New at Reason
Michael Moynihan files a review of Michael Moore's SiCKO—shortly before being rushed to the hospital.
Comments to "New at Reason":
joe | June 22, 2007, 3:18pm | #
"The online leaking of Sicko, his new documentary on the American health care system, was an "inside job," he said."I believe him. I'm sure it was.
Pro Libertate | June 22, 2007, 3:26pm | #
Sigh. Moore still exists? Why? I'm always disturbed when people buy his nonsense without reservation. I mean, even if you want to nationalize healthcare, the guy is still misrepresenting the facts and lying to a degree that should make you wonder whether he plans to join the Bush administration.B.P. | June 22, 2007, 3:32pm | #
I can't even get past the first paragraph of this review -- the movie has been "leaked" to the internet, but Michael Moore stows the master copy in Canada to prevent the U.S. gov't from seizing it?Good thinking....
D.A. Ridgely | June 22, 2007, 3:35pm | #
As I just mentioned elsewhere, Moore would make the perfect running mate for Cynthia McKinney on the Green ticket.jimmydageek | June 22, 2007, 3:36pm | #
thoreau | June 22, 2007, 3:29pm | #5, 6, 7, 8, I'll put out some troll bait!
From where will you pull it out, T?? Oh wait, I don't want to know... :/
Heh, I downloaded it and watched it the other day and I must say that though I totally disagree with him on everything he really made a good documentary this time. It is on par with Roger & Me which again I disagree with the message but feel it is very well put together. Columbine and 9/11 were really sloppy and I can't even bear to watch them again because they were so poorly put together. I think the reason that this one came out so nicely is that he really had his heart in it, much like Roger & Me.
UCrawford | June 22, 2007, 3:48pm | #
If Moore or his idiot followers think Britain have such a wonderful health care system, they should try living under it. I lived there for six years with the U.S. military and due to the dearth of military medical facilities in the region we had to use the NHS for routine medical care. The "free" public system generally consisted of long wait times (I knew Brits who were on the waiting list for two years for surgeries) and substandard care (one of my soldiers required an emergency appendectomy but the NHS simply gave him generic antibiotics and sent him home...we had to send him to a military hospital four hours away to get treated before his appendix burst. Another soldier almost died from internal bleeding because the doctors never checked for it after she miscarried). There are also hidden costs for patients and visitors (things like charging 5p per Kleenex, exorbitant parking costs in the hospital lots, charges for amenities like having a TV in the room). The condition and hygiene of the wards were also highly suspect and the Brits reportedly have a high level of infections (and deaths) from germs picked up inside the hospital. And that's not even considering the other effects of cost-cutting. Before the NHS turned dental care over to the private sector the NHS would often appoint one dentist to service 5 or 6 towns (resulting in a dearth of regular checkups). And there have been verified incidents where the NHS has refused to provide care for terminally ill patients on the grounds that there was no point in spending more money on them.The military base where I was at eventually adopted the habit of sending all soldiers to the private health care system (which was substantially more expensive) because the quality of care in the NHS hospitals was so bad.
Here's a better link about the wonders of socialism and health care than anything Moore will provide: http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html
thoreau | June 22, 2007, 3:51pm | #
You know, I'll probably go see it for entertainment. Moore is fundamentally a showman, even if he bills himself as a purveyor of truth. I can enjoy a good show full of humor and snark without agreeing with the intended message.If I don't get around to seeing it in theaters, I'll definitely Netflix it.
Xanthippas | June 22, 2007, 4:00pm | #
Moynihan is completely wrong to think that Moore's film won't have any lasting effect. And I'll be back in a few months to remind you guys of that fact.Why aren't there any major libertarian documentaries? Or are there, and I'm just missing them?
You guys are lax these days....a year ago there would have been 12 different ways of denouncing British health care due to their teeth alone by now.
Paul | June 22, 2007, 4:16pm | #
You know, I am getting increasingly tired of having to be subjected to crap like this "documentary" about healthcare systems, while I have first hand experience with an American emergency room with Canadian patients who are shipped down to the states by the Canadian government for real medical care. Add in the fact that the Canadian patients are expressing real and honest elation over the fact that they're getting American care instead of the downright shitty care they usually receive in Canada.One account from a Canadian patient detailed how his pregnant wife had to sit in a waiting room until the moment she was ready to deliver, then was discharged from the hospital at 9:00 the next morning because they simply don't have the beds available.
Xanthippas:
Moynihan is completely wrong to think that Moore's film won't have any lasting effect.
It will have a lasting effect, which is why it scares me so much.
Paul | June 22, 2007, 4:20pm | #
a year ago there would have been 12 different ways of denouncing British health care due to their teeth alone by now.Why do we have to do that when there are real and measurable ways our healthcare system is head-and-shoulders above their system?
Xathras | June 22, 2007, 4:20pm | #
Man, I'm sure glad there are no long wait times here in the good ole USofA. Why, all you need is 40,000 in cash, and you can be seen whenever you want! Oh wait, you don't have good insurance? Well, no worries, we can pencil you in in a year. Wait, NO insurance? Then the queue time is infinity, unless of course you think to go to the ER, which is like 3 times more costly, with the cost coming right out of the pockets of everyone else that has insurance... after, of course, they take your house and car and you file for bankruptcy.Yes, Moore is definitely the one not giving us all the facts, Mr. Moynihan.
The Wolverine Chicks | June 22, 2007, 4:22pm | #
We are ashamed to be from the same state as Michael Moore.Paul | June 22, 2007, 4:33pm | #
Man, I'm sure glad there are no long wait times here in the good ole USofA. Why, all you need is 40,000 in cash, and you can be seen whenever you want!Except in Canada, EVERYONE has a wait time, including those with insurance. Get it?
JasonL | June 22, 2007, 4:33pm | #
I can't stand the guy. Yes I disagree with him on almost everything. But I also disagree with his methodology. You can make anyone look like an ass when you are prepared to ambush them with a camera and they aren't ready for it.I don't really like the tactic when Sasha Cohen uses it, but at least he is just trying to get a laugh. Moore is trying to Say Something, and he apparently can't do so without stacking the deck with selective editing and ambush tactics.
Ron Bailey | June 22, 2007, 4:37pm | #
Reinmoose: You ask:Why aren't there any major libertarian documentaries? Or are there, and I'm just missing them?
