As I’ve noted before, my writing on the issue of health care essentially boils down to the fact that I watched “Sicko” and think okay, we should fix that. Republicans, to a man, all propose some complicated system that eventually screws over citizens and leaves HMOs even richer. The three leading Democratic candidates, however, have all now proposed a plan to get healthcare for everyone. Yes, there’s all kinds of niggling little policy details differing between the three. Clinton’s plan does “X”, Obama covers “Y” and Edwards provides care for “Z”. I honestly don’t care.
The three leading candidates all support a major overhaul of our health care infrastructure in favor of the American citizen. An issue that simply wasn’t on the table in 2000 and 2004 is now a central element of the next election and the Democrats are on the right side and the Republicans are on the side of having a third class system in a first class country. I know I’m a chronic about not caring about these wonky things, but oh well. I can’t get excited over one plan or another because they’re all on the same side.
> Clinton: America’s Health Choices Plan
> Obama: Creating a Healthcare System that Works
> Edwards: Universal Health Care Through Shared Responsiblity
Of course, Michael Moore’s movies leave convenient facts out, which is why his films should not be called documentaries.
I’ll just point to one item. In the film, a guy from Canada vacationing in Florida rushes back to Canada when he needed health care. Moore presents in such a way that the guy did it because the care in Canada is so much better than in the US. The real reason why he did it is because Canada’s government system doesn’t travel.
On and that $110 billion cost? Let’s triple that. For starters. Any one of these plans is going to cost massive amounts of money and merely repealing the tax cuts to the top levels that were implement in 2000 will not be enough. Not even close.
Wow, great commentary Jay!!! So the guy had to rush back to Canada for his medical emergency. Is that you bashing on Canada’s system or the US’s?
I didn’t watch the movie, but it seems to me the guy probably went back to Canada because he couldn’t afford the exorbitant cost of the US medical system. Just logically, that would appear to be the main reason. Incidently, what happened when the guy rushed back to Canada? Did he have to wait for 2 months to get an appointment like righties always tell us or what?
The current system, which gives uninsured people no preventive care, instead giving them ultra-expensive emergency room care, is much more expensive, Jay. Have you ever seen how much Japan spends per person? France? Way less, for better outcomes.
But if we provide health care for our citizens, we might not have any money to keep fighting useless wars. Won’t you please think of the wars, Victor???
I do love war. When we go over 50% of the world’s military spending, I plan to throw a party. Right now we’re at 49, baby!!!
I didn’t watch the movie, but it seems to me the guy probably went back to Canada because he couldn’t afford the exorbitant cost of the US medical system.
No, he went back because his government funded health care would not cover any treatment he got in the United States.
Just about any healthcare plan you get here covers at least emergencies if you travel outside the country.
France’s health care system has its own problems. France has unemployment rates reaching near double digits, and their taxes amount to nearly 45% of GDP as opposed to 26% here.
I’m not opposed to a better system than we have now. But nothing comes for free, another lie that Moore tells in ‘Sicko.’ It’s going to cost and these pie in the sky figures people are throwing out are nonsense. Medicare was only going to cost $80 billion a year and look where that’s at.
Are any of the Democratic candidates going to discuss means testing? And I when I say means testing, I am not just talking income, but assets as well.
France’s health care system has its own problems. France has unemployment rates reaching near double digits..
Blah, b-blah, blah blah blah…
France counts as unemployed only those people who are actively seeking a full-time job unlike say, HERE, where part time mc-jobs are counted and for the dupes who fail to cite such steaming statistical pile.
Using this raw ratio of employment to population of employable age, international comparisons would show the United States with 75 percent employment and Britain with 71 percent, compared with 59 percent for France and 64 percent for Germany.
Yes the French and Canadian healthcare systems do have problems. But it seems teh surrender monkeys dont seem to be getting rid of their pinko socialist medicine anytime soon:
Canadians willing to pay more to support health care, poll shows
In the 5 Largest European Countries, French Health Care System Most Popular at Home and Most Admired Abroad
Stupid Frogs. Expecting to get something from a system they pay into!!
Sure, French and Canadian health care systems have problems. No system is perfect. I’m not sure you can find anybody on record as saying “this health care system is perfect.”
