Michael Moore's New Movie On Healthcare

Here is the trailer for the new Michael Moore movie, SiCKO about the American health care system:





While I am not a fan of Michael Moore at all, this movie seems kind of interesting, and should be interesting to members of ImmInst, I would think.

I wonder if Moore addresses the implications of the RAND Health Insurance Experiment, which suggests that most of the healthcare we consume doesn't do us any good.

I'll be at this the day it opens in Austin, 'course I've always counted Michael Moore as hero

There's a lot of interesting stuff going on in healthcare, a lot of policy issues seem to be coming up.

Here are two stories that may be of interest:

5/24/07: CBS: Schwarzenegger Touts Health Plan In Silicon Valley

5/25/07: LA times: Clinton offers health proposal

I am not sure how Micheal Moore could tie into these proposals...but I am pretty sure he'd have something to say.

Take care.

interesting post Live [thumb]

the current state of health care is unbecoming of an advanced society, we need to PREVENT pathologies before they arise and destroy us not after. even with the best physicians in the world and state of the art equipment we're still putting the cart before the horse.

which why many people on imminst insist on popping 500 pills a day. [lol]

I wonder if Moore addresses the implications of the RAND Health Insurance Experiment, which suggests that most of the healthcare we consume doesn't do us any good.

Advanced, do you have any information/links on that?

I wonder if Moore addresses the implications of the RAND Health Insurance Experiment, which suggests that most of the healthcare we consume doesn't do us any good.

To start, I feel I can say one thing for sure; and that's the following: if the amount of US resources and energy was spent trying to solve health care problems rather than seek to find WMDs that didn't exist, we'd probably be in much better shape than we are right now in that area; and I highly doubt that Michael Moore would disagree with me on that point.

I think there's something pretty commonsense that many might agree is probably the best way to help us determine how to figure our way through these health care issues most efficiently; although some may disagree...

I tend to think that it's probably best to first ask doctors what they think -- they're the ones that work with real life patients, right? Once you get a consensus among physicians, you can likely move to the next stage a little bit more safely on what might seem to be firmer ground.

News Source: UPI



Published: May 24, 2007 at 9:36 PM
Analysis: Docs back Clinton plan
By ROSALIE WESTENSKOW
UPI Correspondent

WASHINGTON, May 24 (UPI) -- Presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., presented a seven-part plan Thursday aimed at lowering healthcare costs -- a roadmap that several doctors deemed encouraging.
The proposal focuses solely on cutting costs, which Clinton identified as one of three areas critical to healthcare reform.

Addressing students and faculty at the George Washington University Medical Center in Washington, Clinton said she would outline at a later time the other two key components of her reform agenda, improving quality and covering the uninsured.

Clinton acknowledged her first rocky encounter with healthcare reform during her tenure as first lady but said she won't make the same mistakes this time around.

"I have tangled with this issue before, and I've got the scars to show for it, but I learned some valuable lessons from that experience," Clinton told attendees. "One is that we can't achieve reform without the participation and commitment of healthcare providers, employers, employees and other citizens who pay for, depend upon and actually deliver healthcare services."

Public attitudes have shifted as well, with healthcare emerging as one of the paramount issues of the day and one that affects every American -- a fact Clinton is banking on to help build support for her plan.

"I think we finally have a recognition (of healthcare problems)," she said. "Everyone sees there is an economic imperative to rein in cost, there is a moral imperative to extend coverage to all Americans and there is a practical necessity to promote wellness and prevent illness wherever possible."

The senator laid out seven steps to mitigate costs: increase disease prevention, convert from paper to electronic medical records, provide comprehensive care for chronically ill patients, eliminate insurance discrimination, create a "best practices" institute, drive down prices for prescription drugs and reform medical malpractice.

All together, Clinton estimates her plan would lower national healthcare spending by $120 billion, or $2,200 per family.

Physicians at the event expressed enthusiasm for the plan.

"Senator Clinton is right on the money, so to speak, of identifying waste in the system," Richard Becker, CEO of the George Washington University Hospital, told United Press International. "Our resources are not used efficiently."

Unnecessary treatment riddles the system and often causes more harm than good, Clinton said, pointing to a California-based study that found one in every five X-rays and lab tests were performed simply because earlier results were unavailable.

Similarly, The Atlantic Monthly reported a $15,000 surgery that is routinely performed to prevent strokes showed no evidence of lessening risk for two-thirds of the patients who received it.

Clinton's plan to translate the old paper records kept by many practices into electronic documents would help alleviate some of this waste and constitutes one of the most important elements of the proposal, said Jim Scott, dean of the GWU School of Medicine and Health Services.

In order to push hospitals toward implementing electronic recordkeeping, Clinton's plan allocates $3 billion in federal money to help fund the switch. A lack of national organization has been the key factor holding many doctor's offices and hospitals back from using health information technology, Scott said.

