Just Saw Michael Moore's "Sicko"

[whitney]

Another reason this is becoming more important is because many important employees are getting completely boned out of health care. Health care for teachers in California is constantly getting worse and worse over the years. I'm still on my mother's health care (have about 3 more weeks officially as a student here) and I've seen it go from mediocre coverage to worse to completely shitty.

This isn't about partisan politics, because everyone gets sick and everyone's going to need help at some point in their life. The argument is not about helping the poor people who need help, it's about providing affordable health care to everyone (yes you benefit from it too, even if you haven't had an illness yet, you or someone who is reliant on you one day will) without a ridiculous amount of administrative money sinks which you pay for in privatized HMOs. Half of all bankruptcies are caused by medical costs alone.

I am under my mom too and thank God because at seventeen without healthcare being diagnosed with lymphoma, having no Healthcare would have been a bitch.

My mom had terrific health care coverage. Our doctor visits were always free and the prescriptions were always 5 or 2 dollars depending on the type of medicine. I had eye, dental, chiropractic, acupuncture and physical therapy coverage..all copay and deductible free. Except for MRI, pet and CT scans everything was covered 100% without limitations and the cap was pretty high. The tests were 100% but I had quite a few and after the first couple of times they covered only about 95% which is still good.

But recently thanks to the 'increased' health care coverage costs I'm switched over to a blue cross PPO. I should be grateful for coverage alone as when I'm 23 I'm sure I will have a hard ass time getting health care coverage. but if you guys think paying 100 or around there a month with a couple of hundred to a thousand deductable as a healthly individual is good health care coverage think again. I haven't fully tested out their plan coverage so we will see once I go for my now yearly tests.

So privatized health care works great but not for everyone and while I benefited from it I rather pay a few more hundreds then see someone struggle with a deadly chronic disease with little or without any health care coverage. When someone is on the verge of dying I think the last thing they need to be stressed about is how to pay for the medical bills.

[englandmj7]

wild_whiskey

As is a common folly with e-debates, you failed to consider my comments in their entirety. You keep referencing this horrible thing that could 'one day happen' to me or my family like I'm not already prepared. I have insurance. Do you know why? Because I paid for most of my own college on loans available to every single person in this country, worked my ass off in internships for free to finally land a good job and made sure to be somewhere that paid me well and had good benefits. Something that 99% of the population is capable of doing. In addition, I save money so that, in the event I am fired, I can instantly purchase an external health plan.

I thoroughly explained the fact that I pay for my wife's health insurance independently, without any government subsidization, employee health programs, etc. As I also noted, shit did hit the fan last year and she had a $60,000 surgery, not to mention $10,000 in other dues leading up to the the surgery. Do you know what paid every cent of this? The $85 a month health plan I PAY FOR. No questions asked. You have these 'big bully' impressions of health care providers which are rarely evident when you are following procedures/plan guidelines correctly.

As far as your example goes (Switzerland), it is not a valid reference in the slightest. Switzerland is a country with a population of 7 million, 1/42nd the size of the US. Please research before making brash claims:

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Switzerland.pdf

They have the third most expensive healthcare system in the world. Also, there's the simple fact that although our PC GDP in the US is comparable to Switzerland's, their median GDP is astronomically higher than ours. Not to mention that they've maintained their self-sufficiency predominantly through the fact that they have never opened up their economy/currency system to the rest of Europe (EEC) and have strict immigration policies.

You want to talk about countries where socialized medicine is disgusting, look at the UK & Ireland for starters. I actually sat around a table with an my Irish in-laws and another local Irish family last night and listened to them telling stories about the butcheries, deaths and mishaps that happen in their 'free' medical system. My mother-in-law is a CITY DIRECTOR of social services who works with alot of hospitals in Ireland's largest cities. I hear these stories (just like all the 'horrible' ones in the US) on a daily basis from them. No one's plan is foolproof. If you truly expect any government to ever be able to take care of all of their people then you have a flawed ideology of how things work. My mother-in-law is not a wealthy woman by any stretch, but she has continually remarked to me that she would pay hundreds of dollars a month to get the type of treatment/expertise we get in the US.