The question is, are the problems of these systems more difficult or dire than the problems of our current system? Because ours is really royally fucked up. If theirs is only “somewhat fucked up,” then please, let’s not just stay with our system out of spite.
France counts as unemployed only those people who are actively seeking a full-time job unlike say, HERE, where part time mc-jobs are counted and for the dupes who fail to cite such steaming statistical pile.
You need to brush up. In the US part time jobs are only counted if the person is seeking full time employment.
And you can spin France’s unemployment rate any way you want, but the situation over there is a mess.
Lot’s of people say they’re willing to pay more. Until they get the bill.
Don’t let Jay deflect (yet again). France’s structural unemployment problem has nothing to do with universal healthcare.
Spider, you’re approaching this from a point of view that has me saying we should do nothing. I’m not. What I am saying is this:
1. A government run health care system that covers all Americans is going to cost a lot of money. A whole hell of a lot more than $110 billion a year.
2. France’s ‘universal’ health care system has only been in place since 2000. With rising unemployment, a quickly rising aged population, and the general cost of new health care technology, reforms are going to have to be made.
Know what the number one target for reform is? It just happens to be the area why France’s health care system is so well-regarded. Right now, there are no limits on how many times you can visit a doctor. No referrals are needed to see specialists. That of course, breeds overuse. And it costs.
I see a lot of broad strokes in the plans offered up by Clinton, Edwards and Obama. The devil of course, is in the details.
Why is the argument against health care reform always something along the lines of “Communism!” or “France has high taxes!”? Look, this is a problem, and giving money away to HMOs isn’t going to solve it. In all likelihood we’ll pay for these programs by allowing the Bush tax cuts for the top 1% to expire. So Paris Hilton gets one less hedonistic garden party while the uninsured are covered. Works.
France’s structural unemployment problem has nothing to do with universal healthcare.
It most certainly does when it comes to their universal health care coverage. Less people working, means less taxes collected, which means less money to cover the increased costs of covering the entire population.
Comprende?
In all likelihood we’ll pay for these programs by allowing the Bush tax cuts for the top 1% to expire.
You actually believe that? Taking the top taxation rate from 35% back to 39.6% is going to pay for universal health care coverage?
I think you’re still a little high from the Redskins 2-0 start.
When you factor in the savings from the uninsured/emergency room care problem being solved, yes, national health care will be cheaper than our current system.
Kevin Drum summed it up nicely:
“If you have a national healthcare system but you spend way less than the United States (as Great Britain does), you can provide good but not great service. If you spend modestly less than the United States (as France does) you can provide healthcare every bit as good as ours — and cover every single citizen in the bargain.”
“And what if you actually spend as much as the United States — but you have to put up with our ragtag private delivery system? Then you get healthcare about as good as France’s, except that it doesn’t cover everyone, it bankrupts large companies, it goes away anytime you get laid off, and even if you are covered, it persistently works to deny you care. And all for only about 40% more than anyone else in the world pays.”
Um, Jay, you keep changing horses. You cite a man from Canada, and then start to talk about taxes in France. I’m confused.
Let’s make it clear for you:
In 2001 the US spent 13.9% of its GDP on health care.
France, 9.5% GDP
In 2005 US spent 16% of GDP on health care
France 10.5%.
Canada 9.8% GDP 2005.
Argue on.
Our reformed national system will cost us less, and make us healthier.
Health Care spending per person, 2003
Canada: $2998
France: $3048
Germany: $2983
Japan: $2249
UK: $2317
USA: $5711
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm
“the United States spends 345 percent more per capita on health administration than our neighbors up north”
I do wonder what the difference would be in what I’m paying in taxes as opposed to what comes out of my paycheck every two weeks for the PPO I’m with. Can anybody answer that?
Jay, if you’re truly not simply gainsaying solutions and think that something should actually be done, then please explain what YOU would do. It’s easy to point out the flaws in other systems, but you conveniently ignore (just like you accuse Michael Moore of doing) the much greater flaws and much greater costs of America’s existing system.
As for Hilary’s solution, I don’t like it. It puts the burden of insurance on the people who already can’t afford it. Even with subsidies and credits, it’s going to cost the poor and lower middle class and enrich private insurance companies. It does not seem to address the overall crushing costs of medical coverage, let alone entertaining the idea of creating a government provided alternative to private insurance.
