, that 47 million figure fell down quite a bit.. anyone remember the final numbers?Mactonite, obviously the majority is flourishing if only 47 million people dont have insurance. I wonder how many of those dont have it because they choose not to?
Yes they have kinks in the sytem (treatment times, sanitation etc..) But I think many would agree that it would be better to be cared for than to be turned down at the door.
Sanitation is a “kink”? No, if I had to choose between nothing or the chance of having it made worse by a dirty hospital? I’d rather be turned down at the door, I’d probably live longer that way.
Your argument is relative, meaning that just because 265 is not alot of money for you, does not mean that it is affordable for someone else.
I kind of find it hard to see someone who’s not on Medicare/Medicaid and other supplementals who can’t afford that. Maybe I’m just too high up the social ladder, but it seems with a little bit of fiscal responsibility that should be more than affordable. I could be wrong, maybe after Medicare/Medicaid, Foodstamps, Welfare, and Social Security, they still can’t afford a liveable place, food, and health care.
These are probably all the same people who join the “Club” at the grocery store to feel special; to feel like they’re a part of something more meaningful than their pathetic lives actually are.
Ok, as someone that has the cards for Von’s, Albertson’s, and Ralph’s, I disagree. The club actually provides minor benefits… I let them track my purchases, and they give me some discounts. Sometimes, I’m ok with Big Brother if he’s going to pay me.
Your responses to this email were laughable. What I got out of it was that, You can afford to pay 265 a month, That 265 is less than the cost of a xbox360 and more than half the amount of a PS3. Good job, really. Looks like you did some research.
Your argument is relative, meaning that just because 265 is not alot of money for you, does not mean that it is affordable for someone else. You do live in whats called a society. When you live in one of these it usually contains other people. And when these people are subjected to unfair or self serving governments or situations we need to come together and work out a solution in which the majority can flourish.
A couple years ago, my family income was in the range of around 25,000. At that, based on census numbers, my household was about 30% from the bottom of the income range. My parents were able to afford to have our family (4 people) with health insurance that we were paying ourselves. Money was tight, but not enough that I was aware of just how much it was. We’re still around the median income for California, which is around 55,000 a year. At our lowest, we had health insurance we could afford, and I don’t think its that far below that point where government programs begin.
Mactonite, that was a very condescending tone you took. The fact that you’re wrong just makes it worse. Your little lesson about “society” was simplistic because it assumes that there is only one kind of society. There are, in fact, countless kinds of societies because there are countless ways that people have to relate to each other. A society that is subjected to unfair and self-serving government should indeed do something about it. The problem with your argument is that you think taking money from me and then giving it to someone else is a solution to an unfair and self-serving government. I disagree with that. I think redistributing wealth by force is unfair and self-serving.
American society is based on the idea of liberty. We believe that people are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. If they choose not to, they are responsible for the consequences. If you decide to blow all your money on unnecessary stuff and end up in massive debt because you spent more than you earned, that’s your problem. I shouldn’t have to subsidize your spending so you can have a checkup every now and then.
One part of your post was correct. We are dumping a lot of money into Iraq. In other words, the government has mismanaged a very large and complex operation. They have also mismanaged public education, social security, and disaster relief, and they’re bungling the recovery of New Orleans, which is yet another large and complex operation. Why would you want to trust the government with one more large and complex operation? What makes you think they’d get it right in this particular instance, given their fantastically woeful track record?
A single payer system sounds to me like a very large and complex operation.
Mactonite, if you accomplish one thing this year, could you please make it this: Drill through that crusty wall between your brain and reality and implant this FACT. NO HUMAN BEING IN THE U.S. IS TURNED AWAY AT THE DOOR. IT IS ILLEGAL. When you go to the ER in the United States, you do not get turned away. You get taken care of. The quality of the care depends on the hospital and the staff.
If you cannot afford to pay, a social worker comes to your hospital room or calls you on the phone and gets your information to apply for medical assistance. If you do not qualify for medical assistance for some reason, many times, hospitals will pay the bill for you. I live in Scranton Pennsylvania and I just two weeks ago had a 3000 dollar bill payed by a hospital under charity care. Two months before that, I had 600 dollars covered under charity care in another hospital. And three years before that I had another couple thousand covered under charity care. Do you think Michael Moore would like to flash these documents across a screen?
Now, if you would please e-mail me at [email protected] to confirm that you understand these facts and now understand that are are completely wrong in your ideas about what U.S. healthcare is because Michael Moore has LIED to you. He has lied. You have been lied to. Michael Moore lied you you. And he will continue to lie.