Lastly, you reference the notion that the medicare money I'm putting away with each check will one day benefit me and that it's for a good cause that I'm paying it now since others are 'doing the same for me'............ha ahahah. My father, for instance, has paid millions of dollars in taxes and he's long since been retired. Do you know how much Social Security he receives every month from the government? Not a single fucking cent. Do you know why? Because he worked so damn hard to develop assets for himself that the government thinks he is "well enough" to take care of himself without a damn bit of help. Even if he is, he isn't getting a cent back of the money he paid that was eventually meant for him. Medicare is the same. 90% money paid for this is coming from the 5% of the population paying astronomical sums from the money they make...........my dad just had his knee replaced and it cost him $120,000, his healthcare, that he saved his entire life to be able to pay for in retirement covered this, without any qualms. Medicare/government help wasn't even an option.........they wouldn't give him a penny.

Bottom line is that people keep saying: Well you don't live in New York, well you're plan doesn't do this...........uh, I just told you that I live in a densely populated area and found several excellent plans for under $100. If you are so worried about how disgusting and expensive health insurance is in certain parts of the US, move the hell out of NYC/LA/wherever you're paying so much. Move to S. Carolina and buy a big mansion with affordable healthcare...........there are ALWAYS options. There are so many of them in this country versus others that it makes me sick at all this shit whining. Want to talk about messed up? Go to China or India.......intensely profitable/growing countries with goddamn thousands of people dying everyday cause they don't even have food to eat, while we're over here complaining about how we can't live in manhattan and afford a good health plan at the same time. Jesus. My fellow Americans are some of the most damned ungrateful people on earth.

RBW - that wasn't directed at you; I was just using NYC as an example since you noted that it's very expensive to get insured there...........

[poly800rock]

I kind of disagree with this, unless we have a different idea about who is a specialist. Are you talking about chiropractics and personal nutritionists, etc.? Because if so, I agree. But if you need a specialist because you have bone cancer or a heart disease that only a doctor with the latest French equipment can help, I don't think you should be screwed out of it because that's where people need help the most: on those high-cost procedures that will put white-collar Joe under a bridge in no time.

Also, I agree that neither universally covered healthcare nor completely privatized healthcare are the answer. There are benefits to both. What's shocking to me is that people realize that privatized health care has cons, yet for some unknown reason, people are extremely reluctant to implement the obvious benefits of government-subsidized health care, which other countries in the world are enjoying the fruits of.

i'm not saying specialists should not be covered, moreso, patients should be able to shop around for the best suited for their needs. A buddy of mine was diagonosed with a very rare type of tumor last year on the space between his neck and his spine. The oncologist actually wished it was cancerous, that way they'd be able to avoid physical surgery. But it wasn't cancerous, and they needed to go in physically. So they went to a few hospitals, the first doc said basically he'd be fucked. Never walk again if he did the surgery. Why the fuck would you go with that option? So he went to another, and the guy said there would always be a risk, but the outlook was good, they went in, avoided as much nerve damage as possible and removed it, he's walking a year later and he's about 95%. There are tons of countries where you can't even choose the specialist you go to, or you can't shop around. That's where the US prevails. Regardless if you can pay for it or not, you always have the choice of going to someone else.

[englandmj7]

i'm not saying specialists should not be covered, moreso, patients should be able to shop around for the best suited for their needs. A buddy of mine was diagonosed with a very rare type of tumor last year on the space between his neck and his spine. The oncologist actually wished it was cancerous, that way they'd be able to avoid physical surgery. But it wasn't cancerous, and they needed to go in physically. So they went to a few hospitals, the first doc said basically he'd be fucked. Never walk again if he did the surgery. Why the fuck would you go with that option? So he went to another, and the guy said there would always be a risk, but the outlook was good, they went in, avoided as much nerve damage as possible and removed it, he's walking a year later and he's about 95%. There are tons of countries where you can't even choose the specialist you go to, or you can't shop around. That's where the US prevails. Regardless if you can pay for it or not, you always have the choice of going to someone else.