"The problem here is compatibility," he told UPI.

Different electronic record systems often cannot communicate with each other, making it ineffective for many medical organizations to use them because they can't be shared between offices or hospitals.

"Wouldn't it just be better if we had some (government) mandate that all these systems 'talk' to each other on the same level?" Scott asked.

But some large organizations, most notably GWU's Medical Faculty Associates, have successfully implemented an electronic system with positive results.

"It has dramatically improved our practice from a patient perspective and from a physician perspective," said Stephen Badger, CEO of MFA, an academic, multi-specialty group practice.

The new system allows MFA to handle payments, test results, prescriptions and many other documents electronically. And it costs less. Healthcare claims made electronically cost 85 cents each, compared with $1.60 for paper claims.

Prevention received perhaps the greatest attention from Clinton, who emphasized the lack of pre-emptive care in today's healthcare system.

"Our country spends only an estimated 1 to 3 percent of national health expenditures on preventive healthcare services and health promotion per year," Clinton said. "That is about the same percentage we spent in the 1920s."

This system leads to higher costs and more health problems, said Matthew Mintz, associate professor of medicine at GWU.

"Our current system is very reactionary," Mintz told UPI. "If we set up a system that encourages (preventative) behavior, I think that we'd all be better off and costs would go down."

Clinton pointed to insurance companies as one of the main culprits behind the lack of pre-emptive care.

"Many insurance companies won't pay for someone who's pre-diabetic or who's been diagnosed with diabetes to go to a nutritionist to learn how to eat properly, to get preventive medicine or to go to a podiatrist to have their feet checked," she said. "But the companies will pay if you have to have your foot amputated."

Not surprisingly, insurance companies disagree.

"For a very long time, the (insurance) industry has had a very strong focus on prevention," said Mohit Ghose, vice president of public affairs for America's Health Insurance Plans, a trade group representing insurance companies. "There are millions of Americans that today have access to disease management programs that our industry has basically pioneered."

I am not out here advocating Ms. Clinton's plan because I don't know enough about it.

I haven't really looked into the details of Mr. Schwarzenegger's plan either.

I have, however, tried to study some behaviors when it comes to these types of issues, and it seems there is often some disagreement among licenced health care practitioners. Should we perhaps seek more opinions from more doctors to get a better understanding of these issues?

It seems supply and demand may play big roles in the costs of health care -- and even where you live may be an important factor (i.e. if you don't live in a big city with huge hospitals, many of the most advanced techniques many not be available). There's an example available from this post.

The following is a short excerpt from an article written by Denise Grady from the New York Times:

March 28, 2007
Call to Increase M.R.I. Use for Breast Exam
By DENISE GRADY

Two reports being published today call for greatly expanded use of M.R.I. scans in women who have breast cancer or are at high risk for it.

The recommendations do not apply to most healthy women, who have only an average risk of developing the disease.

Even so, the new advice could add a million or more women a year to those who need breast magnetic resonance imaging — a demand that radiologists are not yet equipped to meet, researchers say. The scans require special equipment, software and trained radiologists to read the results, and may not be available outside big cities.
...

Peace and love, dudes.

As a non-American, I'm not clear on what all the debate is about. Can someone summarize briefly?

From my perspective, I just pay a mandatory percentage of my salary into the Japanese national health insurance scheme. I'm sure there are issues, especially as the population ages, but overall it seems quite equitable and everyone is covered, regardless of their level of wealth. I can go to any medical institution I choose for treatment, and each year I get a free comprehensive medical checkup, blood tests, review, etc, to spot any issues.

As a non-American, I'm not clear on what all the debate is about.  Can someone summarize briefly? 

From my perspective, I just pay a mandatory percentage of my salary into the Japanese national health insurance scheme.  I'm sure there are issues, especially as the population ages, but overall it seems quite equitable and everyone is covered, regardless of their level of wealth.  I can go to any medical institution I choose for treatment, and each year I get a free comprehensive medical checkup, blood tests, review, etc, to spot any issues.

None of that kind of stuff is available in the US.

Basically, in the States, for the majority of people (I say "majority", because some are funded by Medicare or Medicaid, the government medical funding for the very old or the very poor), you have to be covered by medical insurance to be medically covered. This is (usually) accomplished through the employer of the person. The insurance agency has an active stake in keeping the patient as underfunded as possible to ensure as much profit as possible. (if you live in the US, you are always hearing horror stories about HMOs and pre-approvals) In addition, there are very few actual medical insurance providers, and most have bought off the politicians so as to make things as easy as possible for themselves. The US is very low (comparatively) in lots of things including the WHOs ranking of countries with healthcare, infant mortality, and life expectancy in relation to other developed countries.

All that being said, there is a fairly big debate going on in the US right now to perform more universal healthcare as the type you address. I am not necessarily in favor of that approach, although I don't think it would be any worse than what we have going on right now.