Hot off the press! Michael Moore’s Health Care Proposal! Yes, the real answer to our health care woes, from the Faux-Flint Crusader himself. The best part is, it’s only THREE SENTENCES LONG.
Don’t bother with looking for a link, I’ll list them all here.
1) Every resident of the United States must have free, universal health care for life.
2) All heath insurance companies must be abolished.
3) Pharmaceutical companies must be strictly regulated like a utility.
And there you have it! The answer is right there, staring us in the face. Who knew it could be so easy? If only I had thought of it. I’d be a hero. A Real American Hero. I could go around saying I’m from Oakland, even though I’m not, and people would think I was on their side. Even though I’m not.
And to think, all we have to do is get the government to seize the property of private companies without probable cause, and then force everyone into a huge, bloated social program by taking more money from individuals’ paychecks, and then stifle all possible innovation that could lead to future lifesaving treatments by adding even more red tape and bureaucratic crap! It’s genius! Simple, unconstitutional, and totally unworkable genius.
Here it goes…
Also we have the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, the federal law that makes it illegal to deny care if the patient cant pay. No one is getting turned down at the door.
Why are so many HMO’s denying cancer treatments? why do we have to wade through such countless bureaucratic money draining BS how come the admin of this site couldnt help his own wife? I was wrong to say people are turned down at the door, it’s after the diagnosis of their fatal ailment that they are turned down.
It’s not the U.S. government’s job to provide health care to its citizens. Period.
Got a problem with that? Fine - show me where it says otherwise in the Constitution. If you can find it, I’ll change my position on the subject.
As a democratic society we have the power to change this. Bush has taken many a dump on the constitution and continues to do so to this day. If we are already willingly giving our money to this regime that is using it to unconstitutionally invade countries and butcher their infrastructure and seize their resources. We can certainly find money to give back to our country and create programs to help insure the uninsured. and if so pick up the bill entirely.
Most of the other responses that my comment received were relative to that individual. In other words. “It works for me, and i’ll be damned if it shouldnt work for everyone else” This is perverse logic.
If you cannot afford to pay, a social worker comes to your hospital room or calls you on the phone and gets your information to apply for medical assistance. If you do not qualify for medical assistance for some reason, many times, hospitals will pay the bill for you. I live in Scranton Pennsylvania and I just two weeks ago had a 3000 dollar bill payed by a hospital under charity care. Two months before that, I had 600 dollars covered under charity care in another hospital. And three years before that I had another couple thousand covered under charity care. Do you think Michael Moore would like to flash these documents across a screen?
This is a glowing example, this doesn’t happen to everyone just cause it happend to you. Wake up.
I havent been on this board long so I would like to have it laid out in plain sight. What is MM’s agenda? You all make him out to be an abyssmal liar. It seems to me in the past couple films, He seeks to help people and expose injustice done unto them by big business and self serving politicians. He is not trying to sell anything he did not push any politician in SIcko. He is a cut and dry populist in my opinion.
I havent been on this board long
No kidding. Then you’ll be very enlightened to learn that everything - EVERY BLOODY THING - you have brought up in your last post has been addressed, debunked, refuted ad absurdum on this site, either in the main topics themselves by the site admins or in the comments sections by the many regular contributors. If you can’t be bothered to do a little snooping around the site before shooting off your big mouth, then do us all a favor and get lost.
I would like to have it laid out in plain sight
Nobody here owes you anything for free, little boy. You want answers? Go dig ‘em up your own damn self, son.
He is not trying to sell anything
Except his movie.
Nobody here owes you anything for free, little boy. You want answers? Go dig ‘em up your own damn self, son.
Thanks...dad. I guess I really do not have to dig anything up now. From what I’ve observed the past couple of days you’ve pretty much summed up the mentality of the majority of people on here.
Except his movie.
Oh I get it now. MM is just trying to make gajillions by lying to everyone. You are all just the enlightened ones who have caught on to his devious scheme.
I’ll leave you with this…
“When you live in a capitalistic society, the currency of the dissemination of information goes through capitalistic channels. Would Noam Chomsky object to his works being sold at Barnes & Noble? No, because that’s where people buy their books. We’re not interested in preaching to just the converted. It’s great to play abandoned squats run by anarchists, but it’s also great to be able to reach people with a revolutionary message, people from Granada Hills to Stuttgart.”
- Tom Morello
how come the admin of this site couldnt help his own wife?
