OK. The devil is in the details, of course, and we have to define what a “reasonable level” is. But that’s an entirely different debate than the one revolving around the original dichotomy you offered: universal healthcare or health insurance tied to your job. That’s really the only point I’m trying to make. You don’t need the former to undo the problems we face today with the latter. There are still millions of people without health insurance now, and I don’t see any reason to think that the current system (which fosters the tying of health insurance to your job) is a particularly good “free market” alternative.
Well, one of the big points of that op-ed is that someone who wants some reforms to the Canadian system that open it up to a larger private component, Brian Day, has been elected head of the Canadian Medical Association. However, if you look at an interview with Brian Day, you find the following interesting passage: In response to the question, “With health care costs in Canada – total private and public spending – up, I think, over $130 billion a year, and still climbing, even with some private outlets, is the ability to provide health care outstripping our ability to pay for health care?”, he says
(bolding added)
So, basically, even one of the people in Canada with the most extreme negative views of the current state of the Canadian healthcare system does not seem to think the U.S. system is a good one to emulate.
Look, in the larger picture, I think we can say that Canada is not a utopia and its health care system has problems. However, it certainly does not follow that we wouldn’t do well to improve our health care system by setting up some sort of a national health care system. And, others have noted, for the high price that we are currently paying per capita for health care, we could likely set up a system exactly like Canada’s in structure but simply buy our way to a much better result than Canada. I’m not saying that this is the way to go (a better way would be to look at the nations like France that Canada is currently trying to emulate) but it would still likely be a considerable improvement over what we have now.
A national healthcare system in the US is a pipe dream. I just can’t see us ever agreeing on anything that big at the national level. At least not in the foreseeable future. The states are where the action is, and as someone who lives in CA, we don’t need no stinkin’ Washington DC to tell us what to do. Our economy is bigger than most European economies, it’s way bigger than Canada’s, and we’ve got almost twice as many people.
Well, in my very first post on this subject, I did say:
So, I think I was open to the possibility that there isn’t necessarily a dichotomy. But, what I am saying is that any sort of reform that doesn’t acknowledge the basic fundamental non-alignment of interests between health insurance providers and consumers and seek to deal with it through some sort of regulation is not going to be addressing the real problem.
It would mean a big increase in California income/sales/business tax which would mean even more companies and people leaving the state for greener pastures. Mostly the people who would be paying the highest taxes. It would defeat the process. It needs to be done nationally or not at all.
I don’t agree. There are plenty of unique expenses that CA companies have to suck up, and our economy is doing just fine. Besides, the universal healthcare advocates keep telling us it saves companies money. And, the EU doesn’t have one uniform system either. I’m not buying the all or nothing approach, but as someone who’s not particularly keen on the whole idea, that’s fine with me-- it means we get nothing.
You would, logically, expect this to happen irrespective of what “systems” the two countries used. The United States is ten times bigger by population and twelve times richer. It simply stands to reason to more advances in medicine will be made there and that demand for such advances will be greater there.
Oh, I’m quite certain I could provide a cite for all the claims (though being ‘fat’ is subjective of course), but instead why don’t I just retract the statement so we don’t continue to hijack the thread? MM is not in fact fat, he uses only the finest medical facilities in Canada/Europe and or Cuba, he is not in fact rich, and he didn’t in fact make those non-existant riches producing his ‘documentaries’. M’kay? 
Well, I can see why that would be annoying, to be sure. From my perspective however, it would be nice if you DID use a few smilies in your own content free/nitpicking posts.
-XT
Doesn’t surprise me…the actors/directors guild is brutal. However, I’m quite sure he can afford it…though I want to point out here for the record I am NOT saying the man is rich! Nope, he’s just a regular (and fit…very fit) kind of guy.
I do want to point out that I never said that our system was perfect. Its certainly broken and could use some serious fixing. My personal preference isn’t to ‘fix’ the system by attempting to emulate either Canada OR Europe…but what we have is by no means perfect. I, however, don’t consider MM a optimal source for either whats wrong with the system or how it should be fixed. I see him more like a clown in a baseball cap (but a very FIT clown, not being fat AND the recipient of health care from Canada/Europe AND Cuba on a regular basis…and poor as a church mouse because he never does any ‘documentaries’…and if he DID, he would donate all the funds, etc etc. Just wanted to make that clear…)
-XT
Much better, but in your own passive-aggressive way you have managed to totally miss the point. Michael Moore, if one ignores the (extremely irritating) baseball cap, is in no way an ‘Average American’. The man has more money and influence
than anyone but the tiniest of majority of people will ever see.
So, why does his access to healthcare above the average American mean that there’s nothing wrong with the system? Is he supposed to keep his mouth shut because the problem doesn’t directly screw him personally? In that case, absolutely anything happening is impossible, since every Congressman gets some pretty amazingly good health coverage. Oh, and IIRC it’s for life. Apparently it is important, if you’re the right person.
He’d be stupid to follow the rules of a crappy low-level HMO to prove a point when he can afford much better. Why should be? Give one good reason. Besides, there’s tens of millions of people who can prove his point for him.