I, personally, am of the opinion that all of the bad effects are because the free market is not allowed to operate. (and the system is a government run monopoly) I am sure that is not the view Michael Moore takes (being more liberal than myself on economic issues; I am pretty much a libertarian at heart), but I still think the documentary will bring up some very good points on how exactly the system is broken.

Edited by Live Forever, 27 May 2007 - 07:15 AM.

Thanks for the summary LF,

... universal healthcare as the type you address. I am not necessarily in favor of that approach
...
I, personally, am of the opinion that all of the bad effects are because the free market is not allowed to operate. (and the system is a government run monopoly)

How would a laissez-faire free market health care system work, and would it benefit and strengthen society? What if you are unemployed or working in a low-paying job? There seems to be a certain class of services and infrastructure that are best provided by the government.... (not that I have any evidence, its just a feeling) What countries have very good health care systems? What do they do right?

Thanks for the summary LF,

... universal healthcare as the type you address. I am not necessarily in favor of that approach
...
I, personally, am of the opinion that all of the bad effects are because the free market is not allowed to operate. (and the system is a government run monopoly)

How would a laissez-faire free market health care system work, and would it benefit and strengthen society? What if you are unemployed or working in a low-paying job? There seems to be a certain class of services and infrastructure that are best provided by the government.... (not that I have any evidence, its just a feeling) What countries have very good health care systems? What do they do right?

The country rankings that Michael Moore was using in the above video was the World Health Organization's ranking, which can be found here: http://www.photius.c...ealthranks.html

Apart from that, I believe that other rankings can be taken into effect, including infant mortality: http://www.geography...y_Rate_aall.htm

...and Life expectancy per country: http://en.wikipedia....life_expectancy

Using the WHO's ranking (which Michael Moore was going by in the above clip), France is the best, but going by other factors, there might be others that are better. )

Edited by Live Forever, 27 May 2007 - 07:23 PM.

To start, I feel I can say one thing for sure; and that's the following: if the amount of US resources and energy was spent trying to solve health care problems

Who needs lots of money to improve the health of the population? Close all the McDonalds, ban cigarettes, etc.

As is true in other areas of life, when considering the population as a whole, the vast majority do not not wish to take responsibility for their own actions i.e. in this case health. Hell even a large percentage of cancer patients (who one would think would be highly motivated) rather than being willing to do whatever it takes to get well, want to have someone else "fix them".

The health care system i.e. the gov't can't create physical wellness any more than the gov't can create social wellness.

Another question to ask is how do we ensure that individuals are accountable for their own health? I think we can all agree that no one wants to take care of someone who abuses him/herself. For example, smokers and people who eat horrible diets. There has to be some element of personal responsibility with any health care plan.

The health care system i.e. the gov't can't create physical wellness any more than the gov't can create social wellness.

Scott, as a physician do you agree with my description of our current state of affairs as more curative than preventative? and that we're on our way to a more prevention based approach to pathologies?

Scott, as a physician do you agree with my description of our current state of affairs as more curative than preventative?

Ya...treating disease vs preventing it. (let's skip the word curative). Sure there are some exceptions.

and that we're on our way to a more prevention based approach to pathologies?

It would be nice, though I'm not sure it will happen.

Why? Well a lot of illness has....mental/emotional component. This is taken for granted in traditional chinese medicine which has been around for....thousands of years, but barely acknowledged in most traditional western medicine.

There is also the analogy I provided. The mentality of this society...currently is that people want the state to take care of them...no they demand it is a right.

Another question to ask is how do we ensure that individuals are accountable for their own health?  I think we can all agree that no one wants to take care of someone who abuses him/herself.  For example, smokers and people who eat horrible diets.  There has to be some element of personal responsibility with any health care plan.

I agree totally, but if you transfer your analogy to other areas of society and see how well this has worked in those areas...

Michael Moore on Real Time with Bill Maher talking about the movie SiCKO, (only the first part has him, the rest is just the rest of the show for anyone that wants to watch the rest of it; Ron Paul is on in the discussion section):

Part 1:




Part 2:




Part 3:

Edited by Live Forever, 27 May 2007 - 11:17 PM.

Michael Moore on Real Time with Bill Maher talking about the movie SiCKO, (only the first part has him, the rest is just the rest of the show for anyone that wants to watch the rest of it; Ron Paul is on in the discussion section):

Part 1:




Part 2:




Part 3:

Here are my rough thoughts on this issue:

Whenever an offer exists when something of value is exchanged for something else of value, both parties should probably take a really close look at both items (or services in some cases) before officially agreeing to the exchange.

There's a reason why I suggested going back to the doctors to get a consensus first, then moving to step two.