I’ll get this one since it is pretty easy. If you had simply started by reading the article that Jim has posted in the big white box at the top left of the site you would have gotten to the actual chronology of events. Here’s the link (Chronology of events) so you don’t have to go through the two clicks it would normally take to get there....
The problem was NOT that Jim could not help his wife, the problem was that Jim could not help his wife and pay to keep the Moorewatch websites up and running (turns out the expenses on those were a scam by the provider, but no one really knew that at the time so for all intents and purposes it was a “real” expense). So when it came right down to it, Jim was at a crossroads where he could not afford to do both. I’d call it a choice, but we all know there isn’t really a choice when it comes to this sort of thing. He was going to stop paying for the site and use that money to continue paying for the health insurance. The donations asked for were to keep the site alive. Not his wife. Had he never received the $12,000 (or any of the other donations that many of the readers here made) the worst that would have happened is the moorewatch.com website would have gone offline. Some may call it a tragedy, but realistically a website going offline isn’t that big a deal. In the end it is this website that Moore’s $12,000 saved. Not Jim’s wife.
From what I’ve observed the past couple of days you’ve pretty much summed up the mentality of the majority of people on here.
So you read just the front page for a couple days, act like a total asshole and do nothing but call people names and be a complete dick, but we’re supposed to take you seriously in ANY fucking way? Start reading here. Until you take in and understand JUST that information, I don’t want to see another fucking comment from you. Test me and see how far you get. If you take a moment to LEARN SOMETHING, and treat me and the readers here with the smallest amount of respect, you will be welcome here. If you keep acting like a little punk bitch, your stay here will be very, very short.
Also, stop demanding that everyone serve you and take care of you. If you were willing to look up information and read, maybe do a little research, you’d know that nothing you are saying is new to us. It’s all been said and addressed. The fact that you just want the answers spoon-fed to you says more about you and your character than you seem to know.
When was I a complete dick? I saw fallacy in a couple posts and called bullshit. I never meant to offend anyone. The Start Reading Here. Article simply states that you thanked MM and wished him well which is completely honorable. I merely was trying to convey my disdain for a system which would force someone to make the choice that you did. If people come here to hate on MM and someone asks them why. They can’t illustrate it in two or three sentences? I’m not asking to get served nor did I mean to offend anyone. The only thing that was really offensive in this thread was your(the moderator’s post) Mostly name calling and intimidation. Throwing around curse words and threatening to ban me doesnt put you in the right. It shows the insecurity brought upon by my writing . All you’ve done is overshadow the accusations you made towards me.
I’m interested in discourse not personal attacks. Maybe more people would take this site seriously if the siren song wasnt “MM is a big fat liar....oh! and did we mention that he is fat and a liar?”
Banning me martyrs me. I’d prefer if you’d respond intelligently, I know there are some smart people here. Your move…
you’ve pretty much summed up the mentality of the majority of people on here.
You mean the mentality that respects people who present opposing viewpoints in the interest of generating productive discussion, rather than simply attacking without even comprehending the basic content of the object of their offensive ("Your responses to this email were laughable.")? The mentality that appreciates visitors who take the time to look over a representative sampling of the breadth and scope of information available at this site, and to carefully consider what’s presented here before offering their marginally informed comments?
Yes, I suppose I summed it up pretty well, come to mention it.
*sigh*
This kid doesn’t WANT to read anything. He wants you to tell him everything. It’s so fucking intellectually lazy...perfect material for Moore to brainwash, isn’t it?
Banning me martyrs me. I’d prefer if you’d respond intelligently, I know there are some smart people here. Your move…
Oh please. As if anyone on earth gives a shit about you being...oh my Christ I can’t believe you wrote this...being martyred.
You don’t want to do anything but yell at people and act like a jackass. I need another little bitch like you like I need a hole in my head.
You were shown places to start to get material. You emphatically refuse to see even the few pieces of information I *did* point out to you...you proved you have no interest at all in a rational, informed discussion.
"I got banned from MooreWatch. I WIN!!!”
Poor dope.
HMO’s denying cancer treatments
Denying all cancer treatments or just some? Also, HMO’s are health insurance, not health care. I dont go to an insurance company when I am sick, I go to a doctor. That doctor can’t deny me care if I can’t pay. He has to treat me. Just like MM you are equating health insurance with health care. That is a fallacy. Insurance companies can deny all day, the doctor cant, they have to treat you. Health insurance is not health care. An estimated 47 million in this country dont have health insurance, 306 million have health care.
American society is based on the idea of liberty. We believe that people are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. If they choose not to, they are responsible for the consequences. If you decide to blow all your money on unnecessary stuff and end up in massive debt because you spent more than you earned, that’s your problem. I shouldn’t have to subsidize your spending so you can have a checkup every now and then.
