Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The New Yorker on Sicko
In my review of Sicko, I argued that while in the past Michael Moore has had an easy time winning converts in Europe, it's going to be a harder slog with this film. Denouncing the Iraq War and calling Americans, which he clearly doesn't count himself among, stupid ("They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet," he told the Daily Mirror) is easy; convincing Brits that the NHS provides flawless, wait-free medical care—for free!—strains credulity. The New Yorker's David Denby thinks Moore will have difficulty convincing Americans too (Hat tip to Alan Vanneman):
Michael Moore has teased and bullied his way to some brilliant highs in his career as a political entertainer, but he scrapes bottom in his new documentary, "Sicko."
...
Moore winds up treating the audience the same way that, he says, powerful people treat the weak in America-as dopes easily satisfied with fairy tales and bland reassurances. And since he doesn't interview any of the countless Americans who have been mulling over ways to reform our system, we're supposed to come away from "Sicko" believing that sane thinking on these issues is unknown here. In the actual political world, the major Democratic Presidential candidates have already offered, or will soon offer, plans for reform. A shift to the left, or, at least, to the center, has overtaken Michael Moore, yielding an irony more striking than any he turns up: the changes in political consciousness that Moore himself has helped produce have rendered his latest film almost superfluous.
Speaking with my friend in Dublin today, I inquired about his level of satisfaction with Irish health services. He replied with an anecdote: The last time he required medical attention was for a broken arm, for which he was fitted with a standard plaster cast. After a few days the cast, which was apparently constructed from recycled copies of the Irish Sun, began to fall apart. He returned to the hospital for a replacement but, after waiting in the emergency room for nine hours, decided instead to head home and piece it together with DIY tape. The Irish system, he said, was "a mess."
Andrew Sullivan's Canadian readers chime in here.
There is, of course, much to say in response to Moore's deification of the Cuban system, though I think these pictures, published in the Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter, will suffice for now. They were taken at a nursing home in the Cuban province of Pinar del Río in June 2004:
More photos here.
|6.26.07 @ 3:52PM|#
Horrifying photos. My friend in Dublin was disgnosed (after over a year of disconfort) with throat cancer. The American-trained specialist that he finally saw told him that he really shouldn't be treated in Ireland--the treatments available there were barbaric, and if he didn't want to die, he should go to either Germany or US for the targeted therapy needed. He did go to Germany, and is fine now. The health service in Ireland had apparently decided that they didn't need to spent the money on the new machines for targeted radiotherapy.
|6.26.07 @ 3:56PM|#
I found it difficult to believe that even Michael Moore would try to persuade the Brits that the NHS is a success - for God's the sake, every article the Guardian runs on it is negative, and they're in favour of socialised medicine. But once again I gave my fellow man too much credit...
|6.26.07 @ 4:01PM|#
Michael Moore Hates America was a decent movie, but had
a terrible name (even the director acknowledged, but strangely kept
it). The premise of that movie doesn't have to do with Moore's
patriotism, but with his film style - the ambush interview.
Basically, instead of chasing a politico down on the street and
trapping them in a lie (wow how hard is that?), you can achieve
more by being up front, honest, and sincere. Qualities Moore
severely lacks.
Ironically, though, Moore seems to be using the ambush interview
less and less. And of course he's doing more fact checking this
time around. (though his admissions are the worst offenes) Probably
because he's been picked to pieces so much in the past.
|6.26.07 @ 4:02PM|#
The World Health Organization ranks the British healthcare
system about 19 places ahead of ours'.
France is rated #1, I believe.
|6.26.07 @ 4:02PM|#
Joe -- I assume you're referring to this statement:
"Denouncing the Iraq War and calling Americans, which he
clearly doesn't count himself among, stupid ("They are possibly the
dumbest people on the planet," he told the Daily Mirror) is
easy"
I took that as an attack on his egalitarianism, not his
patriotism.
|6.26.07 @ 4:04PM|#
Joe, please point me to the insult of Moore's patriotism. I mean, I'm sure it isn't when Moynihan quotes Moore as saying about Americans how dumb THEY are and taking this to indicate that Moore seemingly doesn't include himself as an American. There must be something else because it would be dumb to think the above is an insult to Moore's patriotism. And we both know you're not dumb, Joe.
|6.26.07 @ 4:07PM|#
Again, for those people who have a hard-on for socialized healthcare, why don't you try it in your home state so you can show the rest of us how lovely it is?
|6.26.07 @ 4:07PM|#
"The World Health Organization ranks the British healthcare
system about 19 places ahead of ours'."
On what basis? Cost, which they achieve through rationing?
|6.26.07 @ 4:07PM|#
jp, Jason C,
"...Americans, which he clearly doesn't count himself
among..."
The thing speaks for itself.
|6.26.07 @ 4:08PM|#
Anyway, it was nice of Moynihan to provide us with an anecdote
about an Irish man's lack of satisfaction with his free healthcare
after taking Moore to task for his use of anecdotal evidence in
Sicko.
In my opinion, such anecdotal examples are of very limited value
when assessing national healthcare policy.
|6.26.07 @ 4:10PM|#
On what basis? Cost, which they achieve through
rationing?
I confess that I'm not entirely familar with the WHO's methodology.
No doubt that there is plenty of subjectivity involved.
Urkobold™|6.26.07 @ 4:12PM|#
LET THE URKOBOLD SEE IF HE UNDERSTANDS. MOORE SAID THAT
AMERICANS ARE IDIOTS. HE MUST INCLUDE HIMSELF IN THAT STATEMENT.
THEREFORE, HE IS AN IDIOT AND CAN BE IGNORED.
EXCELLENT. WE ALL AGREE.
|6.26.07 @ 4:16PM|#
Grünfeld Defence-
Go lobby in your state legislature. Let us know how it goes if you
get single-payer healthcare state wide. But stop trying to put the
federal government where it has very little authority to be? K?
|6.26.07 @ 4:18PM|#
Step 1: Find a nit to pick
Step 2: Pronounce entire article invalid
Step 3: Declare victory
O'Reilly, or joe?
highnumber|6.26.07 @ 4:23PM|#
I liked Moore through Bowling for Columbine. Not that I
agreed with everything he said or did, but I found him amusing,
even thought provoking at times. Everything seemed to go downhill
from there. Last few years, he's just been a shrill nut.
What's the deal with your sensitivity regarding him, joe?
|6.26.07 @ 4:23PM|#
In my opinion, such anecdotal examples are of very limited
value when assessing national healthcare policy
Which is Sicko appears to be of very limited value.
kohlrabi|6.26.07 @ 4:23PM|#
Joe,
For real? That was a statement about grammar. Using the word 'they'
to identify a set necessarily means that you do not consider
yourself part of that set. But Moore is of course part of that set.