This exact instance is what happened to my wife last year. Our insurance ultimately covered her getting surgery at Cedars Sinai (arguably the best hospital in the US) from one of the world's top thorastic surgeons. Like I said before, in Ireland they said her surgery would be scarring/lenghty/potentially paralyzing, but here it took one day, no scars and no hassles. With major health issues like these, you HAVE to be able to get multiple opinions and know that you are getting the best. I can 100% guarantee you that you will not find a single person who would rather have a free surgery from a hack/inexperienced surgeon than a $1500 one from an expert.

In other news, I think Whild_Whiskey is my polar opposite.......ha hah.

[RAISED BY WOLVES]

Wild Whiskey and Englandmj7 both just made some excellent points. Poly too.

Smart folks these guys... yeah?

(and me and my Cricket boots walk the mean streets of Queens, not Manhattan.)

[wild_whiskey]

England I don't see how your situation is counter to my position. I congratulate the fact that you worked your ass off to get where you are now.

You paid a lot of your money for your own insurance, and a lot of money for someone else's insurance, no doubt. I see this as a problem, as do you. I'm not saying that the remedy is to pay more, I'm saying that instead of an entirely privatized system with a barely-there shit-tastic government-run system where you're required to pay your own insurance costs as well as taxes, everyone with an income should be shouldering the costs of health care (including yours) through taxes, and the government should be playing a big role in how these costs are distributed.

If you have a government-mandated "bare minimum" system and then an expensive, high-profit privatized industry, there's going to be a huge disparity between the amount of people who have access to affordable, good quality service and those who do not, as well as a waste of funds creating unnecessary profits for people benefitting off the sickness of others. This is where we are right now. I am not saying the system as it is is a good system, and Im not saying that the wealthy should have to pay for the poor. I'm saying that everyone should take part in paying for everyone else. It's part of being a prosperous society to take care of each other.

As for your grandfather, do you honestly expect to receive extra money from the government from a fund you paid into when you're well-off as it is? Where do you think the money that your grandfather has came from? Out of thin air? I'm certain he made more money hiring and utilizing the people who he's paying in SS taxes than he lost from paying into it. I see nothing wrong with paying into a system that benefits those who need it and also enjoying the benefits of a good economy that allows someone such as your grandfather to make enough money to be where he is. If you get to the point where you have enough money that you don't need anything out of social security, you should be thankful, not bitching about it.

I can 100% guarantee you that you will not find a single person who would rather have a free surgery from a hack/inexperienced surgeon than a $1500 one from an expert.

If you think this is what I'm arguing for, then I suggest you re-read what 'm trying to say. You think I want to just throw out the experts we have and replace them with low-paid government employees? No. Other countries have amazing health care with top-quality surgeons and doctors, and the overall cost is lower because healthcare is regulated instead of allowing 30-40% of a company's income to go into administrative costs.

Many people in the US on the best health care they can afford still do not have the ability to shop around for options, because employers are constantly lowering the quality and access their employees get through company health care.

[Tiranis]

5char

Edited May 21, 2015 by Tiranis

[englandmj7]

England I don't see how your situation is counter to my position. I congratulate the fact that you worked your ass off to get where you are now.

You paid a lot of your money for your own insurance, and a lot of money for someone else's insurance, no doubt. I see this as a problem, as do you. I'm not saying that the remedy is to pay more, I'm saying that instead of an entirely privatized system where you're required to pay your own insurance costs as well as taxes, everyone with an income should be shouldering the costs of health care through taxes, and the government should be playing a big role in how these costs are distributed.

If you have a government-mandated "bare minimum" system and then an expensive, high-profit privatized industry, there's going to be a huge disparity between the amount of people who have access to affordable, good quality service and those who do not, as well as a waste of funds creating unnecessary profits for people benefitting off the sickness of others. This is where we are right now.