And there it is. This debate is pointless on any other level than a political philosophy level. All levels of society have a line at which ‘government’ help is applied. In the uk it is just above healthcare, and in the US it is just above (but includes National Defence, Police etc etc). Thats the only debate you need to have right now. Do you include Healthcare in the safety net that the government provides its citizens. Once you’ve figured this out once and for all, then start thinking about the solution.
It seems to me (and I’m happy to stand corrected here) that at the moment, the answer to that question is a bit fuzzy, you fall between the two a little. You have a free market, but you have ‘free’ healthcare (medicaid et al) for some. It seems in some situation that the actual hospitals and doctors are getting screwed by people who can’t pay. IMHO all the faults in your system cannot be fixed until someone stands up and either proposes universal healthcare, or the free market system. It seems to me a lot of the problems are as a result of being somewhere in between the two.
I could be wrong, but this is the theme I see running through every single debate here.
in the UK our problem is simple. We want universal healthcare, but we’re not keen on the whole ‘paying for it’ thing.
Psssst, here’s a secret.
Cancer treatment is denied in countries with UHC as well. Especially if it is considered experimental or the odds of success are low.
It seems to me (and I’m happy to stand corrected here) that at the moment, the answer to that question is a bit fuzzy, you fall between the two a little. You have a free market, but you have ‘free’ healthcare (medicaid et al) for some. It seems in some situation that the actual hospitals and doctors are getting screwed by people who can’t pay.
A true hybrid system is what will eventually take over in this country. Private healthcare for the able-bodied working population, government payed healthcare for the young, elderly, and disabled. How long that will take to come about, however, is anyone’s guess.
IMHO all the faults in your system cannot be fixed until someone stands up and either proposes universal healthcare, or the free market system. It seems to me a lot of the problems are as a result of being somewhere in between the two.
I disagree with this completely. Our problems won’t begin to be addressed until people STOP proposing all-or-nothing scenarios either way. It won’t get better until people begin to realize that the solution is somewhere between the two and stop fighting for one extreme or the other.
Psssst, here’s a secret.
Cancer treatment is denied in countries with UHC as well. Especially if it is considered experimental or the odds of success are low.
Very true! And meanwhile all the Mooreons buy Mikey’s BS about denials being commonplace to enhance profits. I see Mactonite is one of them. Of course, Mactonite wouldn’t dare research the situation on his own because it might destroy his world view . . . or at least his image of Moore being the champion of the little guy.
But in the end, and I cannot say this clearly enough… nobody gets denied health care. Period. Get it?
What I dont understand is this… In Sicko (in the trailer anyway, I havent seen the movie), there is something about 18,000 people per year who die because they do not have coverage. Ive tried digging up the root of this number (again, because I havent seen the movie). I found references to that number in many places. Im still a little skeptical about it because I havent found any very good detailed accounting of how that number was arrived at. Ill admit up front, I spent an hour or two looking into it. I didnt spend weeks.
My gut tells me that most people on this site will immediately say that the number is a complete fabrication, and that the actual number is closer to 1,800 or something around there, not 18,000 (Im guestimating and ballparking here).
My question though, is if nobody is every denied treatment, ever, then how could the actual number be anything other than zero?
My question though, is if nobody is every denied treatment, ever, then how could the actual number be anything other than zero?
Kind of a loaded question, my friend. But I’ll take a shot at it.
Mistakes happen. The little girl dying at King hospital in LA for example. That death is classified (by some) as being caused by lack of coverage.
Also, in my own research, I have seen that number cited many, many times. But its much like this quote from Thomas Jefferson:
Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.
That is attributed to Thomas Jefferson litteraly thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of times on the web. The truth? No one has been able to trace that quote back any further than 1984. It has no root source, let alone any attribution to Jefferson that can be found.
I suspect the 18,000 per year number is much the same.
I know where the 18,000 number comes from. The source is credible. The number is an estimate, but if I remember correctly the actual figure was 18,3??.
Unfortunately, about 2 weeks ago the CPU in my computer died, so the link I saved about this figure is still on my old hard drive which I removed during the autopsy. I’ve been slowly transfering my old files to my new computer, but so far the My Favorites file remains on the old drive. When I get some time today, maybe I can find it.
I disagree with this completely. Our problems won’t begin to be addressed until people STOP proposing all-or-nothing scenarios either way.