It's not a statement about patriotism but rather a statement about
Moore's hypocrisy. The merits of that observation may be argued,
sure, but that's what it's about.
s.m. koppelman|6.26.07 @ 4:24PM|#
Thank goodness we have a far better system than Britain's. I
only had to schedule a preliminary appointment with a specialist
last fall a mere three months in advance. Once the date came
around. he spent two whole minutes on my consult!
After a four-day hospital stay a few years back, my finacee was
only on the hook for about $2000 out of pocket after her
deductible. True, the main doctor who treated her refused to send a
copy of her records to her primary care physician even after
several written requests, because he wanted to get a couple of
billable office visits out of her. Not bad, considering that our
premiums are only about a third more than the total average
per-person expenditure in developed countries with single-payer and
socialized systems.
Xanthippas|6.26.07 @ 4:24PM|#
Once again, anectdotes (and now pictures!) are trotted out as some sort of defense of our pathetic health care system. That people who favor health-care reform could easily trot out 10,000 anecdotes (and pictures!) of their own is not mentioned.
|6.26.07 @ 4:27PM|#
My wife's Irish, and a doc, and trained in the Irish system. She
loves the Health System more than brown bread, tea, and Sinead
O'Conor. Granted, she's a socialist, but her reasoning isn't all
that loopy. The absolute bottom of Irish health care is higher than
America's lowest level of health care. Over here, the uninsured
working poor get socked with the low level stuff. In Ireland, the
low level stuff gets spread out a bit more evenly.
I might add that she doesn't get much support for her reasoning.
Her two formerly canadian colleages are refugees from the Canuck
system. They acknowledge the problems confronting the working poor,
but think the US system works better for more people.
highnumber|6.26.07 @ 4:31PM|#
Oh, yeah, about health care:
Oddly this appears to be one of the few issues that is entirely
either/or.
Either we keep the system as is, or we adopt socialized medicine.
If only someone could see a new way...
Why does the system work the way it does? What are the causes of
the inefficiencies? Why won't anyone take another look at the
problems?
If only...
|6.26.07 @ 4:31PM|#
I didn't look at all the pictures, but the one in the post may or may not be bad. It depends. Is that chocolate or feces or mud?
dhex|6.26.07 @ 4:36PM|#
has anyone done any real work (i.e. with like, numbers and
stuff) on creating incentives for health maintenance and the like?
particularly in places with high rates of obesity, etc.
i was thinking of this in connection with a conversation i had with
a friend about the connections of shitty foods, a lack of
reasonably priced greenmarkets - or just good produce - in many low
income locations across new york city, etc and the difficulty in
inducing people to exercise. i would think a good soros-esque
project for a foundation would be to put money into studying how to
convince people to exercise AND creating something that can work
for people across ages and fitness levels, is easy to do, not too
time consuming and requires a 5x5 space or less.
|6.26.07 @ 4:37PM|#
Once again, anectdotes (and now pictures!) are trotted out as some sort of defense of our pathetic health care system.
It's not a defense of ours - it's an attack on theirs. But thanks
for the helpful blurring of the argument!
|6.26.07 @ 4:38PM|#
Argument by anecdote makes you look bad.
Moore doesn't have to sell anything because people want cheaper
care and universal coverage.
Call me five years after the US socializes to contain costs and let
me know how the NHS does. The NHS is barely treading water now, and
it isn't paying for a fraction of its true cost. We are.
|6.26.07 @ 4:39PM|#
"The last time he required medical attention was for a broken
arm"
I have several problems with the anectdote about the Irish health
care system.
For a start what relevance does it have to the "Brits that the NHS
provides flawless wait-free medical care" system. These are two
separate countries and around 50% of people have private insurance
in Ireland.
Secondly, it was nice to see a time period given here, could the
news paper his cast was made out of be from the 1970's? Dublin
hospitals most certainly would not have allowed this to occur in
the last 15 years.
e|6.26.07 @ 4:41PM|#
Day three of the Hit and Run assault on Sicko is in full swing! I'll be checking in periodically. Thank the gods for joe and Urkobold, the main reasons to read H & R.
VM|6.26.07 @ 4:41PM|#
Hopefully the NHS can help this d00d,
hier
Truly of URKOBOLDIAN levels!
(oh my! mercy!)
(oh - thanks to "jdk" for heads up!)
|6.26.07 @ 4:44PM|#
s.m, to the extent that government is involved in our medical system, there are problems. There are worse problems in Great Britain, such as waiting for even longer periods for essential operations and diagnostic tests. Many people die while waiting. It's interesting that our politicians are wanting to move more in the direction of socialized medicine, while countries like Great Britain and Canada are moving away from those systems and allowing more privatization in their systems.
|6.26.07 @ 4:44PM|#
I'm shocked, I say, shocked to once again see a discussion on
socialized medicine in which the only libertarian writer with
direct experience with a socialized medical system is ignored. It's
just a coincidence that he admitted that their (French) system was
superior, of course.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_04/006078.php
The AntiHumanist|6.26.07 @ 4:45PM|#
I have a simple solution to the healthcare "debate": if you prefer government-administered healthcare, pay for it with your OWN taxes. If you prefer being responsible for your own healthcare, pay for it with tax-exempt wages. Of course, whichever system provides better care will receive more revenue, thus, in turn, being better able to provide such care in the future. Some of you might deride this idea as 'government-as-insurer,' but in a socialized state, that is precisely what the government is. Let it compete then, and utilize only those monies that are allocated to it (no 'borrowing' from Social Security; no issuing more Treasury bonds; no scapegoating the successful).
Xanthippas|6.26.07 @ 4:47PM|#
Jake,
It's argument by anecdote that's blurring. And frankly, your
distinction is one without a difference.
But, speaking of anecdotes:
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/06/a-letter-to-blu.html
I'm not sure how a picture of an old guy in filth refutes that, but
I could be missing something.
|6.26.07 @ 4:47PM|#
"Once again, anectdotes (and now pictures!) are trotted out as
some sort of defense of our pathetic health care system. That
people who favor health-care reform could easily trot out 10,000
anecdotes (and pictures!) of their own is not mentioned."
Granted, our system needs improvement, but socialized medicine is
not the way to go. We need more competition in the market place to
bring down costs. The problems with our system are caused by
government intervention into the system. The last thing we need is
more government intervention.
|6.26.07 @ 4:47PM|#
highnumber speaks deep truth. This system has the advantages it
does because it retains some free market components. On the flip
side, we have some significant problems due to the parts that none
dare call socialized medicine. Since our system has serious flaws,
and the socialized ones have even more serious flaws, how about we
try, oh, something with less socialism and more capitalism. There!
I said it!