Well, Jay, we could bring the top tax bracket back up to 72%; that would probably fix it (and a bunch of other stuff) lickity-split.
“”the United States spends 345 percent more per capita on health administration than our neighbors up north”
And they cover everyone. For all their blathering about Moore, no one ignores facts or twists reality quite like conservatives. The FACT is that the American health care system ranks dismally compared to other industrialized systems. The FACT is that we spent far more on health care than other industrialized systems. And despite spending more money, we cover far fewer people.
Yes, other systems have problems. No system is perfect, but virtually all of those systems are better than ours and the numbers don’t lie.
Jay: Comprende?
France pays less per person than the USA does and had better results. Comprende, you fucking moron?
If you switch to the French system you would same money and get better results. It’s really that simple.
Now, why don’t you want to do that?
Windsor is the new motor city thanks to Canada’s health care system. Sure there would be some transition costs, but let’s be real, you want to talk about cutting taxes to spur business growth, how about freeing up some of that ungodly health insurance premium money so businesses can grow and maybe stop so many of our jobs from moving overseas.
Jay, if you’re truly not simply gainsaying solutions and think that something should actually be done, then please explain what YOU would do. It’s easy to point out the flaws in other systems, but you conveniently ignore (just like you accuse Michael Moore of doing) the much greater flaws and much greater costs of America’s existing system.
Hey look, I’m not the one cheerleading the plans put forth by the Democratic candidates. It’s so easy for people to say, “Yay! So and so is proposing universal health care!” and not actually have to discuss how such a program is going to be paid for. We have Oliver unloading the pipe dream that simply raising the 35% tax bracket back to 39% is going to do the trick.
Then there’s Strowbridge in his usual asinine way calling people “fucking morons” because they don’t agree with him.
What it boils down to is that people are saying, “We need to switch to the French system and then health expenditures will go down!” Of course, what such people do is never bother to ask the question: Why?
WHY are US health care costs higher than countries like Germany and France?
There are a number of reasons:
1. Chronic disease. Heart disease, cancers, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, and diabetes account for two thirds of all deaths in the United States. Much of that is made up by a nation that lives in a fast food culture who also like to smoke and not exercise. As such 75% of the total health care costs for the nation are tied up in treating these chronic diseases.
2. Prescription drugs. Price caps in Europe and Canada are part of the reason why prescription drugs cost so much in the states, but the larger part is the refusal of foreign countries to honor patents the same way the United States does.
3. Doctors earn a lot more in the United States than in Europe. Doctors earn between $200,000 and $300,000. Primary care doctors and pediatricians earn between $125K and $200K. If you’re a specialist, like a radiologist, you can take home $400K a year. In Europe? Doctors make between $60K and $120K. And because our doctors are paid piecemeal (they charge for each test or procedure) rather than a flat salary, there is a lot of financial incentive for to perform procedures. Medicare hardly ever questions such decisions, so they just write the check.
These issues need to be addressed before just jumping over to a whole new system.
“WHY are US health care costs higher than countries like Germany and France?”
Uninsured people relying on expensive critical care and receiving no preventive care is a huge driver. And that has a very clear bearing on the chronic diseases you mentioned. Also, as pointed out above, our enormous, and uniquely wasteful administrative costs.
Strange argument against immediate overhaul or instituting a universal health care system. Points 1 and 2 are actually arguments FOR the extreme need of such a system. Point 1. why does the US have such high costs for chronic disease treatment? Because our system actively discourages preventative treatment and early diagnosis of such conditions. Point 2. Drug companies can charge whatever they want for their drugs. Caps and collective bargaining keep prices lower and profits down. Are you saying price caps in Canada and Europe lower the costs of the drugs to the point where the drug companies sell them below cost? Right
Point three. Doctors make too much. Maybe so. I am not sure of the percentage of Doctor’s pay in the overall picture of health care. Some of the piecemeal cost is eaten up by overhead though.
Jay: “Hey look, I’m not the one cheerleading the plans put forth by the Democratic candidates. It’s so easy for people to say, “Yay! So and so is proposing universal health care!” and not actually have to discuss how such a program is going to be paid for”
It. Will. Cost. Less.
Trying to figure out how to pay for it is a red herring because it will cost less than the current plan.