I’m not talking about proposing systems - I am talking about going back to first principles, and then proposing a solution from there. At the moment people are debating the merits/problems in a system, without first agreeing on what the system is intended to do: i.e. is healthcare a right, a need, or a ‘nice to have’. Work out what the aim of the system is first. Agreed it will probably be somewhere in the hybrid area (exactly what is happening in the UK now), but without agreeing on what everyone is aiming for, I feel you’ll end up trying to please everyone, and not pleasing anyone.
Ok, Up4, I found the source . . . I remembered I saved some of the information in a word file that I recently deleted, so I restored it.
The number comes from a branch of The National Academies, namely The Institute Of Medicine (IOM), which is a private organization that advises the government. The IOM has published several reports regarding health care. Back in 2002 they published “Care Without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late”. The actual number (18,314) is indeed an estimate. As the report states this number is the estimated excess deaths for uninsured adults.
To my knowledge, precisely how they arrived at the number is not in the report, but some of their information comes from census estimates done in 2000. The age groups involve (there are 5 groups) range from 25 to 64.
Without knowing how their figures were derived, I still tend to believe the report has some merit. But there are questions I haven’t answered—like how many of these people may have died anyway. For example, around 1,500 were diagnosed with HIV—how many new treatments are now available for HIV that weren’t available in 2000?
It’s interesting to note that there were 144 million Americans in these 5 age groups back in 2000. As a whole, 16% were uninsured. However, when you look at each age group, you begin to understand reasons.
In the 25 to 34 age group (37.4 million), 21% were uninsured. I tend to think this is partly due to lower incomes in this group and partly due to choice. When you consider the 45 to 54 age group (38.0 million), 12% were uninsured. For the 55 to 64 crowd (23.8 million), 14% were uninsured.
Most likely, these numbers are not that far from reality although you have to take them with a bit of salt since they are estimates. But there seems to be some rational basis to the report.
In other words, this is one of the few points Moore makes in Sicko that I might buy . . . at least to some degree. That said, you have to wonder why in hell he came up with such lame cases to support his other contentions . . . like denials for those who are insured.
And by the way, this is the same source that is used for the total number of insured Americans we see so often . . . that number being around 40 million (when the number of uninsured children is considered).
Thanks Buzz. Ill do some more diggin when I get the time. But this sounds to me to be similiar to the 500,000 Iraqis that have died as a result of the war. The idea I believe behind that number is that, for whatever reason, 500,000 more Iraqis died in a year of war vs some other year when there was no war. So like you said, and I think you have to do this whenever there are large round numbers being used, take it with a grain of salt.
But what I still dont understand is, if no one is ever denied treatment, how does a single person die due to lack of coverage. If all of these cases involve people who had terminal illnesses from the get go, then I could understand I guess.
Again, Ive only seen the trailer for Sicko, but there is one part with a lady who used to work for an insurance company I believe, who is talking to congress (maybe?) about denying some mans claim, and he ended up passing away because of it. How is this possible? If its something that could be life saving, and even if the insurance company wont cover it, no one is denied treatment, right? Is there something Im not seeing here?
If its something that could be life saving, and even if the insurance company wont cover it, no one is denied treatment, right? Is there something Im not seeing here?
Yes, there is something you are missing. Treatment is only required in certain situations. Emergency care, primarily. Treatment for disease, such as cancer, diabetes, etc, typically isn’t covered as “must be treated” under US law.
On the same token, if you are out mowing your yard and run over your foot with the lawnmower, the ER cannot deny you treatment based on your ability to pay.
Treatment for disease, such as cancer, diabetes, etc, typically isn’t covered as “must be treated” under US law.
Anyone else? Is this true?
I appreciate the input Prozyan, not saying I dont believe you, just looking for some consensus on this. Thats unreal.
But what I still dont understand is, if no one is ever denied treatment, how does a single person die due to lack of coverage. If all of these cases involve people who had terminal illnesses from the get go, then I could understand I guess.
Well, one point the IOM makes in their report is that even though the uninsured who are involved in automobile accidents get medical care, they are still 37% more likely to die than those who are insured. The implications are obvious. However, this point alone doesn’t make much sense to me. The report also points out that uninsured women with breast cancer have a 30 to 50% higher mortality rate than those who are insured with the same disease. That might make more sense to me.
Again, Ive only seen the trailer for Sicko, but there is one part with a lady who used to work for an insurance company I believe, who is talking to congress (maybe?) about denying some mans claim, and he ended up passing away because of it. How is this possible? If its something that could be life saving, and even if the insurance company wont cover it, no one is denied treatment, right? Is there something Im not seeing here?