[Cue maniacal laughter]
By the way, dare I suggest that the United States' system is pretty
much the engine of medical advance that other healthcare systems
depend upon? Is that because we have socialized medicine? Heck, if
the FDA weren't becoming a brick wall to the introduction of new
medicines and techniques, we'd probably all have bionics now.
B-b-b-bastards!
My anecdote is about an ex-girlfriend who moved to Vancouver to
teach at a university in BC. Pretty much every professor with means
there had some sort of access to U.S. medical services. No idea
why. Oh, and this woman was quite liberal and quite pro-socialized
healthcare before going to Canada. Which she loved, otherwise,
except for their weak, weak dollar and their lack of a national
cuisine.
D.A. Ridgely|6.26.07 @ 4:50PM|#
Sorry, I stopped reading after the weak-assed insult to
Moore's patriotism.
Let's try for more robust attacks next time, shall we?
|6.26.07 @ 4:51PM|#
I'll take the number of system related deaths in our current
system on my own head as a defender of it being less bad than
alternatives.
Will advocates of single payer take on their heads deaths due to
the destruction of innovative incentive in a socialized system? If
we don't do it and nobody else does either, I'm talking about a lot
of sick and dying people.
If Moore and his cohort get what they want, and they do this
without very careful consideration to innovation, they will be
responsible for hundreds of thousands of suffering people. No
hyperbole. No soapbox. Future dead and suffering people that could
have been saved by maintaining an incentive to invest.
|6.26.07 @ 4:54PM|#
Check out:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/herzlinger.htm
She uses the swiss for examples of a "third way."
|6.26.07 @ 4:55PM|#
From Shocked's article:
"I said "Look, if we made twice as much money, we'd probably prefer
American health care for a severe crisis. But we don't, so we
don't.""
Consider the implications. So, nobody pays for that severe crisis
stuff. Doesn't that mean it doesn't exist? Wasn't everything
currently covered under the French system at one time really
expensive cutting edge stuff?
|6.26.07 @ 4:56PM|#
"Oddly this appears to be one of the few issues that is entirely
either/or.
Either we keep the system as is, or we adopt socialized medicine.
If only someone could see a new way..."
There are free market alternatives. It doesn't have to be
either/or. There are several books out there that present various
alternatives.
"Why does the system work the way it does? What are the causes of
the inefficiencies? Why won't anyone take another look at the
problems?"
These problems have been dealt with. Big insurance companies and
Medicare and Medicaid are driving up costs. A one payer system
would drive up costs more if it wasn't for its policy of rationing
services.
|6.26.07 @ 4:56PM|#
And frankly, your distinction is one without a difference.
Really? Take a look at these two statements:
1) "It is not the case that socialized health care systems are
efficient."
2) "America's health care system is the best imaginable."
Do you not see any difference at all?
|6.26.07 @ 4:59PM|#
Abdul
Umm . . . where I live the "uninsured poor" get free health care,
for emergencies and meds anyway.
Xanthippas
Moore is the one favorably comparing the Cuban system to our
own.
"people who favor health-care reform could easily trot out
10,000 anecdotes"
Yet, strangely they don't.
|6.26.07 @ 5:06PM|#
One can argue that socialized medicine is immoral without even
questioning whether or not it is effective.
Socialized medicine cannot succeed without rationing, period.
So, in blunt terms, socialized medicine means that those with the
resources (cash or insurance) to purchases whatever medical
treatment they want or need to ensure should be denied the right to
make those purchase so that less fortunate people get medical
attention that they cannot afford.
I even got Dan T to admit that was accurate and necessary one
day.
joe|6.26.07 @ 5:06PM|#
highnumber,
It's not a sensitivity towards Moore, so much as an annoyance at
the dishonest propaganda of Mr. Moynihan. I'd have been equally
irritated regardless of the target of such a cheap smear.
Josh,
I haven't opined about the article. As I said, I didn't read it.
Other than that, your observation that I declared the article
invalid is quite incisive.
kohlrabi,
It's a statement about grammer made for the purpose of insulting
Moore's patriotism.
Political spin doctor's get paid good money to manipulate people
into ignoring what's in front of their eyes. There is no reason to
so exert yourself doing their work for them.
joe|6.26.07 @ 5:10PM|#
carrick,
That's why very few people actually support "socialized medicine,"
as you're using the term.
Most of what health care reformers discuss is a combination of
socialized insurance, aid for the poor and children, or the
Massachusetts mandate thingy.
joe|6.26.07 @ 5:11PM|#
Matthew,
""people who favor health-care reform could easily trot out 10,000
anecdotes"
Yet, strangely they don't."
Huh-wuzza? Say, Matthew, I heard about this Michael Moore film you
may find interesting...
NP|6.26.07 @ 5:11PM|#
M.C. Moynihan,
Did we really need another Michael Moore jeremiad?
D.A. Ridgely,
Sometimes ignoring is the best policy.
|6.26.07 @ 5:12PM|#
Ultimately, I think the US may end up adopting Barack Obama's plan. Hopefully, someone will eventually have the balls to change the stupid tax code.
|6.26.07 @ 5:13PM|#
Most of what health care reformers discuss is a combination
of socialized insurance, aid for the poor and children, or the
Massachusetts mandate thingy.
Yes that is true, but in his film, Mr. Moore has focussed attention
on single-payer systems which are essentially socialized medicine
and not on the the plans of these reformers.
|6.26.07 @ 5:13PM|#
Umm . . . where I live the "uninsured poor" get free health
care, for emergencies and meds anyway.
Precisely why the only viable solution is to mandate that any
insurer in the US insure based on the average risk of the average
american, thus everyone pays the same. We already pay for the
uninsured poor, but at e-room prices. By doing it this way, and
mandating that one must offer individual insurance, the force of
the market will be brought to bear against the medical overhead
which does nothing but increase costs. Yes, some people's lifestyle
choices will cost more, but they'll probably die earlier so the
true life cycle cost will get a bit better.
Would be much better than a socialist system, and keep the govt out
of things. Since you'd be free to leave at any time (since,
regardless of your med risk you have to be insured at the rate of
an average american and individual insurance couldn't be denied),
the current state of the insurance company trying to subdivide and
exclude would go away, as would the problem of people unable to be
insured due to their employer insurance.
Perhaps not so libertarian, but this is one place where I see the
inequity of the current system as needing something.
|6.26.07 @ 5:15PM|#
I like Moore like I like John Stewart.
But neither one has a fucking clue how to actually fix
things.
Also, it is hard to take anything Moore says about healthcare
seriously...I mean he is a walking double knee-replacement,
angioplasty and diabetes candidate if there ever was one.
|6.26.07 @ 5:19PM|#
Precisely why the only viable solution is to mandate that
any insurer in the US insure based on the average risk of the
average american, . . .