Well, it's not a documentary, but the Canadian flim The Barbarian Invasions offers an touching portrayal of a dying Marxist dad, his rich London banker son, and the thoroughly dysfunctional Canadian health care system. From one review:
...one of them is taken on a wild ride through the bowels of the worst hospital (socialized, of course) imaginable. Dead bodies in the halls share gurneys side by side with live sufferers, as depleted staff members bark orders amidst a proliferation of exposed heating and cooling ducts to a degree not seen on-screen since Terry Gilliam's "Brazil."
Rémy (Rémy Girard), last seen as an unreconstructed Marxist, is now a dying fatalist who submits to this faulty hospital system because he voted for hospital nationalization and he'll deny none of his early beliefs, political or emotional.
A seriously good movie.
jp | June 22, 2007, 4:38pm | #
Why aren't there any major libertarian documentaries? Or are there, and I'm just missing them?Does Free to Choose count?
Right, Xathras. Some people don't have good insurance, and others don't have any at all. I see your point.. the whole system is screwed, so let's go ahead and turn it over to the government. They really know how to run an operation now, don't they???
Seriously, it boggles my mind that there are people out there who want their healthcare managed by the same people who run the post office and the TSA.
i'm not so sure about the whole leaking thing. figure the whole "i sent the film to canada so it could not be seized" is good chaw for, uh, people who think the government was going to seize a film by michael moore. the idea that someone or something is actively trying to sabotage him is the web 2.0 version.
Paul | June 22, 2007, 4:49pm | #
with the cost coming right out of the pockets of everyone else that has insurance...Like the Canadian system. The Canadian healthcare "syste" is the insurance, and it comes out of the pockets of everyone else. Who do you think pays for the healthcare in Canada?
after, of course, they take your house and car and you file for bankruptcy.
Two words: Charity writeoff.
Over my shoulder, sits the collections department for a major healthcare organiztion. All day long, I listen to collections calls to people who can't afford healthcare and don't have insurance. They get and got their healthcare, and if they qualify, the entire bill gets written off. Done.
Our healthcare system actually does a pretty damned good job of taking care of patients who are less fortunate. Oh, and it takes care of Canadian patients pretty well, too. Yes, I pay for it in higher insurance and healthcare costs. But I also know that there's a freaking bed waiting for me when I need it.
jh | June 22, 2007, 4:57pm | #
Reinmoose says: "Why aren't there any major libertarian documentaries? Or are there, and I'm just missing them?"The Pursuit of Happyness -- A true story made into a movie, praising a multimillionaire Wall Street stockbroker who actually repaid money given to him by a welfare agency once he got even a little bit ahead, curses the IRS for taking money out of his bank account, etc.
steveintheknow | June 22, 2007, 4:58pm | #
Ron BaileyDid you ever see the first movie,The Decline of the American Empire? Awsome as well.
Matt J | June 22, 2007, 5:00pm | #
Moore leaked it as a way to cover his fat ass opening weekend. If it tanks then it was a because of the conspiracy to subvert his message. If it is a hit then the message was to powerful to be subverted by The Man. A progressive Win/Win.I ask, if his message is so important, why wouldn't Moore release it on the internet for free? It wouldn't be because he's a dirty capitalist who puts profits ahead of people would it?
Pinette | June 22, 2007, 5:01pm | #
I need some help. I got in an argument with my liberal brother that stemmed from a discussion about this movie. I tried to argue that US health care, with all it's faults, is still better than socialized health care, and that it's faults mainly stem from government regulation. His main argument was that one of the best ways to judge a health care system is infant mortality rates, which are better in Europe and Canada than they are in the US.I realize that is grossly oversimplifies the argument, but how do you argue with that?
joe | June 22, 2007, 5:01pm | #
"Why do we have to do that when there are real and measurable ways our healthcare system is head-and-shoulders above their system?"Such as...?
And no, "I knew this guy who said..." is neither measureable, nor is it usually real.
All of the cost/benefit analyses I've seen show much better outcomes from universal systems.
joe | June 22, 2007, 5:04pm | #
Pinette,You theorize that infant mortality is counted differently in the US, and then pretend that the difference you discover is large enough to be not only statistically significant, but explain the entirety of the difference.
Rex Rhino | June 22, 2007, 5:04pm | #
Why is it, that I am expected to entertain the fact that socialized medicine in other countries is better - when I have lived under both systems and all first hand experiences tell me the contrary?I have health insurance in Canada, and I have even have supplemental health insurance in Canada in addition to the government insurance. I do not have any insurance in the United States. If I had any serious illness, I am going to the U.S. to get treatment.
I have a relative in the U.S., who has cancer. She has no money, and no insurance. She is a Canadian, and can go to Canada at any time for treatment. But she rather get treatment in the U.S..
This isn't some abstract choice. You can bet if my life is on the line, I would sell out any political ideals I had to save my life. If a loved ones life was on the line, I would abandon all political ideals to make sure they get the best treatment. The U.S. is the place to get medical treatment.
The only arguement that really matters is "what would you choose". Without a doubt, I would not choose the Euro model of government monopoly health care.
Rex Rhino | June 22, 2007, 5:06pm | #
All of the cost/benefit analyses I've seen show much better outcomes from universal systems.Have you ever lived under a "universal" system?
sage | June 22, 2007, 5:06pm | #
Pinette,I would say that it's not the *only* way to judge a healthcare system. Why, you could merely look at the number of MRI machines per 1000 people. Or the wait time to get an MRI. Or the prevalence of level 1 trauma centers. Or the level of investment by medical centers in new equipment.
BTW, I would be surprised to see many states that rank above the US in any of those.
Matt J | June 22, 2007, 5:08pm | #
Pinette,I know that one reason our rate is higher is that because of our abundance neonatal ICUs many more risky pregnancies are brought to term in the US. We have a lot of sickly/premature babies that never would have made it out of the womb in other countries.
Art | June 22, 2007, 5:10pm | #
A little late to this party but I have seen Barbarian Invasion and it is a quite good movie I would also recomend most of the work from on the fence films.http://onthefencefilms.com/
I knew a guy who said all of the cost/benefit analyses he's seen show much better outcomes from universal systems.
joe | June 22, 2007, 5:14pm | #
Because, Rex, you haven't lived in the United States as someone who cannot afford decent health care.As for hospitals being required to treat people who cannot pay, it's nice that liberals got those laws passed, but we'd really be better off if the dollars we spend to extend health care to the poor were spent more rationally. You know, like a system where they have regular medical care and their diseases are treated at an early stage.
FWIW, I've neither lived in the United States without reliable access to medical care, nor in any other country. I've always lived as one of the fortunate segment of Americans.