I appreciate your response. I agree there are many injustices present in our system, but the problem is that these injustices are echoed in different forms even in countries with grounded socialized systems as well (Germany, Sweden, etc.). I would like to see some form of 'minimum' insurance with a ceiling ideally, but I think this is more difficult to incorporate than it sounds. Problem is, costs to private health insurance can fluctuate greatly in any given year. They aren't all prepared for something like a Hurrican Katrina, etc. So what would they do if the government enforced a strict ceiling or something of the sort on their plans? Could be astronomically negative........

Im not saying that the wealthy should have to pay for the poor. I'm saying that everyone should take part in paying for everyone else.

These two sentences horribly contradict each other. The rich do pay for the poor in this country (the top 20% of earners in the US pay a whopping 80% of income taxes). I'm not saying I have qualms with this (well, that would be a separate argument), but there's no need to beat around the bush. I am certain that it is your opinion that wealth should be distributed more evenly than it currently is, and that's fine (though I strongly disagree).

As for your grandfather, do you honestly expect to receive extra money from the government from a fund you paid into when you're well-off as it is? Where do you think the money that your grandfather has came from? Out of thin air? I'm certain he made more money hiring and utilizing the people who he's paying in SS taxes than he lost from paying into it. I see nothing wrong with paying into a system that benefits those who need it and also enjoying the benefits of a good economy that allows someone such as your grandfather to make enough money to be where he is. If you get to the point where you have enough money that you don't need anything out of social security, you should be thankful, not bitching about it..

Actually, it's my father I was referring to, and I know we promised to leave party politics out of this, but this is a horribly liberal sentiment. When my dad started paying taxes (as most of us do), it was under the presumption that a portion (however small it may be) would be for him in his retirement/old age. So because he worked harder than most people he gets no return on his own money? That would be completely fine if when the government was taking it they blatantly pointed out that: "If you end up being wealthier when you are older you're not getting a cent of this back from us".......but it shouldn't be expected. Even if he does have money, I'm sure it would help him alot (maybe not as much as others) to have some of his medical costs subsidized.

As far as your comment about how he earned his money goes, he never hired other people to capitalize on (in the sense you imply it at least). In certain realms of the finance field, one can often be entirely self sufficient. Not all wealthy men are products of exploitation of blue collar workers.

If you think this is what I'm arguing for, then I suggest you re-read what 'm trying to say. You think I want to just throw out the experts we have and replace them with low-paid government employees? No. Other countries have amazing health care with top-quality surgeons and doctors, and the overall cost is lower because healthcare is regulated instead of allowing 30-40% of a company's income to go into administrative costs.

Many people in the US on the best health care they can afford still do not have the ability to shop around for options, because employers are constantly lowering the quality and access their employees get through company health care.

Problem is my friend, this is inevitably what happens. For instance, there are many great public school teachers (as well as MANY bad ones), but there is also a colossal number of would-be public school teachers who choose to go somewhere more 'rewarding' ($$). This is always an issue. Unfortunately, in medicine, you simply can't afford (no pun intended) to have a mediocre doctor, which are inherent by-products of a socialized medicinal system. Sure, it's a horribly extreme example, but look at Cuba's state doctors (haven't seen M. Moore's movie, but I'm sure he doesn't mention them). They get paid the same as a damn toilet cleaner does. Is this an incentive to want to conduct research/studies and become a great doctor? Not unless you have a golden heart and are overly altruistic (is there really anyone like this?). Anyway, cheers for the debate.

On a side note, here's a fun little epitath that I was reminded of (completely unrelated to this argument:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.

CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing, “It’s Not Easy Being Green.â€

Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant’s house where the news stations film the group singing, “We shall overcome.†Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper’s sake.

Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of th e summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.

Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients.

The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant’s old house, crumbles around him because he doesn’t maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow. The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.

Moral of the story: Be careful how you vote.

[RAISED BY WOLVES]

Englatierra....

Are you a registered Republican?

[englandmj7]

Englatierra....

Are you a registered Republican?

I'll give you two guesses. If you get it right I'll give you an exclusive pair of Cricket Boots x The Hundreds.