While were at it, why don't we make people in Iowa subsidize car
owners in California so they don't have to pay outrageous premiums
for car insurance. We can let people in North Dakota subsidize home
owners in Florida so they don't have to deal with the consequences
of living in a hurricane zone. Boy, this idea has lots of cool
applications.
|6.26.07 @ 5:20PM|#
One thing few people ever notice is that the primary reason that
health care is so "expensive" here relative to other industrialized
countries is that we pay our health care professionals
substantially more than anyone else. Anyone who has ever run a
business (hospital, doctor's office, or dog kennel, for that
matter) knows that labor is a tremendous part of the total
bill...usually the vast majority. Any switch to a "European-style"
system would require to slash the pay of doctors, nurses, aides,
and technicians by 30% or more. I doubt any politician is going to
use that as a slogan.
Delving into this a bit further, part of the reason that these
countries can get away with paying such piss-poor salaries is that
in general, they subsidize the education of health-care
professionals more heavily than we do. So France, for example,
might spend an extra two billion dollars a year training its
doctors, but then pay them two billion dollars less - a wash
(assuming we ignore interest and all that jazz for the sake of a
hypothetical). France then uses this to claim that it is both more
generous because is spends MORE on education, and smarter because
it spends LESS on health care...when in fact, all it has done is
some accounting tricks.
joe|6.26.07 @ 5:21PM|#
carrick,
I've seen "single payer" refer both to systems that ban
private-sector medical care, and to systems that do not.
joe|6.26.07 @ 5:22PM|#
While were at it, why don't we make people in Iowa subsidize
car owners in California so they don't have to pay outrageous
premiums for car insurance.
Ooh! Ooh! Mr. Carrick! Pick me! Pick me! Ooh! Ooh!
|6.26.07 @ 5:28PM|#
I've seen "single payer" refer both to systems that ban
private-sector medical care, and to systems that do not.
That's a big problem with the whole debate...defining the language
of the debate.
Which Moore's stream of anecdotes does nothing to contribute to. It
only further obfuscates the debate, which is the most frustrating
part of any propaganda.
Randolph Carter|6.26.07 @ 5:47PM|#
2 things - photos of a shithole nursing home as an indictment of
their health care system work no better than photos of a shithole
nursing home in Appalachia as an indictment of our system.
2nd - Catastrophic care! Huzzah! Get it while you're young for 45
bucks a month, and you're good until you need the prescription
discounts for Cialis in your golden years. What's this health care
crisis I've heard so much about?
|6.26.07 @ 5:57PM|#
To solve the healthcare crisis, three things need to
happen:
1) An 200% increase in the number of medical schools in the United
States.
2) An end to the tax exemption/deduction of group health insurance
costs.
3) A 50% decrease in the "length" of the drug pipeline.
These three changes solve all the problems with the US healthcare
system: Limited supply, third-party payment and insulation from
market forces.
Randolph Carter|6.26.07 @ 6:03PM|#
EE,
Also, the high barrier to entry into the health care field. As this
hier story shows us, the AMA is just like any other trade
union, fighting tooth and nail against competition. Why do we need
to see a $200,000 worth of education MD for a sore throat or common
cold when PAs or RNs could provide the same service with referral
options for much less?
|6.26.07 @ 7:03PM|#
Don't see how pointing out that the Euro's solution sucks too is an endorsement of our fercockta system.
|6.26.07 @ 7:24PM|#
joe,
Are you seriously claiming that a native English speaker saying
"they" instead of "we" is a simple grammatical mistake? We're not
talking about possessive of a gerund, or some obscure grammar rule
here; we're talking basic pronouns that are used in every other
sentence.
While I don't think Mr Moore would actually explicitly say that
he's not an American, the fact that he (possibly unconciously)
tries to disocciate himself from Americans speaks volumes.
|6.26.07 @ 7:41PM|#
Far be it from me to defend socialized (or semi-socialized)
health care medicine: and I won't even try. I must say that my
experiences with the Irish health care system have been quite
good.
My first son was born in Dublin by C-section and the wife was in
the hospital for 5 days: total cost, 1,500 euro. Said son later
broke his arm. I was imagining untold hours in the A&E and a
huge bill. We got there and the receptionist asked if we had
medical insurance. I ruefully said no and she replied "well that
will cost you 40 euro before we can see him". That 40 euro was the
entire cost for consultation, x-rays, cast, and 2 follow up
visits.
Just don't ask about the taxes we paid on everything else while we
lived there. As for serious illnesses I can't say, but routine
medical care was cheap and efficient. One caveat: if you show up at
the A&E at 4:00 on Saturday morning you can expect a long and
unpleasant wait, and I'm not telling THAT story.
|6.26.07 @ 7:42PM|#
Recently when talking about how voters are ignorant of economics
several H&Rers remarked on the stupidity of their fellow
Americans. I guess they are anti-patriotic? I agree with Joe, this
Moynihan (where did this guy and his talk radio-talking points come
from, National Review?) seems to specialize in un-thoughtful
hatchet man posts (against the liberal bogey-man of the day, Gore
or now Moore).
"I argued that while in the past Michael Moore has had an easy time
winning converts in Europe, it's going to be a harder slog with
this film." I think the opposite. I think Moynihan (or more likely
his pay-masters) is worried a lot of people will agree with Moore.
I myself think Moore is quite the flawed filmmaker, so why are they
so relentless in hacking away at his movie? Answer: the American
public, despite being cajoled, manipulated and distracted by
millions of dollars of lobbying money to believe otherwise, have
just had one too many crappy experiences with our crappy
system.
Moynihan marshals some impressive evidence, eh? A buddy in Irreland
told him a story, he read some stories on Andy Sullivan's page, and
even has PICTURES of a gross place in Cuba. Amateur hour at the
Apollo...
|6.26.07 @ 7:49PM|#
Ken,
There's been an awful lot of support for "universal" health care in
this country, for a long time. It's not like this issue just
suddenly came out of nowhere (remember HillaryCare?). I don't think
a Michael Moore film is going to matter one way or the other.
I don't think that the support is due so much to people being
stupid, as to people thinking that "universal" health care =
something for nothing. Those who don't study the issue don't
realize that there are an awful lot of negative side effects to
such a system.
Xanthippas|6.26.07 @ 7:52PM|#
Yet, strangely they don't.
What blogosphere are you referring to? Perhaps it is the one where
liberal bloggers are not constantly referring to failures of the
present health care system?
|6.26.07 @ 8:01PM|#
Crimethink-Could it be that they just find their own healthcare
to be crappy? That's not a possibility?
The fact that there are, like, 50 first world nations and we are
just about the only ones with a system like ours might have some of
their eyebrows raising as well...