The lady is Dr. Linda Peeno who is a strong advocate of a single-payer system. She believes, like Moore, that profit is the root of all evil when it comes to health care . . . or so she says. And while she makes some legitimate points about the faults of HMOs, PPOs, etc., when she appeared before congress she was being a drama queen.
Peeno claims she caused the death of a man by denying payment for a medical service. The truth is the man needed a heart transplant. Virtually all heath plans at that time excluded heart transplants due to their experimental nature. The man’s employer had not opted to pay additional premiums to include this service as part of their benefit package which was the case with nearly all employers.
What’s interesting to note is that even the government Medicare program had excluded the treatment due to the sucess rate being so low. The immune systems rejects foreign matter, you know. Until a certain drug was formulated (by the same folks who gave us LSD), a heart transplant was almost a death sentence.
When Peeno denied coverage, it was only 4 months or so after Medicare decided to give heart transplants another chance as the survival rates were climbing. Still, they weren’t good. Most only prolonged life a few years.
So, how many people still get denied heart transplants? Well, Humana approved 46 out of 46 request for heart transplants the same year Peeno testified before congress. Still, about 13,000 Americans were denied simply because there weren’t but 2,000 or so hearts a year available for transplant in this country. And that is the case even today. In other words, you can be approved by an HMO—or even by Medicare-- for a heart transplant, but that doesn’t mean you’ll get one.
The man Peeno denied approval died two years after the denial by Humana . . . not much difference with those who got transplants back then.
Facts are such nasty little inconveniences to folks creating propaganda. Like the case of Mychelle Williams, Moore has to go back over 14 years to dig up this sort of crap trying to prove profits trump approval for service. What he leaves out is that the appeal process goes all the way to a state insurance commission who can override any other decision.
And by the way, if corporations are so damn greedy that they will do anything to make a profit, how does Moore explain why the failure rate of large structures is so low when every one of them is designed and built by some friggin’ greedy capitalist pig-infested corporation? It’s a stupid, baseless notion with so few isolated cases that it just doesn’t wash.
You might also be interested to note that the same folks who produced the report about excess mortality for the uninsured, that being the IMO, also produced a report about how 98,000 people die every year due to medical mistakes. How many people die every year due to engineering mistakes when profit is one the goals of any corporation?
Every health care system on the planet denies life saving treatments for one reason or another. It’s just a fact of life. If you want to ensure your own life, then insure your health, but pad your wallet because you just might need it.
Up4, I think Prozyan is correct. The federal law he refers to is an anti-dumping law that says emergency room services cannot be denied to anyone.
That said, however, there are other alternatives for others.
In one simple sentence:
Income Tax is to redistribute wealth from rich people to poor people.
It serves no other purpose. The Australian Bureau of Statistice a month or so ago published an anlysis of income redistribution here in Australia, and found more income is being shifted from rich to poor than at any time in our history—and we currently have a liberalist, small government conservative party in power.
The study show that while rich people pay the most tax, they make the least use of public services. They send their kids to private schools, so they dont use public education; They have private health funds, so they dont make (as much) use of the medicare system and so on and so forth.
But you know who the biggest beneficiary of income redistribution is?
I wager it is the same in the USA as here.
Women.
More than anything, the Income Tax system shifts money from men to women.
Women live longer than men, so they are statistically more likely to make longer use of old age pensions. Because they live longer, they also make up a larger portion of the age bracket (old people) who make the most use of public medicine. Women are proven to get better academic results than men, so are statistically more likely to make more use of public education, and are more likely to go onto a state-owned university.
Then theres our conservative governemnts recent pork-barrell invention, the Family Tax Benefit (FTB) - a $3000 payment just for having a child, a bid to try and increase the birth rate (recent birth statistics have shown it is working). The FTB is paid to the non-working partner, statistically more likely to be the mother.
I could go on. Income Tax is evil.
Funny - while your all battling over whether or not socialized healthcare is a good or bad thing the insurance companies are laughing all the way to the bank.
Give your money to the insurance companies and let them decide or give it to the government and let them decide. Who is the lesser of the two evils?
Who is the lesser of the two evils?
Insurance company. Much easier to find a new insurance provider than it is to find a new government.
You don’t “give” to the government. The government takes. When the government is in charge, you lose the choice altogether. Your comparison is not a fair one.
Give your money to the insurance companies and let them decide or give it to the government and let them decide. Who is the lesser of the two evils?
Funny you should ask . . . I can appeal a decision made by an insurance company. If I don’t like their final decision I can appeal to the state government.