Okay, I know of some cases where said individuals aquire health care insurance such that a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) offers because that's what their friend told them to do, or perhaps that's what their employer offered them as complimentary as an additional partial exchange in addition for pay for their works' duties when in fact said individuals expected to get what a preferred provider organization (PPO) offers. What's the difference between an HMO and a PPO and does Mr. Moore cover this in his new film?

And it seems some individuals actually are indeed covered by an HMO AND a PPO (one may be primary coverage, the other secondary, and both may have different deductibes and co-pays [both for ER and office visits]). However, likewise and similar to other types of exchanges, if one isn't paying close attention to details, one might walk away from a deal dissatisfied with the outcome -- and I do not think that every single case should be blamed on where supply and demand curves happened to intersect and an insurance agent took a consumer's dollars where another such agent could have the done the same.

Hey, why not subsidize auto insurance while we're at it? Or how about other types of insurance? Well, some might suggest that it's because we are dealing with human health we should perhaps treat these issues differently than we might approach auto insurance; uninsured motorists do seem to cause unecessary harm; and I believe the State of California has mandated that all drivers have auto insurance, why not mandate health care insurance too? These do indeed seem to be difficult issues to tackle.

Also, here's another issue that I might consider to be important to note: the best doctors seem to want to work in the United States. Why? Because the US is where they may get the most for their hard work. Let us not forget that in addition to finishing a college education (~4 yrs), a medical doctor must finish medical school (~4 yrs), then complete a residency (~3 yrs)...and that's not all. And schooling isn't free either. So once you get to the point where you have government subsidized health care insurance, you are likely to have the best doctors and nurses leaving the country. Is this what we really need?

Take care.

Edited by adam_kamil, 30 May 2007 - 08:53 AM.

Universal healthcare is a bad idea for the U.S. For starters it would be way too expensive and we would never be able to afford it. European countries have a much more homogeneous population so they can get away with it, but it still sucks. The U.S. government is talking about legalizing 12 million illegal immigrants. Who do you think is going to pay for their healthcare? The taxpayer will have to foot the bill. Many of the 47 million uninsured are immigrants or their children. We are importing a million legal immigrants a year. Most of them are relatively poor and end up among the uninsured. Universal healthcare is not free, someone has to pay for it. It is just common sense that you can't have open immigration and a welfare state. It is unfair to the people who work hard to have the government take their wealth and give it to newly minted immigrants. We already have massive welfare programs. If we let the government run the healthcare it will only increase inefficiency and waste. Costs will become hidden or they will be transferred to the taxpayer. In countries with universal healthcare, the wait times for treatment are horrendous. Universal healthcare will kill innovation because all treatments are ultimately based on money. The government will most likely f*ck everything up as opposed to helping. One thing I have learned about economics is that its principles are very counterintuitive. What should we do to improve healthcare? Abolish health insurance altogether. I am serious about this too. Insurance makes healthcare more expensive. If it was pay as you go, we would cut out all the middle men. Market based system will beat out a socialist system everytime. We just need to allow the market to work. In the long run it would be much cheaper.

Universal healthcare is a bad idea for the U.S.  For starters it would be way too expensive and we would never be able to afford it.  European countries have a much more homogeneous population so they can get away with it, but it still sucks.  The U.S. government is talking about legalizing 12 million illegal immigrants.  Who do you think is going to pay for their healthcare?  The taxpayer will have to foot the bill.  Many of the 47 million uninsured are immigrants or their children.  We are importing a million legal immigrants a year.  Most of them are relatively poor and end up among the uninsured.  Universal healthcare is not free, someone has to pay for it.  It is just common sense that you can't have open immigration and a welfare state.  It is unfair to the people who work hard to have the government take their wealth and give it to newly minted immigrants.  We already have massive welfare programs.  If we let the government run the healthcare it will only increase inefficiency and waste.  Costs will become hidden or they will be transferred to the taxpayer.  In countries with universal healthcare, the wait times for treatment are horrendous.  Universal healthcare will kill innovation because all treatments are ultimately based on money.  The government will most likely f*ck everything up as opposed to helping.  One thing I have learned about economics is that its principles are very counterintuitive.  What should we do to improve healthcare?  Abolish health insurance altogether.  I am serious about this too.  Insurance makes healthcare more expensive.  If it was pay as you go, we would cut out all the middle men.  Market based system will beat out a socialist system everytime.  We just need to allow the market to work.  In the long run it would be much cheaper.

I am not sure whether or not universal healthcare is a good or bad idea for the US.

I'll just try to re-state what I tried to say earlier; and that's the following: on matters of healthcare it is likely a good idea to first gather a consensus among healthcare leaders; and I believe that there are no higher authorities on matters of health than the doctors, nurses, &c. -- professionals who work with real life patients on day to day bases.

It seems that since health care professionals also have the health of their patients in their conscience, they also tend to like to also stay out of what may seem to be polarizing political issues such as these and tend to prefer to stick to the evidence. It was 375 B.C. when Plato said: "Power over persons is so dangerous a thing that only those who can be trusted, do not want it." That might be why issues of health have historically been difficult to handle politically.