Abdul|6.26.07 @ 8:13PM|#
matthew,
The "uninsured" are insured by medicaid. . . . medicare. . .
whatever. The uninsured are fucked. Hospitals will inflate their
bills. To get decent healthcare in the US, you have to be rich or
poor. Working poor are screwed.
|6.26.07 @ 8:22PM|#
I've seen "single payer" refer both to systems that ban
private-sector medical care, and to systems that do not.
On the off chance that joe is still hanging around . . .
I have never heard or read any commentary that uses the phrase
"single-payer system" to mean anything other than the government
pays the bills. In fact, it seems to be the most common way to hide
the fact that commentator wants the government to pay the
bills.
I doesn't help the situation in any way if it has become common
practice for "single-payer" to mean something else as well.
I will acknowledge that I have seen single-payer to mean the
government pays doctors in private practice as well as meaning the
government employs the doctors directly. However, I see little
practical impact in that the government will still set the terms
for all coverage of all treatments for all medical conditions.
Edward|6.26.07 @ 8:25PM|#
Geez, stop worrying. The American medical profession will never allow Americans to have a rational, affordable healthcare system. You free-market fanatics are safe, so let it go.
The Wine Commonsewer|6.26.07 @ 8:45PM|#
Sorry, I stopped reading after the weak-assed insult to
Moore's patriotism.
Now there's a surprise from Joe.
The Wine Commonsewer|6.26.07 @ 8:46PM|#
I actually wouldn't give you a nickel for a whole bag full of Michael Moore DVD's.
The Wine Commonsewer|6.26.07 @ 8:54PM|#
The World Health Organization ranks the British healthcare
system about 19 places ahead of ours'. France is rated #1, I
believe.
That might explain why George Harrison left London and it's stellar
free health care to have his lung cancer treated in LA.
So far in my life the only crappy health care I've had was courtesy
of the US Navy, which offers a fully socialized, single payer
health care program.
|6.26.07 @ 9:03PM|#
Are you seriously claiming that a native English speaker
saying "they" instead of "we" is a simple grammatical
mistake?
All right, a two-front war! I get to argue with people who think
it's absurd that Moynihan was taking a shot at Moore's patriotism,
and with people who think that Moynihan's shot at Moore's
patriotism was so plainly deserved as to be irreproachable.
crimethink, I think people switch around "we" and "they" when
discussing the general public all the time, especially when they
are making a humorous point. I don't even think it's a grammatical
mistake.
|6.26.07 @ 9:25PM|#
regarding the debate about taking a cheap shot at Moore's
patriotism: ignoring whether they were talking about a grammatical
error or not, I think Moore was out of line. I realize saying that
bothers the 'joes' of the world who are polarized against the
talking heads who deplore the 'hate america first croud'. I don't
think there is anything wrong with criticizing the US or any of our
policies, i encourage it even, but a broad statement like Moore's
does insult me. Where does he get off saying we are some of the
dumbest people on earth? That's not about patriotism, that insults
ME not my country.
Regarding the other debate. I have a few unnecessary anecdotes of
my own.
1. my sister lives in canada and is a liberal who fully supports
socialized medicine. ironically, She just traveled to Arizona to
have her baby because she was at high risk for complications.
2. All my health care experience (which is quite a bit, I snowboard
a lot and I've broken bones on 5 occasions) has been very pleasant,
speedy, and professional. Granted, I have excellent coverage
because I can afford it. But why is that unfair since I earned my
money? Unfair would be taking the money I earned, and using it to
pay for leechers.
|6.26.07 @ 9:40PM|#
He returned to the hospital for a replacement but, after waiting in the emergency room for nine hours, decided instead to head home and piece it together with DIY tape.
What magical fairy land of hospitals do yall go to? I've waited for
5 or more hours in American hospitals. It seems my wait times are
as long as Euros, so I'm more than happy to trade the state picking
up my costs in exchange for you bastards waiting as long as I
usually do.
libertreee|6.26.07 @ 9:41PM|#
hings - photos of a shithole nursing home as an indictment
of their health care system work no better than photos of a
shithole nursing home in Appalachia as an indictment of our system.
-Randolph Carter
Yeah, but it is nice to show those A**holes wearing the Che Guevara
t-shirts.
|6.26.07 @ 9:41PM|#
Edward, sweetie,
The American Medical Association, founded explicitly for the
purpose of keeping doctor's wages high, has passed a series of laws
that limits the number of students graduated by medical schools and
the numebr of people who can become doctors.
They even got the Federal Government to call a projection of 245
doctors per 100,00 population a glut, and a problem to be solved by
ordering medical schools to graduate fewer doctors.
In other words, much of the high cost of medical care is the result
of the government limiting competition in the medical field. This
is a well-known phenomenon called "rent seeking". You
might want to read up on it, and stop embarassing yourself by
confusing managed trade with a free market.
|6.26.07 @ 9:42PM|#
Anytime individual cases are presented
as if to represent a whole system
then you can assume bias is upon you.
Measure the means of the care delivery.
There are ___ x-ray machines per capitia.
ther are ___ CAT scan...
There are ____ MRIs...
___ doctors, ____ ERs, ____ heli-ports/choppers,
how many, kidney, heart, lung transplants,
how many pharmacies, hospitals, and how close
and so on.
If there isn't the means for modern medicine
then there can't be the delivery of it.
libertreee|6.26.07 @ 9:45PM|#
My Irish anecdote--this winter my 97 year old great aunt passed
away. My sister from Boston, who works as a child psychologist in
Mass General, was very disappointed in the Irish hospital, North of
Dublin in Co. Louth.
My aunt was in the "women's ward", which she said was just a very
large room full of beds. No semi private or private rooms.
Intensive Care was just a room with a bed. No heart monitoring
machines, etc.
Worst of all, the nurses seemed to lack basic hygienic training.
They were very, very careless with how they utilized their sanitary
rubber gloves.
That's her report.
libertreee|6.26.07 @ 9:48PM|#
he American Medical Association, founded explicitly for the
purpose of keeping doctor's wages high, has passed a series of laws
that limits the number of students graduated by medical schools and
the numebr of people who can become doctors.-tarran
Does anyone remember a few years ago how Columbia University was
found to be accepting government grants NOT to train doctors?
|6.26.07 @ 10:05PM|#
Michael C. Moynihan,
Not to defend Moore, but one could probably find equally disturbing
videos and pictures in healthcare facilities in the U.S. In other
words, while anecdotes can be a powerful form of argumentation,
they are the least persuasive sort of evidence.
|6.26.07 @ 10:18PM|#
Not to defend Moore, but one could probably find equally
disturbing videos and pictures in healthcare facilities in the
U.S.
Walter Reed comes to mind.
|6.26.07 @ 10:27PM|#
Recall that Communist Romania's health care system was similarly
praised by some observers as the "one good thing" in the otherwise
deplorable Ceausescu regime. Only when he kicked the bucket and the
outside world saw images of feces encrusted, malnourished orphans
chained to their beds did that perception change.