Who do I appeal to when the feds run the show?
Who is the lesser of the two evils?
As others are pointing out, the insurance companies. That way when the lesser of 2 evils tries to screw you, you can attempt to use the greater evil against them. Can’t do that when you eliminate one of those evils.
I am going to side with mactonite here… I did not find his responses that rude, and I never thought he called anyone names either. The responses seemed well thought out, and mature.
If anything, the following is an example of what not to post -
“So you read just the front page for a couple days, act like a total asshole and do nothing but call people names and be a complete dick, but we’re supposed to take you seriously in ANY fucking way? Start reading here. Until you take in and understand JUST that information, I don’t want to see another fucking comment from you. Test me and see how far you get. If you take a moment to LEARN SOMETHING, and treat me and the readers here with the smallest amount of respect, you will be welcome here. If you keep acting like a little punk bitch, your stay here will be very, very short.”
“It’s so fucking intellectually lazy...perfect material for Moore to brainwash, isn’t it?
Oh please. As if anyone on earth gives a shit about you being...oh my Christ I can’t believe you wrote this...being martyred. You don’t want to do anything but yell at people and act like a jackass. I need another little bitch like you like I need a hole in my head. “
It seems to me like the editors ban anyone who disagrees with them. Sorry guys, but I think this guy didn’t deserve to be banned - he spoke his mind.
Is that not what america is built on??? The right to free speech??
Scottk, I could potentially side with you that mactonite’s original email was generally well-mannered, if it hadn’t started off by calling someone else’s opinions “laughable.” (Seriously, tell me that wouldn’t enflame you. Seriously.)
But answer me this: Why is it so difficult for someone new to this site to click on the “Read this first” box? Why is it so difficult to read through some of the previous postings?
Lastly, this thought always rankles me:
Is that not what america is built on??? The right to free speech??
Well, that’s only one among several rights behind the founding of this country, but if you’re that committed to free speech, why not check with one of the websites that ban speech more easily and regularly… say, democraticunderground.com?
I would like to highlight portions of mactonite’s first 3 comments on this whole site, starting with this comment on the article You Get What You Pay For:Posted by Scottk on 08/12/2007 at 10:12 PM
I am going to side with mactonite here… I did not find his responses that rude, and I never thought he called anyone names either. The responses seemed well thought out, and mature.
Okay, pretty civil there so far. I take issue, however, with the fact that he maintains this “many more” idea without making any attempt whatsoever to back up his claim. Furthermore, he goes on to parrot the already oft-discussed, and oft-debunked, canard of MILLIONS who “cannot even get treated” or are “denied basic and advanced treatment”. So, points off for simply repeating DU talking points without doing any basic homework.Posted by Mactonite on 08/08/2007 at 08:56 AM
It’s easy to point out the imperfections of other countries health care. I think you would be suprised to see that many more lose their lives in the American health care systems due to neglect (of the elderly) and hospital hygiene(bed sores, yellow fever etc..) These problems are reoccurring in every country, socialized medicine or not. This seems more of an ad-hominem towards MM. His argument still holds sway in that we have 50 mil. who cannot even get treated, and millions more who do pay but still get denied basic and advanced treatment.
Now let’s move on to this comment under the article Vacation On!:
This, presumably, is the kind of thing he was talking about when he said he was “calling bullshit” on some “fallacy” he thought he detected in a post. You’ll notice his tone to be not real polite in this instance, and if you take the time to read the article to which he is responding, I think you’ll agree that the level of sarcasm he lays on is hardly called for. Nor did he have much of substance to contribute to the discussion at hand - it’s apparent he didn’t read the article very carefully, or if he read it at all he clearly missed the point of it. He says he’s “interested in discourse” rather than personal attacks, but this post puts the lie to that rather quickly.Posted by Mactonite on 08/08/2007 at 09:21 AM
I guess the doctors in France should have come back and used their WEATHER CONTROL SUPERPOWER to eliminate the heat wave and save all 15,000. You cannot cure an act of nature unless the doctors pooled their money and bought everyone A/C and bottled water(unlikely). The hospitals were all full to the brim with patients. You make it out to look like the doctors saw the heatwave coming and skipped work to go to the beach. As if they got into the medical profession for the “great” salary of socialized care. It was an act of nature which no number of MD’s could control. France&MM;- 1 Moorewatch - 0
Now, under this very topic, he starts out his first comment with this:
Well thought out? Mature? Okay - if you say so. Looks to me, though, like he’s mostly trying to get a rise out of someone. But how about the rest of his comment:Posted by Mactonite on 08/08/2007 at 09:58 AM
Your responses to this email were laughable. What I got out of it was that, You can afford to pay 265 a month, That 265 is less than the cost of a xbox360 and more than half the amount of a PS3. Good job, really. Looks like you did some research.