Rest assured we won't have universal health coverage any time in the near future. It's like immigration reform, everyone likes to talk about it, but it ain't gonna happen. The status quo still sucks though, get rid of employer provided health care and allow individuals to choose.
joe | June 22, 2007, 5:16pm | #
Matt J,"because of our abundance neonatal ICUs many more risky pregnancies are brought to term in the US"
Um, neonatal ICUs only treat babies already brought to term.
But LoL at the quip.
Pinette | June 22, 2007, 5:19pm | #
thanks for a rational arguments guys.except Joe - pretty sure he was mocking me.
Gilbert Martin | June 22, 2007, 5:23pm | #
"Except in Canada, EVERYONE has a wait time, including those with insurance. Get it?"Oh he gets it all right.
That's what he wants - everyone to be dragged down to the same level, because it's just not FAIR that some have more than others here in the unequal US of A.
sage | June 22, 2007, 5:23pm | #
[i]Um, neonatal ICUs only treat babies already brought to term.[/i]Really? They don't treat the ones that didn't make it?
Related question: Can anyone tell me what the rate of abortions are in countries with lower IMRs? You know, as compared to us?
Paul | June 22, 2007, 5:24pm | #
Why do we have to do that when there are real and measurable ways our healthcare system is head-and-shoulders above their system?"Such as...?
Canadian measurements. The Canadians have measured their own system and found it wanting. So wanting, in fact that the Canadian Supreme Court has struck the anti-private care laws down because of the very failure of the Canadian "universal" system to provide healthcare to all Canadians.
The court ruled that the waiting lists had become so long that they violated patients' "liberty, safety and security" under the Quebec charter, which covers about one-quarter of Canada's population.And no, "I knew this guy who said..." is neither measureable, nor is it usually real.
Sounds like a Michael Moore "documentary" to me.
All of the cost/benefit analyses I've seen show much better outcomes from universal systems.
That's funny, because all the cost/benefit anayses I've seen show that universal healthcare systems are the worst.
anon | June 22, 2007, 5:30pm | #
@ Pinettethe infant mortality argument has already been debunked by Slate here: http://www.slate.com/id/2161899?nav=tap3
and covered by Reason here:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119199.html
good luck
Alvin | June 22, 2007, 5:32pm | #
I have a better idea for a movie: "ANECDOTE: How individual incidents ushered in government tyranny."How about a new rule in Congressional Hearings: No anecdotal evidence allowed when debating whether to enact a new law.
Paul | June 22, 2007, 5:32pm | #
Um, neonatal ICUs only treat babies already brought to term.Define brought to term, joe. Most definitions of "brought to term" are babies born at 9 months. Many babies in a NICU are there born extremely premature. Some weigh in at less than 600 grams. 600 grams!
There is an abundance of neonatal ICU's (known as NICU's) in the U.S., and a complete lack of them in Canada, which explains why Canadian patients increasingly fill U.S. NICU's. And often times, they're the poorest and highest need patients of Canadian citizens. I wonder what might be going on there?
Paul | June 22, 2007, 5:33pm | #
*last message should have read"highest need patients from Canada"
Teach me to post while taking calls.
Matt J | June 22, 2007, 5:37pm | #
Um, neonatal ICUs only treat babies already brought to term.Right. And because we have so many of them we deliver a lot of more babies that would otherwise have been miscarried or aborted to save the mother. More sickly/premi babies in the system are a contributing factor to our higher mortality rate. I say contributing because the Euros do have a leg up on us in prenatal care. At least the lower income levels.
Glad I gave you a laugh.
Paul | June 22, 2007, 5:50pm | #
How about a new rule in Congressional Hearings: No anecdotal evidence allowed when debating whether to enact a new law.Anecdotes lie at the heart of all populist politics. Without anecdotes, populist politicians would be bereft of substance.
Matt J | June 22, 2007, 5:53pm | #
I meant to say at the lower income levels.But who cares if you make it past infancy only to die of an untreated brain tumor in your teens because your in the back of the brain surgery line?
What amazes me about Moore is the number of people, like Sharon Stone, and Roger Ebert, who think the guy hung the moon. I look forward to Moore's next doc, Hollywood Brain Trust. Talk about your entertaining fairy tales...
joe | June 22, 2007, 6:01pm | #
Pinette,I was mocking "Reason," not you.
Hmm, we seem to be using the phrase "brought to term" differently. I get it now.
shecky | June 22, 2007, 6:25pm | #
Ron Bailey:I'm finding myself somewhat sympathetic to Moore's position, after dealing with my mom's hospital stay courtesy of Kaiser Permanente, which reminded me very much of the depiction in The Barbarian Invasions. It would have been worse had we not had access to a family member in the medical field in a position to crack the whip and find better solutions.
Granted just an anecdote, but there is clearly a serious problem with American health care, and I'm loathe to find a reasonable solution that relies on a completely private system, unless one is independently wealthy.
Ryan | June 22, 2007, 7:12pm | #
A great quote from Eric Hoffer that nicely sums up power-lusting "humanitarians" like Moore:"The sick in soul insist that it is humanity that is sick, and they are the surgeons to operate on it. They want to turn the world into a sickroom. And once they get humanity strapped to the operating table, they operate on it with an ax."
LarryA | June 22, 2007, 7:15pm | #
Hollywood Brain Trust.Wow. Three words that really don’t belong together.
he stashed the master reel in Canada, lest the Bush administration try to seize it.
So Michael believes the U.S. government can plan and execute a fake 9/11, but can’t retrieve a reel of film from Canada?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to simply make fifty or so copies and spread them out? Or five hundred? I wonder if Michael backs up his computer.
I can compare the care my wife receives as an uninsured patient from our local private hospital with the care my cousin receives as a service-connected veteran dealing with the VA. It isn’t the VA that comes out on top.
D. Saul Weiner | June 22, 2007, 7:57pm | #
There is actually a great libertarian documentary about the health care system, called Hoxsey: How Healing Becomes a Crime.Mind you, it was not written and directed by a libertarian, but by a scrupulous journalist who was honest and incisive enough to demonstrate the obvious, that government intervention has devastated the practice of medicine. The focus was on the treatment of cancer, but the point was obviously more general. Do rent it on Netflix.
jhn | June 22, 2007, 8:40pm | #
First off, I've actually seen the movie. I pirated the hell out of it. I've never liked Moore for the usual reasons. But this movie was pretty good.I'm a libertarian but as I've grown older, it's more out of pragmatic concerns than ideological ones. High transaction costs, externalities, and lack of good information can all conspire to make markets fail. In such a circumstance, government action *is* needed. Either to fix the game (which it probably fouled up to begin with) so that the market can proceed as usual, or to step in and just provide the damn service itself at a loss.