I predict we will see something similar in Cuba when Raul dies.
Paul|6.26.07 @ 11:03PM|#
I've waited for 5 or more hours in American
hospitals.
That's because there are beds full of non-paying drug seekers. Or
Canadian patients sent down here because their healthcare system is
tanking faster than a thing which tanks very fast.
|6.26.07 @ 11:25PM|#
"They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet,"
Even if you replaced "they" with "we", I fail to see how calling
your fellow countrymen possibly the dumbest people on the planet is
anything but unpatriotic, hateful, and bigoted. In fact, I might
just consider it a weak-assed insult that prevents me from ever
listening to what Michael Moore has to say.
|6.26.07 @ 11:42PM|#
joe,
If you read what Moynihan wrote, all he's doing is repeating what
Moore said, and noting that he used the pronoun which refers to
groups one does not belong to, to refer to Americans.
Do you dispute either of those things?
Considering that the use of pronouns is a pretty basic skill for a
native English speaker, it's hard to believe that Moore just made
an obscure grammatical mistake; it's more likely that he's trying
to disocciate himself from Americans. But, that's my analysis, not
Moynihan's.
|6.26.07 @ 11:43PM|#
crimethink, I think people switch around "we" and "they"
when discussing the general public all the time, especially when
they are making a humorous point. I don't even think it's a
grammatical mistake.
I'm not crimethink, but here goes:
1) They are idiots.
vs.
2) We are idiots.
The word "they" seems to indicate that the speaker is referring to
a group that differs from himself in some capacity. The word "we"
seems to be inclusive, as if the speaker is including himself in
the statement he is making.
Well, I'm sure you'll argue with that, joe, but I thought I'd
try.
|6.26.07 @ 11:47PM|#
MJ,
A lot of the blame for liberals going ape-shit whenever someone's
patriotism is called into doubt has to be laid at the feet of the
right-wing zealots who claim that anyone who disagrees with them is
anti-American.
There are times when it's totally appropriate to question someone's
patriotism, for instance, when they call their countrymen the
stupidest people on the planet. But unfortunately the Coulters and
Hannitys of the world have given the liberals an excuse to dismiss
criticism of some of their, well, unpatriotic comrades.
Grotius|6.26.07 @ 11:49PM|#
Anyone have a link to the Daily Mirror article? That would seemingly solve the issue righ there.
jhn|6.27.07 @ 12:08AM|#
++tarran
Rent-seeking is a definite problem in nearly every industry.
Allowing nurses to perform more roles would also alleviate a lot of
the cost of medicine in the US. As 21st Century "nurses" are
probably better-trained and more able than most 19th Century
doctors. You just have to drop the magic word "doctor."
However, I still maintain (as detailed in this thread )
that the increasing accuracy with which we can predict medical
problems, coupled with other issues like adverse selection and
asymmetrical information, means that the cost of "insurance" for
certain people will gradually approach what the cost of their
outright care would have been in the first place-- or at least
increase until it becomes unaffordable. One market "solution" to
this is to provide funny money insurance which somehow covers
nothing and is prone to being retroactively cancelled. I think
Moore's movie does a service in pointing out this kind of bogus
coverage. Unlike him, I don't blame greed or bad guys-- I think the
result is simply the inevitable working out of economic forces. But
it's there nonetheless.
We're not talking about market failure in toothpaste here.
Insurance is a weird-o financial instrument and I don't see how it
can ever be profitable to supply cheap medical insurance to the
sickly, cancer-prone and poor.
The market is happy to provide insurance on a leaky boat. It does
so at the cost of one boat.
highnumber|6.27.07 @ 12:13AM|#
Not in the Mirror's online archives. They don't seem to go back that far.
Edward|6.27.07 @ 12:17AM|#
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-life.html
"The position of the United States is one of the major surprises of
the new rating system," says Christopher Murray, M.D., Ph.D.,
Director of WHO's Global Programme on Evidence for Health Policy.
"Basically, you die earlier and spend more time disabled if you're
an American rather than a member of most other advanced
countries."
The WHO cites various causes for why the United States ranks
relatively low among wealthy nations. These reasons include:
In the United States, some groups, such as Native Americans, rural
African Americans and the inner city poor, have extremely poor
health, more characteristic of a poor developing country rather
than a rich industrialized one.
The HIV epidemic causes a higher proportion of death and disability
to U.S. young and middle-aged than in most other advanced
countries. HIV-AIDS cut three months from the healthy life
expectancy of male American babies born in 1999, and one month from
female lives;
The U.S. is one of the leading countries for cancers relating to
tobacco, especially lung cancer Tobacco use also causes chronic
lung disease.
A high coronary heart disease rate, which has dropped in recent
years but remains high;
Fairly high levels of violence, especially of homicides, when
compared to other industrial countries.
Grotius|6.27.07 @ 12:31AM|#
highnumber,
Yeah, I could never find anything but a second-hand account of the
Mirror article. Anyway, I simply wondered whether he was referring
to Americans as a whole or a group of Americans.
Edward|6.27.07 @ 12:44AM|#
tarran, honey
Thanks for the link to the Wikipedia article on rent seeking. How
do you propose to deal with rent seeking? Have the state outlaw it?
Ah, but that would be government intervention, wouldn't it?
|6.27.07 @ 4:18AM|#
I would never question a person's patriotism, but its a known fact Libertarians are slightly more patriotic than Democrats and Republicans.
jhn|6.27.07 @ 7:35AM|#
Grotius-- you're right if all you mean is that tradesmen are
always free to band together to voluntarily limit supply.
But government action is needed to prevent third parties from
entering the market. The tradesmen might be able to sell their
goods ("I'm an AMA doctor!") to the public as being superior to
non-cartel goods, but their market control cannot reach the point
of actually preventing competition through legal means without some
government involvement.
|6.27.07 @ 8:28AM|#
Is this the same World Health Organization that ranks Cuba as a
good country for health care?
As far as Moore's patriotism, it is not possible to attack what
does not exist.
Moore has made a large fortune selling bs to American suckers for
years. If he is finally called for doing so, well schills generally
do wake up to a con.
|6.27.07 @ 8:57AM|#
I think when you really get down to it, the problem with the US
system is that it makes disease profitable, and thus desirable. For
a healthcare company to prevent a sickness is to rob itself of the
profits that can be made by treating it.
And if there are no real diseases going around, you make some up:
"depression", "ADD", "erectile disfunction", etc.
Xanthippas|6.27.07 @ 9:07AM|#
As far as Moore's patriotism, it is not possible to attack
what does not exist.
If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, so is attacking
someone else's patriotism. Seems odd that a man who hates his
country would spend so much of his own time and money trying to
change it for what he thinks is the better. Speaking of
which...