Your argument is relative, meaning that just because 265 is not alot of money for you, does not mean that it is affordable for someone else. You do live in whats called a society. When you live in one of these it usually contains other people. And when these people are subjected to unfair or self serving governments or situations we need to come together and work out a solution in which the majority can flourish. You revel in the fact that you do not have to pay high taxes, and that a single payer system would drown everyone. Currently your tax dollars are being poured into Iraq. We have a vast national debt that is accruing from borrowing money from the PRC. Soon we will have to pay the piper. The economy will inflate, HMO costs will rise, and more and more people will be unable to afford insurance. These european countries have better, greener, free(er?) more democratic societies. Yes they have kinks in the sytem (treatment times, sanitation etc..) But I think many would agree that it would be better to be cared for than to be turned down at the door.
Okay, he’s just called Lee out for playing fast and loose with his “research”, and then proceeds to make a series of comments which are comprised mainly of opinions, speculation, conjecture, and in the case of his last paragraph ("better, greener, free (er?) more democratic societies” - you gotta be kidding me!), just plain ludicrous. Then after a few regulars quite handily take his statements to task, he posts a second comment which is full of misbegotten information (HMOs “denying” cancer treatments, JimK not being able to help his wife), a bit of mindless Bush-bashing (which does nothing to advance his already dubious thesis), and - hey, wouldn’t ya know it - a little snide personal comment ("this doesn’t happen to everyone just cause it happend to you. Wake up."). He then tops it off with “I would like to have it laid out in plain sight. What is MM’s agenda? You all make him out to be an abyssmal liar”.
Frankly, mactonite frequently demonstrated a fundamental inability to fully comprehend or acknowledge any well-informed rebuttal to his comments, and an unwillingness to do even the most basic research of the matters upon which he felt compelled to vomit up his less-than-considered opinions. And, Scottk’s assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, he was more often than not unnecessarily rude to more than one contributor in the process.
It seems to me like the editors ban anyone who disagrees with them.
Scott, I notice you’ve only been with us a total of 2 and a half weeks. Can I challenge you to do a search for posts by our longstanding friends ilovecress and up4debate? You’ll find that they fail to fall in lockstep with us card-carrying members of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (damn them!), but their open-mindedness and honesty have earned them the respect of the majority of the regulars around here (by the way - I’m relatively new here myself as a member, but I’ve lurked for years, so I’ve kind of gotten a feel for the way stuff works around these parts). It’s the ones who come around with their minds already made up and throw around their poorly-researched opinions as if they were the most obvious facts ("come on, you Bush-loving sheeple, wake up and smell the coffee!") who draw first our amusement, and then our consternation. And, for the record, they seldom get banned unless they really get abusive. Most choose to leave of their own accord when they realize they’re hopelessly outclassed. :-)
Also, stop demanding that everyone serve you and take care of you. If you were willing to look up information and read, maybe do a little research, you’d know that nothing you are saying is new to us. It’s all been said and addressed. The fact that you just want the answers spoon-fed to you says more about you and your character than you seem to know.
Somewhat off topic…
It might just be me (but I doubt it)… but I’m finding this attitude to be more and more common today, in every aspect of life. I have a feeling it’s because liberals have been drilling the ideas that the gov’t should provide for everyone their whole lives now and especially that those who live comfortable lives must’ve taken advantage of others to get there (it couldn’t just be hard work, planning, sacrifice, etc) and therefore they owe the rest something. This messages is pervasive, constantly taught in public school (through university levels), the MSM, most TV shows, etc.
Even at work it’s gotten to the point where the people (not everyone, and there are some of most age groups at every level though the younger they are, the more that are this way it seems) that just can’t be bothered to do any of the leg work themselves. They want everything handed to them on a silver platter, often meaning you would have to spend much of your time doing a chunk of their work if you want things to get done on time, especially done properly and on time. Unfortunately people like this are becoming common enough that their feedback on reviews is beginning to effect my (and friends I’ve talked to) careers and pay.. and we’re getting sick and tired of it.
I think (hope) there’s going to be almost a mini revolution by those of us that do get off our asses, do our jobs, provide for ourselves and follow the rules against the lazy bastards that just want things handed to them.
RSS (Subscribe)
They were. :) Visit the old east bloc....