Medical insurance has some curious traits. It will become less and less useful as medicine gets better and better. As doctors and actuaries are able to better predict what your actual medical costs will be, there will be much less of a "bet." Your premium will get closer to your actual cost of treatment. Imagine if we knew to a 90% certainty whether a *given* cargo shipment was going to sink to the bottom of the sea, and that there was no way to stop a shipment from proceeding based on this information. In a free market, would anyone provide insurance for a shipment 90% likely to sink at a cost much lower than the cost to replace the cargo and ship?
In short, insurance exists only because of ignorance. We spread out and average the risk. Yet actors in markets function best with more information. An efficient market in medical insurance will eventually exclude the sick and the poor. Employee and other group plans that spread costs around members are all that keeps the situation in the US from boiling over.
In the end, I think that it comes down to this: Should a person be given reasonable medical care, no matter what? I think the answer is yes. You shouldn't use the state apparatus to fund Shakespeare in the park. But it is a greater moral wrong to allow the poor sick to die than it is to tax people and take their money against their will.
The main flaw in Moore's film is that it fails to consider that the American system produces many benefits: we have the best medical technology, the best doctors, the best surgeons, etc. They're just not evenly distributed. A two-tiered system that provides a basic level of care, where decisions about what treatments are needed are never made by people with any financial stake in the matter (or maybe a voucher system), but where enhanced levels of care are available for those who pay, has a potential to get the best of both the French and the American models.
Out.
Isaac Bartram | June 22, 2007, 9:26pm | #
Hmm, we seem to be using the phrase "brought to term" differently. I get it now.Geez, joe, which part of "brought-to-term" and thus died as "infants" and were "still-born" because they were never really ever "born" do you not not get?
Because that is really the difference between how birth statistics in most of Europe and those in the US are measured. Many European countries consider babies who died in their first hours as stillbirths rather than as live births that died.
Now if you want to write that off as excessive sentimentality about human life in America (as I do) then go ahead. But don't pretend that it's a meaningful number.
Gilbert Martin | June 22, 2007, 9:50pm | #
"But it is a greater moral wrong to allow the poor sick to die than it is to tax people and take their money against their will."That is merely your personal opinion.
It's not something that you can prove.
jhn | June 22, 2007, 10:13pm | #
> That is merely your personal opinion.> It's not something that you can prove.
No. No moral arguments can be "proved" in a scientific sense. You also cannot "prove" that it is immoral to just shoot people and take their money, or that you have some scientific, laboratory-demonstrated "right" to not pay taxes. Pointing out the subjective and contingent nature of moral reasoning does not seek to advance *any* point of view, yours or mine.
PJ O'Rourke once asked, "Would You Shoot Your Grandmother To Pave I-95?" No, of course not. But I would mug someone (after paying my own share) if that were the only way to ensure medical treatment for the poor.
wsdave | June 22, 2007, 10:17pm | #
Alvin,"I have a better idea for a movie: "ANECDOTE: How individual incidents ushered in government tyranny."
Actually, that may not be a bad idea at all. We could do a documentary on the anecdotes that brought an end to slavery (if there were any), prohibition, seat belt laws, all kinds of stuff. I think it would rock.
wsdave | June 22, 2007, 10:19pm | #
jhn,"But I would mug someone (after paying my own share) if that were the only way to ensure medical treatment for the poor."
And I wouldn't think twice about killing you for it.
Gilbert Martin | June 22, 2007, 10:21pm | #
"No. No moral arguments can be "proved" in a scientific sense."It can't be proven in any other sense either.
What can be proven is that there is no ennumerated "right" to medical treatment in the Constitution.
There is also no ennumerated power delegated to the federal government in that document to mandate a socialized medicine system. And the 10th Amendment confines the federal government to ennumerated powers.
jhn | June 22, 2007, 10:22pm | #
wsdave: Ah, but we live in a world, and probably in a country, where most people agree with me and not you.You are right to observe that it all comes down to force in the end. Unfortunately, you would be on the losing side. You wouldn't be resisting me, but the police, the army, etc.
jhn | June 22, 2007, 10:29pm | #
> What can be proven is that there is no ennumerated "right" to medical treatment in the Constitution.> There is also no ennumerated power delegated to the federal government in that document to mandate a socialized medicine system. And the 10th Amendment confines the federal government to ennumerated powers.
Are you making a legal argument, or a moral one? If it is a legal one, I suppose you realize that states have plenary power, and are not limited by any enumerations. So, you win. We'll have 50 different socialized schemes, instead. (Might not be a bad idea.)
In any event, Congress would just tie it to an appropriation and mandate what the states have to do. (Not commandeering, "encouraging." Drinking age style.) Or add a sentence that the measure is "To regulate interstate commerce in medicine." Done. Constitutional muster passed. Or do you live in some alternate world of more prudent Supreme Court jurisprudence?
matthew hogan | June 22, 2007, 11:18pm | #
"There is also no ennumerated power delegated to the federal government in that document to mandate a socialized medicine system. And the 10th Amendment confines the federal government to ennumerated powers."Tax and spend for general welfare clause. Not that I agree with the clause, or socialized or subsidized medicine, or that such a scheme is mandated. But you could squeeze a discretionary socialized medicine, or at least subsidized medicine, into an enumerated power.
Not that there is anything right with that.
Isaac Bartram | June 22, 2007, 11:21pm | #
You are right to observe that it all comes down to force in the end. Unfortunately, you would be on the losing side. You wouldn't be resisting me, but the police, the army, etc.Good point. Thanks for reminding me that if I don't do what you want you'll have me killed.
Now, what, exactly, distinguishes you from any other common criminal?
Frank_A | June 22, 2007, 11:36pm | #
joe | June 22, 2007, 5:01pm | #"Why do we have to do that when there are real and measurable ways our healthcare system is head-and-shoulders above their system?"
Such as...?
And no, "I knew this guy who said..." is neither measureable, nor is it usually real.
All of the cost/benefit analyses I've seen show much better outcomes from universal systems.
joe,
I can say that all the prevenitive care already occurred before they hit the doctor's door.
Mainly, a big reason why Euros/Canadians are more healthy is that people in the US spend much of their lives with poor diets and sedentary life styles.