I would never question a person's patriotism, but its a known
fact Libertarians are slightly more patriotic than Democrats and
Republicans.
A "known fact" eh? I'd like to see a citation for that. Wishing for
police to leave you alone and for big corporations to run free
across the land, does not necessarily a patriot make.
kohlrabi|6.27.07 @ 9:17AM|#
Joe,
Please. That you see claims of anti-patriotism there doesn't mean
it exists. What's plainly in front of my eyes is exactly what I've
said in my previous post. It's you who is manufacturing some other
meaning. Comparing me to a political spin doctor does little to
hide that.
|6.27.07 @ 9:44AM|#
I think when you really get down to it, the problem with the
US system is that it makes disease profitable, and thus desirable.
For a healthcare company to prevent a sickness is to rob itself of
the profits that can be made by treating it.
Whereas, a govt bureaucracy or govt contractor never has any
incentive to make work for itself? For our public school system,
low test scores and student ignorance are good news, since these
things never fail to bring calls for more money for the schools.
For the military-industrial complex, overseas threats are good for
business, which is one reason they want us to be messing around in
as many troubled regions of the world as possible, making as many
enemies as possible.
And if there are no real diseases going around, you make some
up: "depression", "ADD", "erectile disfunction", etc.
ADD is indeed debateable, but clinical depression and ED are well
documented phenomena.
Now, I would agree that there are a lot of people who aren't really
sick who get treated for these problems, but that doesn't mean that
the problems don't exist for any of them.
|6.27.07 @ 9:51AM|#
If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, so is
attacking someone else's patriotism. Seems odd that a man who hates
his country would spend so much of his own time and money trying to
change it for what he thinks is the better.
Yeah, Michael Moore is a true bastion of self-sacrifice. Even after
all his valiant, tireless efforts to change America for the better,
he hasn't gotten a single dime, or an extra minute of media
attention in return.
Sarcasm aside, I have no reason to doubt someone's patriotism
because of their good-faith efforts to make our country better.
Criticisms of US govt policy, or even trends in our society, are
the lifeblood of our freedom and vibrancy. However, to lump all
Americans together and flat-out insult us, while implicitly
excluding oneself from that insult, is not the mark of a
patriot.
VM|6.27.07 @ 9:52AM|#
"and for big corporations to run free across the land"
tweet!
foul!
overextension. That's the "corportarian" position.
|6.27.07 @ 10:14AM|#
Well, crimethink and MJ, since Moynihan didn't think it
necessary to provide any context for Moore's statement, I guess
we'll never know what point, or joke, he was making.
kohlrabi,
Please. That you see claims of anti-patriotism there doesn't
mean it exists.
In case you haven't noticed, pretty much everyone else on the
thread sees the rather obvious smear of Moore's patriotism, too.
Most of them are endorsing it.
I guess there are none so blind as those who will not see.
|6.27.07 @ 10:16AM|#
Whereas, a govt bureaucracy or govt contractor never has any
incentive to make work for itself? For our public school system,
low test scores and student ignorance are good news, since these
things never fail to bring calls for more money for the
schools.
A valid point, but we know that legally a corporation serves one
purpose - to make money for its shareholders. I don't think that a
government entity exists for the stated purpose of making work for
its employees, even if it sometimes happens.
I mean, it's really doubtful that school system employees
intentionally try to lower test scores of their students. But
there's no doubt that HMO's intentionally try to make as much
profit as possible.
|6.27.07 @ 10:48AM|#
It is true that nurses are better educated with higher skill
levels than ever before, and could probably pick up a lot of the
work that we currently see doctors for. However, it's also true
that there is an ongoing shortage of nurses that is likely to get
worse because of the current demographic shift -- the population is
getting older and requiring more health care, but baby boomer
nurses are themselves getting older and retiring. Not to mention
there are regional shortages of other types of healthcare
professionals such as physical therapists, and nurses are often
tapped to do their work.
Of course, physical therapists have struggled and won the fight to
make a PhD entry level for their field -- having the barrier to
entry raised so high it's no surprise we're getting shortages there
as well.
There will always be struggles over scope of practice boundaries
between healthcare professions. Doctors don't want nurses doing
their work, and neither do physical therapists. Dentists don't want
hygeinists doing their work. Never mind that dental care is among
the most difficult for poor and rural people to access. It seems
that dentists just don't want to live in the hinterlands and don't
want to accept medicare and medicaid.
|6.27.07 @ 10:59AM|#
Dan T,
Are you saying HMOs profit from disease? Their best customer is one
who never has to see his or her doctor. You might want to think
about that again.
|6.27.07 @ 11:05AM|#
carrick,
I am familiar with the use of the term "single payer" to refer to
the government taking over the role of health insurance
providers.
Whether people pay out of pocket for services above and beyond what
the Single Payer would cover differs from plan to plan.
The Wine Commonsewer|6.27.07 @ 11:07AM|#
Walter Reed comes to mind.
And let us recall who owns and runs Walter Reed. Why it's none
other than the government. The same government that all the lefties
want to administer all of our health care.
kohlrabi|6.27.07 @ 11:13AM|#
Joe,
"In case you haven't noticed, pretty much everyone else on the
thread sees the rather obvious smear of Moore's patriotism, too.
Most of them are endorsing it."
That's entirely irrelevant. FWIW, I think they're wrong as well,
but that's beside the point. I will stand by my first statement
until I see compelling evidence to the contrary. The original
comment was a slam against Michael Moore for claiming all people in
a given set are stupid when he in fact belongs to that set. Whether
the set is American or Male or what-have-you means nothing to me.
MM is the one who identified it. Quoting Proverbs has as much value
as comparing me to a spin doctor.
This is all very tiresome. Simply, your claim that Moynihan's
article was bogus because of a weak slam on Moore's patriotism
holds no weight given what Moynihan actually said. That you and 96%
of commenters supply addition meaning and context doesn't change
that. Ad Hominim attacks don't change that. Quoting Proverbs
doesn't change that.
Consider:
"and calling Caucasian Men, which he clearly doesn't count himself
among, stupid ("They are possibly the dumbest people on the
planet," he told the Daily Mirror)"
"and calling Michiganders, which he clearly doesn't count himself
among, stupid ("They are possibly the dumbest people on the
planet," he told the Daily Mirror"
"and calling Adults, which he clearly doesn't count himself among,
stupid ("They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet," he
told the Daily Mirror)"
Moynihan's statement has essentially the same meaning.
The Wine Commonsewer|6.27.07 @ 11:16AM|#
I'm going to run by Moore's house on the 4th of July and see if he's flying Old Glory.
|6.27.07 @ 11:18AM|#
The thing speaks for itself: saying that someone "doesn't even
consider himself an American" is not only obviously a shot at his
patriotism, it is so obviously a shot at his patriotism that it
could appear in a reference book as an example of an attack on
someone's patriotism.