My ambitions are not for political office, so I've tried to keep out of this debate when it comes to specifics. I have noticed that many politicians tend get nasty when they feel their positions may be threatened. I try to take the highest road I see; although sometimes I feel I may need a guiding light (does that sound overly religious?).

Take care.

Edited by adam_kamil, 29 May 2007 - 10:23 PM.

Thanks for the summary LF,

... universal healthcare as the type you address. I am not necessarily in favor of that approach
...
I, personally, am of the opinion that all of the bad effects are because the free market is not allowed to operate. (and the system is a government run monopoly)

How would a laissez-faire free market health care system work, and would it benefit and strengthen society? What if you are unemployed or working in a low-paying job? There seems to be a certain class of services and infrastructure that are best provided by the government.... (not that I have any evidence, its just a feeling) What countries have very good health care systems? What do they do right?

The country rankings that Michael Moore was using in the above video was the World Health Organization's ranking, which can be found here: http://www.photius.c...ealthranks.html

Apart from that, I believe that other rankings can be taken into effect, including infant mortality: http://www.geography...y_Rate_aall.htm

...and Life expectancy per country: http://en.wikipedia....life_expectancy

Using the WHO's ranking (which Michael Moore was going by in the above clip), France is the best, but going by other factors, there might be others that are better. )

I am sorry but none of the measures above provide any worthwhile measure of healthare in a country.

* The first thing to consider is criteria used to determine the WHO ranking. Arbitary and biased I would think.
* Second, reliability of data, some countrys are masters of deception when reporting their figures. They fudge them beyond recognition.
* Third, special circumstances will affect the data eg. a country at war or with a high traffic mortality rate will show poor average lifespan.
* Fourth, economic status, ie. in some countrys, 99% have terrible health care and 1% have excellent healthcare (and in others it is 99 excellent and 1% terrible, or even 100% average and the 100% average may win over the other 2 despite not being particuarly good), which is the true representative? If choosing a country to live in, you would need to consider your economic status.
* Fifth, Native populations and recent immigrants usually fare worse than the rest of a population and will bring the average down for the rest.
* Sixth, Countrys with large amounts of people with poor lifestyle (smoking, overweight, drinking, inactivity etc) have a greater load on healthcare - it doesn't mean that the healthcaer is not good.

There is simply no easy ranking especially as the reason for wantng to know will affect the ranking. As for Michael Moore, I would not take a thing he says at face value as he has been shown to directly lie and decieve in his past productions and only ever presents a single viewpoint.

Universal healthcare is a bad idea for the U.S.  For starters it would be way too expensive and we would never be able to afford it.  European countries have a much more homogeneous population so they can get away with it, but it still sucks.  The U.S. government is talking about legalizing 12 million illegal immigrants.  Who do you think is going to pay for their healthcare? 

Who do you think pays for their healthcare now? There is a clause in the law that states that hospitals have to treat people in certain conditions regardless of weather they can pay or not. You hear about mexican women coming to the US to have their babies born on american soil, guess who pays for that? Illegals also tend to take jobs that others would not normally do such as construction. A lot of illegals get hurt in construction accidents since they are considered expendable, guess who pays for those emergency room visits? Illegal alien children also need a lot of healthcare and guess what, hospitals don't turn them away either, guess who pays?

The taxpayer will have to foot the bill.  Many of the 47 million uninsured are immigrants or their children.  We are importing a million legal immigrants a year.  Most of them are relatively poor and end up among the uninsured.  Universal healthcare is not free, someone has to pay for it.

We are already paying for it. If the government took control we could at least get these high hospital fees under control and actually save ourselves money by regulating the system more instead of paying sky high fees for accidents and last minute births.

It is just common sense that you can't have open immigration and a welfare state.  It is unfair to the people who work hard to have the government take their wealth and give it to newly minted immigrants. 

I agree wholeheartedly with you on this. Our immigration policy is out of whack and needs some serious help in order for problems like these to be dealt with.

We already have massive welfare programs. 

agreed

If we let the government run the healthcare it will only increase inefficiency and waste. 

Our system is pretty borked right now. There are actually a number of ways efficiency and waste could be brought under control if the government took things over.

Costs will become hidden or they will be transferred to the taxpayer.  In countries with universal healthcare, the wait times for treatment are horrendous. 

Canadian healthcare has a huge problem with this. Other countries have things more under control, besides if we did more preventative in a government controlled system that alone would catch things earlier before they reach a critical mass.

Universal healthcare will kill innovation because all treatments are ultimately based on money. 