By age 40-50, a lot of Americans, and especially the less fortunate, ie poor, have hypertension, heart disease, hypercholestrolemia, diabetes, kidney disease, etc, etc, etc as a result of said lifestyle.
I've worked with a lot of those less fortunate, ie poor, since I am a med student at the LSUHSC/Charity hospital system (the socialized health system of Louisiana) and guess what, they're just like average joe blow American when Herr Doctor Professor asks them to stop eating all that junk food and get some exercise, they look at you like you are asking the impossible.
Hell, I bet a bunch of people in this forum are overweight, need a healthier diet, and could get more exercise (and I am guilty as any), and if someone lecturered them on the benifits of blah blah blah, it owuld go in one ear and out the other.
I know it would mine...
joe | June 22, 2007, 5:14pm | #
Because, Rex, you haven't lived in the United States as someone who cannot afford decent health care.
As for hospitals being required to treat people who cannot pay, it's nice that liberals got those laws passed, but we'd really be better off if the dollars we spend to extend health care to the poor were spent more rationally. You know, like a system where they have regular medical care and their diseases are treated at an early stage.
FWIW, I've neither lived in the United States without reliable access to medical care, nor in any other country. I've always lived as one of the fortunate segment of Americans.
I cannot reiterate how much lifestyle change would do so much and can be done even before someone hits the doctor's office...
Notice too that because of VATs in many countries, things like fast food are MUCH more expensive than here in the US, so while in say Norway people will make their own sandwiches for lunch, in the US people will go drive their car to McD's and get a Super sized Quarter pounder with that HUge-Ass ~500 calories of high-frucotse corn syrup flavored bevarage...
And people wonder why people in the US have so much damn diabetes...
kwais | June 22, 2007, 11:38pm | #
You are right to observe that it all comes down to force in the end. Unfortunately, you would be on the losing side. You wouldn't be resisting me, but the police, the army, etc.If enough of us resist, the army and the police won't be able to make us give up our liberty.
jhn | June 22, 2007, 11:40pm | #
> Good point. Thanks for reminding me that if I don't do what you want you'll have me killed.> Now, what, exactly, distinguishes you from any other common criminal?
I *would* have the tax-dodger who tries to escape from jail shot while attempting to escape, yes. Since this is a very tough burden, I would only impose taxation for very important purposes. Like, you know, health care.
As a pragmatic libertarian, if I think that if the state should tax at all, it must be only for those programs that you can countenance the state killing for. (Jailing tax-dodgers, killing attempted escapers/resisters.) Unlike many libertarians, I think that there *are* such programs. (That's where the "pragmatic" comes in.)
Do you consider the actually existing coercive states that exist and have existed in every human culture to be indistinguishable from "common criminals?" Was Queen Victoria no better than a cutpurse or murderer? This is an intellectually consistent position, though I think at odds with human experience.
jhn | June 22, 2007, 11:53pm | #
An additional clarification. It is, in my judgment, more immoral to refuse to pay taxes to support the sick poor, than it is to jail the person who so refuses.See discussion supra re: the contingent and subjective nature of all moral judgments, including this one as well as the common libertarian declaration that people somehow have a "right" to not be forced to do anything against their will.
(And yes, it should be possible to "opt out" and support some kind of charity instead, if the charity is more efficient. But whether to help at all should *not* be optional.)
jhn | June 22, 2007, 11:58pm | #
> If enough of us resist, the army and the police won't be able to make us give up our liberty.Where will this "enough" come from?
From the NY Times: "A majority of Americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every American, especially children, and are willing to pay higher taxes to do it, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
Nearly 8 in 10 said they thought it was more important to provide universal access to health insurance than to extend the tax cuts of recent years; 18 percent said the tax cuts were more important."
Of course, the majority of people might want something which is a really, really bad idea. But moral and legalistic arguments will not defeat social health care. Better alternatives might, like the two-tiered system I outlined in my original post, or maybe Cato's medical savings accounts + federal catastrophic insurance or something.
scurvy patch | June 23, 2007, 12:26am | #
Cost/benefit analysis might demonstrate that single payer systems provide better care than the U.S.'s messy dog's breakfast system but so what? Liberate insurance companies and hospitals from the state and in 20 years time I guarantee the libertarian oriented system would far outshine the creaking single payer systems, which undoubtedly, in years to come, will just gradually get worse: longer wait times/lines, aging/falling apart technology due to budget shortfalls, decreasing amounts of new and cheaper drugs available, etc. etc.LOLOLOLOL The author uses a study financed by the family of Kaiser Permenente, the biggest HMO, as evidence that Americans are satisfied with HMOs.
John Simon Beverly | June 23, 2007, 6:35am | #
Here in Sweden -the land of Mr. Moore's ill-considered dreams- the comparably few who is capable of exercising choice in matters of healthcare, faces the double financial burden of first having to pay the world's highest taxes for a healthcare that is notoriously inefficient, slow and even dangerous for patients with ailments requiring prompt intervention; then secondly, having to pay for private health care insurance with what little funds they have available after being hit with the world's highest taxes (which pays for the inefficent, "free" public health care they just opted out of, out of necessity).I believe Mr. Moore's new movie is more targeted at European audiences, in a bid to position himself on the "Anti-American American"-lecturer circuit, this ever-more lucrative lifeline for American "intellectuals" such as Moore, Chomsky et al, serving European lefties with their knee-jerk Anti-American reactions whilst charging them top dollar for the pleasure.
A truly strange form of private enterprise.
sage | June 23, 2007, 11:05am | #
Good post, John Simon Beverly....this ever-more lucrative lifeline for American "intellectuals" such as Moore, Chomsky et al, serving European lefties with their knee-jerk Anti-American reactions whilst charging them top dollar for the pleasure.
Exactly. And I bet they don't mind living and spending those top dollars stateside.
Don Curran | June 23, 2007, 11:13am | #
We know exactly how the U.S. government would run our healthcare system if given the chance. Think Walter Reed.Neu Mejican | June 23, 2007, 11:18am | #
Here is an interesting link for those that want to compare the arguments on either side of this debate.http://pnhp.org/facts/myths_memes.pdf
It is a pro-single payer article, but reviews some of the arguments being presented here (such as neonatal units, infant mortality, quality of care, cost, etc...).,
clearing the air | June 23, 2007, 11:49am | #
I think a few things are missing in this debate. The most striking is a failure to recognize that there are separate and distinguishable issues at play.There is (1) An /empirical/ question: Does our health care system work? Given the problems with information asymmetry and adverse selection and so forth, can a purely private enterprise insurance-based health care system /ever/ work to cover everyone?