All you've done is tease out the language behind this shot at
Moore's patriotism.
This is the type of thing that you have to try really hard not to
understand.
|6.27.07 @ 11:21AM|#
Crimethink,
ADD is indeed debateable
Not really. To say so would require ignorance of how behaviorally
based disease categories are defined and diagnosed.
It may be a diagnosis that is difficult to make and over used, but
the actual disease is quite real.
|6.27.07 @ 11:25AM|#
I was going to go off on this post, but I see that Grotius has
covered things nicely. I have been quite impressed with Mr.
Moynihan's ability to lower the level of discourse on Reason.
I am surprised he is allowed to post/write here. And it is not like
Reason has the highest quality standards around.
|6.27.07 @ 11:29AM|#
Joe, for fuck's sake, drop the patriotism bit.
It's annoying and brings nothing to a discussion about American
health care.
|6.27.07 @ 11:30AM|#
And let us recall who owns and runs Walter Reed. Why it's none other than the government. The same government that all the lefties want to administer all of our health care.
Yes, but that's the evil, right-wing, gay-hatin'
armed-to-the-teeth, racist government. Not the warm, fuzzy,
loves-you-for-who-you-are government.
kohlrabi|6.27.07 @ 11:34AM|#
Joe,
Again with the assertions. I'm afraid this is going nowhere as I
believe my prior post makes my case and I don't want to repeat it
since there is nothing new to address.
"This is the type of thing that you have to try really hard not to
understand."
Couldn't have said it better myself.
|6.27.07 @ 11:34AM|#
No, mediageek, it's the underfunded, unprepared, cost-cutting,
"privatized" government.
The operations that Walter Reed hase been carrying out for decades
- the in-patient serives provided in the main buildings - have been
and continue to be excellent.
The scandal has been in the new out-patient facilities...
Wait, are all of these details boring you? OK, yes mediageek,
government bad. Bad bad bad. Government government government.
|6.27.07 @ 11:43AM|#
joe,
You're correct that Walter Reed is technically run by a private
organization. However, a private company with the govt as its only
customer will suffer from all the same lack-of-competition problems
that plague govt agencies, and it typically performs at least as
badly, and quite possibly worse than, an agency of the govt
itself.
So, I don't see the Walter Reed situation being relevant for either
side of the arg.
|6.27.07 @ 12:00PM|#
Evidence is important in this discussion.
There is not a lot of good evidence out to support either side of
the debate. The World Health Organization provides the best attempt
at providing that evidence.
It is the best place to start.
http://www.who.int/whr/2006/en/index.html
http://www.who.int/whr/2006/annex/06_annex3_en.pdf
expenditures
http://www.who.int/whr/2006/annex/06_annex1_en.pdf
basic outcomes
http://www.who.int/hrh/documents/whr06_background_papers/en/index.html
More detailed analysis
http://www.who.int/hrh/documents/inequality_access_measurement_issues.pdf
A look at the difficulties measuring inequality of access
I do not think health care is a federal problem, but one for the
states. But that is just my opinion. 50 single payer systems
competing for outcomes make more sense than a Canadian style
system, but tracking outcomes will be an important role the feds
can provide.
|6.27.07 @ 12:10PM|#
crimethink,
I agree, Walter Reed is not relevant. Nobody is proposing
nationalization of medical care.
|6.27.07 @ 12:16PM|#
Dan T,
Are you saying HMOs profit from disease? Their best customer is one
who never has to see his or her doctor. You might want to think
about that again.
You are correct, for whatever reason I stuck "HMO" in there when I
was kind of talking about the healthcare industry as a whole.
StealThisOpinion|6.27.07 @ 12:33PM|#
I think that showing that photo of the man in Cuba only serves to futher illustrate the point that that our healthcare system is worse than that...maybe not on the same level...but on the level that not everyone is afforded access to it.
LarryA|6.27.07 @ 12:58PM|#
In my opinion, such anecdotal examples are of very limited
value when assessing national healthcare policy.
Moore:
A story about someone from Ireland with a problem with the Irish
healthcare system = irrelevant anecdote.
A story about someone from the U.S. with a problem with the U.S.
healthcare system = science.
I liked Moore through Bowling for Columbine.
It's interesting that how brilliant Moore is is inversely
proportional to how much the viewer knows about the subject.
VM|6.27.07 @ 1:34PM|#
highnumber | June 26, 2007, 4:23pm | #
I liked Moore through Bowling for Columbine. Not that I agreed with everything he said or did, but I found him amusing, even thought provoking at times. Everything seemed to go downhill from there. Last few years, he's just been a shrill nut.
How does anything Highnumber says contribute to that opinion?
|6.27.07 @ 8:48PM|#
crimethink: From what I see most of the time liberals whine
about insults to their patriotism, what actually was being
criticized was their wisdom and judgement. Nothing puts a
legitimite critic off his game like fake self-righteous
indignation.
joe: A fuller version of Moore's quote renders the they/we thing
moot:
"They are the dumbest people on the face of the earth...in thrall
to conniving, thieving, smug pricks...We Americans suffer from an
enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening
outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing."
On the other hand, I think it makes even more hateful. I mean, yes,
the American political class sucks, but I don't think they are any
appreciably worse than any other Western country.
What I really don't understand joe is how you think Moynihan's
writing about what Moore said is beyond the pale of civil
discourse, but Moore's comment is defensible.
|6.28.07 @ 1:40AM|#
Hell, maybe I'm naive but anecdotal or not, those pictures of the Cuban nursing home are severely beyond the pale. I'm sure there are abusive and neglectful nursing homes in the U.S., but I find it hard to believe there are any as bad as those. The conditions in that nursing home are beyond unsanitary. They are positively squalid.
|6.28.07 @ 2:53AM|#
Vanessa,
I would say not maybe... you are naive.
4 pictures does not tell much of a story about a nursing home, let
alone an entire health care system. I am sure someone could come up
with equally horrific pictures somewhere in the US. The facility
would be in a nicer building, of course.
|6.28.07 @ 11:18AM|#
If I were trying to make a comprehensive argument about the
quality of a healthcare system, and if the quality of my argument
might actually have material consequences for said system, I would
not rely on a few photographs. So certainly, I would not base a
comparison of two healthcare systems on a few photographs.
But I think that 4 pictures as horrific as these tell a big story
about that particular nursing home. But if you're so committed to
keeping an unbiased stance...well good for you I guess.
As for what these photos have to say about Michael Moore and his
praise of the Cuban system relative to ours, to say the least, they
are suggestive that he did not do an adequate job of attempting to
disconfirm his argument that Cuba's system is better. If he
attempted it at all, that is.
Anyhow, as is common for me I bothered to comment when a thread is
effectively dead.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245