Utter BS. It does not matter where healthcare innovation happens as long as the treatments end up here as well. Pharmaceutical companies want you to believe that you pay high prices on prescription drugs to help fund their research and tell you that if they didn't price their research in there they would stop researching new medicines, this is BS as well. The United States ends up subsidizing drug research for other countries because other countries will bargain to allow certain drugs in their country. Other countries end up with the same quality drugs that we develop but at a fraction of the cost. If we put a stop to this and regulated it more we would stop being raped on pharmaceuticals.

The government will most likely f*ck everything up as opposed to helping.  One thing I have learned about economics is that its principles are very counterintuitive.  What should we do to improve healthcare?  Abolish health insurance altogether.  I am serious about this too.  Insurance makes healthcare more expensive.  If it was pay as you go, we would cut out all the middle men.  Market based system will beat out a socialist system everytime.  We just need to allow the market to work.  In the long run it would be much cheaper.

You suggest to cut out healthcare insurance? What happens the day you end up with cancer but can't cough up the money you need for treatment? Nearly 1/3 of all bankruptcies are caused by outrageous medical bills due to something unforeseen and lack of coverage. Without insurance you could get screwed ten ways from Tuesday if something were to happen that you have no control over.

i'm very conflicted on the issue.

For one, in principle, I'm against a universal healthcare system because people really do need to be responsible for their own actions. I have major medical insurance, and I self pay for minor routine tests etc.

On the other hand, the health care system in this country is already completely broken. Sometimes 50% of health insurance costs go to administrative costs of the insurance provider, which is fucking ridiculous (pardon my french). Also the hoops physicans currently have to jump through, and the time they get with patients as dictated by the insurance providers are equally absurd.

Ask me my opinion again in a few years when I am a physician and I'll have a better one. )

This just in:

The New York Times: News Source



May 29, 2007
Obama Offers Health Care Plan
By ROBIN TONER

IOWA CITY, Iowa, May 29 — Senator Barack Obama proposed a major overhaul of the nation’s health care system today, aimed at covering the nearly 45 million uninsured Americans, reducing premium costs for everyone else, and breaking what he asserted was “the stranglehold” that the biggest drug and insurance companies have on the health care market.

Mr. Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, in a long-awaited speech on a signature issue for his party, acknowledged that similar efforts to create universal coverage had failed in the past, “crushed under the weight of Washington politics and drug and insurance industry lobbying.”

But he added, “This cannot be one of those years.”

Mr. Obama would pay for his plan by allowing President Bush’s tax cuts for the most affluent Americans — those making over $250,000 a year — to expire. Officials estimated that the net cost of the plan to the federal government would be $50 billion to $65 billion a year, when fully phased in.

The Obama proposal includes a new requirement that employers either provide coverage to their employees or pay the government a set proportion of their payroll to provide it. Similar requirements have proven intensely controversial in the past, notably in 1993-94, when the health care plan proposed by President Bill Clinton went down largely because of a small business backlash.

Obama advisers said the smallest businesses would be exempt from this requirement. The advisers said that those business might have under 15 employees, but that no number has been set.

Mr. Obama would create a new public plan open to individuals who cannot get group coverage through work or the existing government programs, like Medicaid or the State Childrens Health Insurance Program. He would also create a National Health Insurance Exchange, a regulated marketplace of competing private health plans that would aim at “reforming” the private insurance market and giving individuals other, more affordable options for coverage.

Under the Obama plan, the federal government would reimburse employer health plans for the cost of catastrophic health expenditures, to break the cycle of one seriously ill employee driving up the premium costs of what is often a small group. Because of this and other cost-containment proposals, Mr. Obama estimated his plan would save the typical family up to $2,500 a year in their health insurance costs.

The Democratic candidate threw down the gauntlet to the big insurance companies, asserting he would investigate the increasing concentration and monopolization of the industry. “And where we do find places where insurance companies aren’t competititive, we will make them pay a reasonable share of their profits on the patients they should be caring for in the first place,” he said. “Because that’s what’s the right thing to do.”

Mr. Obama’s speech was a marker in several ways. He has been criticized in recent months for a lack of specificity and policy heft, particularly on health care. It is also his first major foray into an area that is widely considered the home terrain of his leading opponent for the Democratic nomination, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The plan also shows his willingness to tap into a long line of Democratic policy thinking; it reflects elements of plans put forward by the Clintons, by Senator John Kerry in his 2004 presidential campaign, and by his rival, Senator John Edwards, earlier this year.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

A substantial portion of the people who are currently uninsured could get insurance either through medicaid or by buying it themselves. These people don't because A) they don't care or B) they don't want to spend their money on health insurance. There is always going to be a portion of people like this. Some people just don't take care of their health. I don't think universal healthcare will change this that much.

The emphasis belongs on the moral principle. Universal (socialized) healthcare is not just impractical and destructive, it is unquestionably immoral. Healthcare is not a right, it is a value. A universal healthcare plan is forced redistribution of wealth (stealing) plain and simple. As with most of what is commonly referred to as ‘human rights’, socialized healthcare requires the violation of legitimate rights (property rights in this case). Not only does socialized healthcare rob people of their property, it robs people of the option to purchase the quality health services that could have existed otherwise.