Then, (2): If not, if government intervention therefore justified? Would private charity cover the market failure? Is it better, in the long run, to simply allow some people to slip through the cracks and not get care, than to decrease the average level of care for everyone? Is it too morally problematic (treating some people as means to an end) to impose a government system, regardless of what outcome may result?
J sub D | June 23, 2007, 12:18pm | #
No moral arguments can be "proved" in a scientific sense.Actally, there is serious scientific research into the basis of moral reasoning. Neurochemistry/physics, evolutionary thinking on the subject, behavioural observation and experiments on primates etc. What fruit this will bear is completely unknown. Of course, that's why the research is being done, isnt it?
Perhaps, jhn, You should rephrase that as "No moral arguments have been proven in a scientific sense." Speculating on the limitations of science can leave you with a lot of egg on your face.
Tacos mmm... | June 23, 2007, 12:26pm | #
It is, in my judgment, more immoral to refuse to pay taxes to support the sick poor, than it is to jail the person who so refuses.Is it immoral to refuse to give one of your kidneys to someone who needs one? Should you be jailed for refusing?
Just like my kidney, I'd rather have a choice as to who I give my hard-earned money to, thank you very much.
jhn | June 23, 2007, 12:26pm | #
J sub D:You are confusing explanations of behavior with justifications of what is "right." An alien from space might be able to determine why people on Earth tend to think that certain things are moral or immoral. The explanation would lay in the brain and evolution and so on, as you say.
But, to someone who does not share those same human brain structures, you will not be able to ever prove their mystical "rightness." It would be like trying to say whether an ant colony was "justified" in its actions.
Morality can be explained and understood. Humans can engage in moral reasoning with one another. But morality can *never* be "scientific" or objective. It is not a property that has any existence outside of the human brain-- and not *all* moral beliefs are universal among humans. Particularly the one libertarians often hold about there being no "right" to force them to pay taxes.
jhn | June 23, 2007, 12:32pm | #
> Is it immoral to refuse to give one of your kidneys to someone who needs one? Should you be jailed for refusing?Organ transplants are different than having to pay taxes. Giving up a kidney demonstrably decreases your health, paying a marginal fraction of your income does not.
I think a free market in organ transplants would take care of the problem in the real world, so we don't need to go down that route. The difference is that I don't think a free market works in the area of medical insurance.
Ken | June 23, 2007, 12:38pm | #
"Of course, the majority of people might want something which is a really, really bad idea. But moral and legalistic arguments will not defeat social health care. Better alternatives might, like the two-tiered system I outlined in my original post, or maybe Cato's medical savings accounts + federal catastrophic insurance or something."This is in essence the libertarians problem here, isnt it? They really don't, indeed in some way can't, have any solution to this problem. We've left it to the market, and many people go without care and many who think they have care actually don't when the chips are down, not to mention the inefficiency in our system (health care costs per capita, etc). But what can the docrinaire libertarian say to this, since we already have a private system? Make it MORE private (WTF?). I hear some talk about tort reform (but interestingly tort actions, along with contract actions, are quintessentially libertarian, individuals sue others for proven infractions of rights, government just mediates and insures payment). Face it kids, your fantasy date, the market, let ya down on this one. I realize you guys see the market as some kinda deity, but nobody's perfect, even the invisible hand...
dhex | June 23, 2007, 12:46pm | #
"Giving up a kidney demonstrably decreases your health, paying a marginal fraction of your income does not."25 to 40% of your income is "marginal?"
jhn | June 23, 2007, 12:47pm | #
> I'd rather have a choice as to who I give my hard-earned money to, thank you very much.The fact that you prefer something does not mean that others have to acknowledge that you have some "right" to that thing. I do not think there is a right to not be coerced. That does not mean that I think that all coercion is a good idea. I think that the libertarian argument is right when it comes to 90% of the issues, on a pragmatic basis. But for that remaining 10%, coerce away. Tax and spend. Jail the refusers.
Would you require me to pay taxes to support the police who defend your private property?
I am trying to demonstrate that the end point of many libertarian arguments-- that people will be jailed or shot if they refuse to cooperate with some socially-mandated program-- does not win the day. I'm fine with people being jailed or shot for refusing to pay taxes if the only way to achieve some valuable goal is through taxation. I am highly skeptical of any claims that the market cannot do X or Y. But I have become convinced, based on the evidence, that such a situation obtains in the field of health care.
Ken | June 23, 2007, 1:40pm | #
"I am trying to demonstrate that the end point of many libertarian arguments-- that people will be jailed or shot if they refuse to cooperate with some socially-mandated program-- does not win the day. I'm fine with people being jailed or shot for refusing to pay taxes if the only way to achieve some valuable goal is through taxation. I am highly skeptical of any claims that the market cannot do X or Y. But I have become convinced, based on the evidence, that such a situation obtains in the field of health care."jhn, your reasoned and objective comments are just never, never gonna get you into libertarian heaven (which most H&R'ers are working on doing).
Hey, there's Hayek dancing with Marx.
Marx:"For me this is hell, ya dig pally?"
Ken | June 23, 2007, 1:45pm | #
My favorite libertarian "solution" to health care problems are the health savings accounts, which in English means "allow people to pay for health care." Of course, the fact that we already can do this (oh yeah, but the taxes are less, whoopee, what a bold policy iniative) and it ain't working shouldn't get in the idea of a policy which is in accord with out dogmas.A much better tack for libs to take would be to just say "yeah, our free market health care system has problems, but intervention will create more and/or different problems that would outweigh any benefits." Or they could do just deny there are any problems (this is the global warming strategy). But I doubt those arguments will have much political pull as everyone knows their current health care is ineffecient, full of red tape (in a market system, say it ain't so!), and immoral to boot.
TJIT | June 23, 2007, 2:06pm | #
I find the ongoing efforts of progressives / liberals / democrats like Moore, Ken, and others on healthcare to be amusing.They are spending an enormous amount of time, effort, and caterwauling to accomplish one goal.
Put George Bush in charge of their healthcare.
Good luck with that guys and hopefully your brainpan won't detonate from the cognitive dissonance.
Lurker Jack | June 23, 2007, 2:08pm | #
jhn and Ken,Free Market in health care? In the US?
"...close to 60 percent of total U.S. health spending in 1999 - 7.7 percent of GDP - was financed through taxes"
I'm not trying to defend the current situation or even pretend to have a solution, but to your claims, I call Straw Man.