There is no question that healthcare in the US is in trouble, but the threat of Universal healthcare is far greater than the possibility of it remaining the same. The solution to the problem does involve addressing a few different issues, but it is not remarkably complicated. Overregulation is the largest part of the problem by far. Health insurance is not a bad thing per se if it is private and subject to no regulations. In this case the natural state of health insurance would simply be a catastrophic health plan, serving the same purpose as car insurance. Many of the health insurance plans people use today were created and managed by the government and have the effect of inflating healthcare costs by immunizing health service and drug costs to market forces. Malpractice lawsuits would also need to be addressed. There is no reason why the cost of healthcare would remain as high as it is currently when these, and maybe a few other, concerns are addressed. Basic health services can be affordable regardless of whether a person is insured.

If such technologically advanced anti-aging therapies as can be developed in the future are ever to come into existence and become reasonably affordable it will only happen in the context of a free market healthcare society. It is unreasonable and naïve to think that such technologies would be refined and distributed to the public by a healthcare bureaucracy. If such technologies are developed in the first place, in spite of there being dramatically less incentives to do so, only market forces can take an initially expensive and new product and turn into an easily affordable commodity.

If such technologically advanced anti-aging therapies as can be developed in the future are ever to come into existence and become reasonably affordable it will only happen in the context of a free market healthcare society. It is unreasonable and naïve to think that such technologies would be refined and distributed to the public by a healthcare bureaucracy. If such technologies are developed in the first place, in spite of there being dramatically less incentives to do so, only market forces can take an initially expensive and new product and turn into an easily affordable commodity.

I need a clapping emoticon, well said Rasputin. [thumb]

life extending technologies will almost certainly go to the rich and powerful first like everything else in a capitalist economy, just like I have yet to see a poor person with a 60 inch plasma tv.
although I think it's interesting to note that lab rats could make out FAR better than their predecessors did. I can see people lining up in droves to "test out" a new anti aging drug. I've said this before and I'll say it again, but people would sell their firstborn to have even a CHANCE at living longer and in good health. middle age women everywhere dream of their youthful beauty and vitality; men are no different, people justify it through religion or other crap, but the fact remains.....people will give ANYTHING to become young again.

rest assured there will be a company that makes google look like chump change when REAL anti- aging comes around.

The emphasis belongs on the moral principle. Universal (socialized) healthcare is not just impractical and destructive, it is unquestionably immoral. Healthcare is not a right, it is a value. A universal healthcare plan is forced redistribution of wealth (stealing) plain and simple. As with most of what is commonly referred to as ‘human rights’, socialized healthcare requires the violation of legitimate rights (property rights in this case). 

Do you believe that we do not have forced redistribution of wealth already going on in this country? There are really far too many redistributions for me to even get into here. Hell even our tax system is based on the idea (although it does not really achieve it) of taxing the rich at a higher rate in order to pay for services that the poorer need. You want to talk about violation I feel violated every time my money is redistributed to contractors in Iraq since there is no justification for us being there in the first place. The whole redistribution argument is a wash, there are too many good and bad arguments for it.

Many of the health insurance plans people use today were created and managed by the government and have the effect of inflating healthcare costs by immunizing health service and drug costs to market forces. Malpractice lawsuits would also need to be addressed. There is no reason why the cost of healthcare would remain as high as it is currently when these, and maybe a few other, concerns are addressed. Basic health services can be affordable regardless of whether a person is insured.

I concur wholeheartedly, these are issues that truly do need to be addressed. The cost of healthcare is ridiculous and there are far too many BS lawsuits that go through the system.

If such technologically advanced anti-aging therapies as can be developed in the future are ever to come into existence and become reasonably affordable it will only happen in the context of a free market healthcare society. It is unreasonable and naïve to think that such technologies would be refined and distributed to the public by a healthcare bureaucracy. If such technologies are developed in the first place, in spite of there being dramatically less incentives to do so, only market forces can take an initially expensive and new product and turn into an easily affordable commodity.

I do not follow you on this. Anti-aging therapies are not covered by insurance now so what is the difference? These technologies will be developed and there will always be a market for them.

Wootwoot,

It seems as though you accept that redistribution of wealth is bad thing to begin with, so where is the logic in saying that a given case of it, in this case a massive one that will possibly outweigh all of the others, is somehow less bad because the practice is already rampant? Also, although I don't agree with many of the military adventures that we're engaged in right now, that isn't a case of wealth redistribution.

I do not follow you on this. Anti-aging therapies are not covered by insurance now so what is the difference? These technologies will be developed and there will always be a market for them.

I agree that anti-aging technologies will likely be invented, simply due to the hardwork of dedicated individuals developing them for selfish (in the morally virtuous sense of the word) reasons. But even so, the chances of us seeing them in our lifetimes depends heavily on whether they can be developed so as to be available and affordable, and this process requires the forces of competition and supply/demand. If medicine in the US is nationalized than it will not just be a question of whether people want them, it will be a question of whether the healthcare bureacracy wants us to have them.

Wootwoot,

It seems as though you accept that redistribution of wealth is bad thing to begin with, so where is the logic in saying that a given case of it, in this case a massive one that will possibly outweigh all of the others, is somehow less bad because the practice is already rampant? Also, although I don't agree with many of the military adventures that we're engaged in right now, that isn't a case of wealth redistribution.

There are good causes and bad causes that redistribution of wealth goes to. A working healthcare system that is run by the government is what I would consider a good use of such resources. How are unprovoked military actions not redistributions of wealth? Everyone knows that Cheney and Bush are in with the companies that just happen to be rebuilding Iraq, they are redistributing to their pals.

I agree that anti-aging technologies will likely be invented, simply due to the hardwork of dedicated individuals developing them for selfish (in the morally virtuous sense of the word) reasons. But even so, the chances of us seeing them in our lifetimes depends heavily on whether they can be developed so as to be available and affordable, and this process requires the forces of competition and supply/demand. If medicine in the US is nationalized than it will not just be a question of whether people want them, it will be a question of whether the healthcare bureacracy wants us to have them.

I don't understand. How are forces of supply and demand making anti-aging technologies more available? Again your health insurance now does not pay for such things so what difference does it make if a national health plan didn't pay for them either? Breast implants are not covered by health insurance and many women (and men) want them so they go out and pay for them on their own dime. I don't see how anti-aging medicine will not be the exact same.

There are good causes and bad causes that redistribution of wealth goes to. A working healthcare system that is run by the government is what I would consider a good use of such resources. How are unprovoked military actions not redistributions of wealth? Everyone knows that Cheney and Bush are in with the companies that just happen to be rebuilding Iraq, they are redistributing to their pals.

I disagree. Redistribution of wealth (between citizens of the US) is wrong, regardless of the reasons or goals, simply because it is a violation of property rights. The government is in place soley for the protection of individual rights, with property rights being the single most important one (because without property rights no other rights can be secured, ie. if you do not own the products of your life, you do not own yourself). There is no case in which the government may rightfully engage in the violation of individual rights.

What the Bush administration is doing in Iraq may rightly be considered unjust and corrupt, but it is not redistribution of wealth (what you are referring to would be considered cronyism).

I don't understand. How are forces of supply and demand making anti-aging technologies more available? Again your health insurance now does not pay for such things so what difference does it make if a national health plan didn't pay for them either? Breast implants are not covered by health insurance and many women (and men) want them so they go out and pay for them on their own dime. I don't see how anti-aging medicine will not be the exact same.

It depends in part on how medicine is regulated, or not regulated. Here are three ways it could play out;

1. If the state decides that they will be responsible for all health and medical services than it is possible that such technologies will never become available. This is because under state regulation of medicine invention and innovation is severly curtailed; the state will focus only on the most economical treatments available. Companies will not invest heavily on R&D for experimental treatments because the state would not likely be willing to reimburse them for it given that they would only approve a therapy that is relatively cheap. As much as you might think that there would be an overwhelming demand for such technologies to be available ask yourself this; where is that support now (yes, women love their face creams and lifts, but anti-aging medicine is still largely controversial). Also, look at who was previously serving as the Chairman on the President's Council on Bioethics; Leon Kass, outspoken critic of anti-aging medicine. Do you really want to hand your medical decision making power over to people like this?

2. If a national health plan is instituted, but the state allows for some private medicine to coexist outside of the plan, than a new therapy may develop in a similar way to how it would today. This is not a likely scenario, as the government will normally view this as conflict of interest on the basis of 'fairness' (wouldn't want people who can afford better healthcare to have it), or because many doctors will not tolerate being forced into the position of government employee. There are other reasons I'm sure, I haven't looked into it that much. One thing is for sure, it is not common for countries with socialized medicine to tolerate private medicine, and it is common that once a country intitutes socialized medicine many of the best doctors will either quit practicing or flee to freer lands.

3. If socialized medicine is not instituted, and the government releases its stranglehold on medicine (ie. deregulates), than the development of all areas of medicine will eventually flourish and be affordable for anyone. This is not wishful thinking; anyone willing to take the time to understand what factors keep the costs of medical services and drugs inflated will understand this. I do not think that we have even seen the horizon of what medical technology could be in a free market. Techonology is progressing today, but slowly due to the heavy burden of regulation, and it is virtually unaffordable. Socialized medicine would be the straw to break the back of any hopes of the kind of fantastic technologies that could save the lives of millions of living people.