Lurker Jack | June 23, 2007, 2:20pm | #
Ken,"yeah, our free market health care system has problems, but intervention will create more and/or different problems that would outweigh any benefits."
Isn't this exactly what we've seen since the inception of Medicare? As well as the fall in the percentage of the population covered by private insurance. And the full libertarian boilerplate, if you really want to get it right, is intervention leads to more intervention 'till the whole thing is socialized. I submit that this is exactly the trend we've seen with the continued growth in the percentage of health care spending by gov't at all levels.
jhn | June 23, 2007, 2:23pm | #
I agree, Ken.The biggest problems with health insurance, which I have never seen a libertarian rebuttal to, is that insurance can only exist in a state of ignorance, and that insurance rewards those who take advantage of information asymmetry-- whether by insurance companies overcharging the inattentive and healthy, or by people lying to insurance companies in order to get cheaper coverage.
In short, health insurance isn't just another product that the market can efficiently allocate. It is a risk-spreading mechanism where every incentive pushes towards excluding the sick poor.
The incentives of insurance are good when they encourage people to not live in flood plains or to be safer drivers. But can you encourage people to not have a family history of diabetes, or to be genetically prone to cancer? All you can do is encourage people to try to be healthy, for what good that does. If you win the genetic lottery and are healthy as an ox, you shouldn't count that as a personal vindication of your achievement and merit and resent paying for those without such wonderful genes. (I, personally, haven't needed to see a doctor in 10 years.)
ps: Lurker Jack-- I don't think I ever said that we have a pure free market in the US in health insurance. I do believe that a pure free market could never cover everyone, for the reasons I've outlined. That said, we currently have the worst of both worlds and nearly *any* reform would be an improvement. Sometimes, the middle way of a regulated market is worse than both a social scheme as well as a totally unregulated market. I think a relatively unregulated market PLUS a guaranteed minimum of care for those it is not profitable to insure would go a long ways toward fixing our problem-- provided the healthy cannot "opt out" of subsidizing the sick, which is the entire basis of health insurance to begin with.
I can't really add anything to jhn. I'll sit back and watch him eat you guys lunches, all the fun and none of the calories. His advantage: he does not have to defend an ideology 100%. Ironically, folks like him (or her I guess I should not assume) are often the best friends markets and freedom have (markets are the natural choice of skeptics, unless of course they are plainly not working).
Lurker Jack | June 23, 2007, 3:20pm | #
jhn,Indeed it was not you that claimed that the US has a free market in either health care or health insurance, that was Ken and he has bowed out of the discussion.
Like you, I lean toward pragmatic solutions. My preference is that these solutions do not violate liberty. Good Things usually don't follow sanctioned theft. My complaint in this discussion revolves around the notion that there is some empirical evidence to be found regarding the likely success or failure of market solutions to the health care/insurance issues. None has been offered here.
Regarding the nature of insurance in general, one of the patron saints of libertarianism, Ludwig Von Mises, says this...
"Insurance, whether conducted according to business principles or according to the principle of mutuality, requires the insurance of a whole class or what can reasonably be considered as such. Its basic idea is pooling and distribution of risks, not the calculus of probability."
http://mises.org/humanaction/chap6sec3.asp
Thus, I must agree with your statement that "... the healthy cannot "opt out" of subsidizing the sick, which is the entire basis of health insurance to begin with"
Additionally, I agree that the middle way is indeed the worst of all possible ways. I'm certain there is a Mises quote to back that up as well but you don't really need one for agreement do you? ;)
As for market allocation of insurance, even in the relatively successful auto insurance arena we can scarcely call gov't mandated insuance a free market but it is the model that holds the most attraction for me if Something Must Be Done.
Anyway, thanks for the thought provoking commentary jhn.
Gotta run, the wife calls...
Mike Espinoza | June 23, 2007, 3:32pm | #
I can't wait to download it. Then delete it.I'll just wait until it comes on the Sundance channel. Then, I'll DVR it, then delete it.
me | June 23, 2007, 8:55pm | #
jhn-But can you encourage people to not have a family history of diabetes, or to be genetically prone to cancer?
Yes.
Just kill all their children... (See Margaret Sanger...)
(After all, if you would kill "tax resisters" that are a 'drain' on your government- why is this any different?)
me | June 23, 2007, 8:59pm | #
Ken-can't really add anything to jhn. I'll sit back and watch him eat you guys lunches
A ".edu" email? Tee hee!
I'll worry about you when mommy and daddy quit buying your lunches...
Ken | June 23, 2007, 9:27pm | #
Me-I'm a professor jackanape, and at a private college. So don't worry about my mommy and daddy buying me lunches, as you and you're kids will be bringining mine and my kids lunches too us (hat tip to Good Will Hunting)."Indeed it was not you that claimed that the US has a free market in either health care or health insurance, that was Ken and he has bowed out of the discussion." Sorry if I was simplistic, of course there are government dollars in our health care system. But my point holds: we of course have LESS government in our health care system than say Sweden, Norway or France, but we have more uninsured and inefficiency. If government is the problem that's hard to square.
jn | June 23, 2007, 9:58pm | #
"American students, Moore says, are saddled with debt and, thus, “won’t cause [employers] any trouble"—he ignores a recent report from the British Medical Association suggesting that, by their fifth year of medical school, British students “have accumulated an average debt of” $39,000."and what would the equivalent average for five years of medical school be in the US? i imagine an order of magnitude higher
popinjay | June 24, 2007, 12:15am | #
"Me-I'm a professor jackanape, and at a private college. So don't worry about my mommy and daddy buying me lunches, as you and you're kids will be bringining mine and my kids lunches too us (hat tip to Good Will Hunting)."Obviously not a professor of English.
"Sorry if I was simplistic, of course there are government dollars in our health care system. But my point holds: we of course have LESS government in our health care system than say Sweden, Norway or France, but we have more uninsured and inefficiency. If government is the problem that's hard to square."
Nor of economics. Maybe ethnomusicology?
One problem with some of these arguments is they fail to address long-term longitudinal issues. What direction are the single payer systems going? Start from their inception, and even before that - to the political economic conditions that made it possible for them to arise, and trace their trajectory. Is the system getting better or worse? Similarily, look at the U.S. system from this longitudinal viewpoint. As more controls have been added each year, has the system become more efficient or less efficient? That's the angle we need to take to understand whether government intervention is beneficial or not.
Guy1138 | June 24, 2007, 12:41am | #
Me-I'm a professor jackanape...as you and you're kids will be bringining mineHey professor, it's your. I'll have ham on rye, k thanks.
grumpy realist | June 24, 2007, 1:39am | #
As I've said before, health insurance falls in the class of those things where we're trying to cover EVERYONE.And a lot of people, although they might be ok with charging more for results from one's own obviously self-endulgent behavior (smoking, gross obesity), there's less willingness to penalize people for things that are beyond their control (genetic history).
Libertarians would probably get better reception for their ideas if they figured out a way to fix the present messes in the system--such as the health insurance companies suddenly stopping coverage, or refusing to pay out on contracts already provided, or the incessant haggling as to whether treatment X is covered or not. Don't just say "oh, the market will take care of it", because to the average American the market HASN'T been taking care of it.
Unless the market fixes the problems associated with itself damn quick other people, i.e., government--will jump in and "fix it" for them.
And would all those of you who whine so much about paying taxes please move to a country where there ARE no taxes and shaddup already about it? Of course, these will be countries like Ethiopia, the Sudan, or Iraq, and you'll probably end up paying protection money to the local warlords, but AT LEAST YOU WON'T BE PAYING TAXES so you will be totally happy, right?
Neu Mejican | June 24, 2007, 4:02am | #
Traded anecdotes regarding health care with a group of Americans and Canadians over dinner tonight.Results: Canadians were pretty satisfied, Americans weren't. Stories from occasionally Americans horrified Canadians. Canadians couldn't come up with any stories to horrify the Americans.
Just another random data point.
Mr. Blather | June 24, 2007, 4:38am | #
shecky:Your point about Kaiser Permanente is well taken, even by Michael Moore.
I've seen a copy of the film and if viewers pay careful attention during Sicko they will note that almost all of the most horrific cases of mistreatment and non-payment Moore describes are related to Kaiser Permanente.
The title could easily be changed from Sicko to "Sucko: The Kaiser Permanente Story."
Ken | June 24, 2007, 9:22am | #
Most professors in anything don't concentrate a lot on grammar and spelling, we have grad students to clean that crap up. Even if we did, we might not put a lot of concentration into message boards (though I would admit that for many on this board that may be the most intellectual thing they do all day, so spit and polish is called for I guess). But seriously, a great deal of wisdom is found both within and without academe, I was just responding to 'me's' snark.I think this debate is not so hopeless for libertarians, I just enjoy poking fun at the more doctrinaire ones because many points run contrary to their dogma (government=bad, private=good) and the mental gymnastics that ensue are fun to watch.
There are several indicators that we can measure a health care system, and it is plain that on some, like innovation and quality, the US system, which is more market based than most 1st world nations, is excellent. This is no suprise, inequality and markets actually breed innovation and quality (at and for the top though) in most areas.
On other indicators we do poorly. If you think everyone should have basic care, or that a person who has genetic disease but is not well off should still get care, we suck. And this is no suprise either, markets don't seem ideal for things that we think everyone has a basic right to (even the most dogmatic libs usually don't advocate private police [poor people fend for youselves!]).
Popnjay's comments are neat, but not balanced out. We could also take as an indicator how many people are covered or get health care, and if we do that then increasing government is actually highly correlated to rising coverage. And he still has to explain, mighty economist that he is, why a system with LESS government controls and intervention (the US) has higher problems in many areas than comparable ones that have MORE controls (Europe). I don't have to explain that because I can admit that markets are neither magical nor mystical, but that they are beneficial yet at times flawed social arrangements.
I understand that your readers' Libertarian positions does not permit for any government programs such as universal healthcare but the fact is that Michael Moore (hate him or love him) is right that the system sucks and is much like FEMA was during Katrina and that the PRIVATE sector (that is Private Enterprise) in this case is ripping the american public off. One way or another to compete in the global economy healthcare will have to be paid by the government. Eventually the private sector will demand it to compete.
plunge | June 24, 2007, 11:34am | #
"The main flaw in Moore's film is that it fails to consider that the American system produces many benefits: we have the best medical technology, the best doctors, the best surgeons, etc."That's because we pay by FAR the most money. And seem to get diminishing returns.
The reality is that no matter what you think, the insurance companies are way way too entrenched and powerful for them to ever go away. Whole towns are built on them, and you'd better believe that Senators and Congressman aren't going to let their local economies go into the sweet night over a national insurance plan.
This situation is a lot like education. There may or may not be some sound economic reasons for market failure. But the mere fact that you decide that the government should fund and regulate something is not the same as proving that the government should actually RUN the schools, or the insurance programs, etc. That's a huge and unwarranted leap of logic.
J sub D | June 24, 2007, 11:59am | #
The argument that everybody deseves "affordabe" or government proveded health crae, presupposes that evrybody deserves something. I'm not a doctrinaire libertarian, but it IS obvious that any increase in personal security comes saddle with a commensurate loss of freedom. Is it the gov'ts responsibility to feed, clothe, house, and provide health care for all?At what cost? In both dollars and loss of freedom.
Again, I'm not sure you can so easily say that we have market failure here. You can say so if you mean that a great deal of people have no or comparatively poor coverage. Markets don't bring equal results to everyone. But in some way the market in health care is working, providing innovative techniques and top doctors and many services that the public demands but would never be funded in a nationalized system (cosmetic surgery or viagra come to mind). We just have to decide, should health care be like police protection (where we feel everybody should get equal access and levels of protection) or like housing (where we accept inequality and the fact that some go without). I also agree with plunge that jumping from funding/regulating to running may not be warranted, though I am unsure what that implies (I'm guessing something like block grants to many different systems?).
I suppose one could also throw the "chickenhawk" argument back at Moore and ask him to forego paying for a fancy insurance plan or otherwise paying for health care out of his own pocket, become a British, Canadian or French citizen, and, should he or any of his children need an operation, they can wait in line like everyone else.
If something has to be done, I would much rather have the various states do various programs (or not) for a few years before anything is done at the federal level, so we can all see what works best.
Neu Mejican | June 24, 2007, 1:58pm | #
I am with Cesar on this one.Seems like a state level responsibility rather than federal even if you believe in single payer. The feds should only be involved in setting minimal standards of care or other goal setting activities. No direct involvement.
Part of me agrees with Cesar and Neu Mejican, but then I think of Mississippi and what they'd force on their citizens, and I'm unsure. If part of the whole push is to create more equality of opportunity in health care, having 50 plans may not do that.
Ken, don't you really think the federal government has enough on its plate (and in its budget) to take on health care? Again, do you really want George W. Bush or one of his appointees running our healthcare system?
jost | June 24, 2007, 5:22pm |