-Joe
Yes…I know. Its kind of the point I was trying to make. He’s NOT an average American. His health care is NOT what the rest of us get. He CAN go anywhere he wants to go for health care (and its no shocker that he gets his health care here instead of somewhere else…he could afford to GO somewhere else if he chose).
It doesn’t…and it wasn’t the point I was making. I never said there was nothing wrong with the system. There certainly is a LOT wrong with it. Its broken…its just broken in different ways than the Canadian or European systems.
Perhaps not. It just seems, well, hipocritical to me I suppose. But I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t like either the man OR his films, so that probably plays a part in my assessment.
I honestly don’t think this has anything to do with it. The reason nothing substantial will happen is because the majority of American’s don’t WANT any major changes (and more importantly, don’t want to PAY for any major changes) to the system. Thats the bottom line. For the most part people are content with the system the way it is…if they weren’t (or they become increasingly discontent with it) then there WILL be changes of some kind or another. Personally I think we are rapidly approaching that very wall…and I wouldn’t be surprised if 5 or 10 years from now there WERE some major changes to the system.
I never said he should…though again, it seems a bit hipocritical when, as you say, he can go forth and get the very best our system has to offer.
And you are right (though I won’t ask for a cite :))…there probably ARE ‘tens of millions of people’ who have had a bad experience with our medical system (or at least millions of people). However, that would mean that there are hundreds of millions who haven’t…which is probably why the system hasn’t been changed in any substantial way (yet).
-XT
In what possible way does it make him a hypocrite? What specific arguments does Michael Moore make that the fact that he, a millionaire, can pay for top notch health care, contradicts them? As far as I’m aware, he’s never argued that he shouldn’t be allowed to pay for better health care, and he’d be extraodinarily stupid to neglect his health just to make a point.
His problem with the system is that the level of care for people who don’t have his resources is inadequate (in his opinion). His ability to go above and beyond that (assuming it’s not something extravagent) is entirely the point. Why can’t others get that level?
It’s hypocritical to want to improve the system for people less well off than oneself? The world could use a lot more hypocrites.
Precisely. I have had just this sort of conversation. I’m going to have a baby later this year. I live in the US. My brother and sister-in-law, who live in Canada, had a baby a couple of years ago. My neice had some serious breathing problems that put her in the hospital twice in her first year, for about three weeks each time. Sometimes I imagine what would happen if my baby had exactly the same medical problem in the US. What seems overwhelming to me is not only the worry that my baby might die or have serious, ongoing health problems – which was a legitimate concern with my neice – but also the worry about the astronomical cost of all those weeks in the hospital. And heaven forbid some specialist, etc. needed to treat my child would be out-of-network, which would raise the cost even more. Furthermore, here in the US with my low-level job I am lucky to get 12 weeks unpaid FMLA to take care of my sick kid, whereas my sister-in-law (with a similar low-level job) now can get 6 months of paid maternity leave. Canada may not be a utopia, but I can tell you where I would rather be right now. Being stuck here in the US scares the shit out of me when I think of anything going wrong with my health or that of my family.
And who can blame you? Have you warched MM’s “Sicko”? If you haven’t, you should…or maybe not. Especially the part where he gets together in a restaurant with a bunch of American ex-pats living in Paris and they discuss and compare the quality and cost of both health systems. Well, for the average person there’s simply NO comparison. Just amazing what the French can and do provide…for free.
And I have nothing but praise for MM for bringing the disastrous American system to light. 'bout time someone with the means to do so, did. So kudos to him.
The thing is, we’re a democracy. And until we vote for universal healthcare, then it’s just too bad if people in other countries look down on us. I couldn’t care less. It’s our country, and we’re not bothering anybody else in this matter. It’s a policy decision, and nothing in the constitution mandates that we act one way or the other.
I’ll just add my own testimonial that I’ve never had any problems with getting what I needed. I’ve got an OK healthplan-- not a top notch one by any means. We’ll work out our own way of doing this, and it will be at the state level-- you can take that to the bank. As for those who truly want a nationalized, socialized healthcare systen, I’ll ask once again: Explain to me why I should want Geroge Bush in charge of my healthcare?
Wow! The French are able to provide universal health care…for free!! I never knew. Thats a miricle of economics on par with perpetual motion! And the French were able to do it? Well, kudo’s to them is all I can say. Hats off and all that jazz…
-XT
If you have a point, make it. All the smilies in the world won’t allow to escaoe it.
And yes, I stand by my comment, France (amongst many other, mainly European nations) manage to take care of their sick and elderly much better than you do. And that’s a fact.
Shame, shame, shame: U.S. ranked 36 for health care
Of course, you are a democracy (kleptocracy?) and you’re obviously free to soend your money elsewhere. As in invading oil-rich Third World Nations for no reason at all – other than taking over threir resources of course.
Hey! As long as it makes XT better off, the system is surely working just fine. Never mind you having the worst record of live births of all First World Nations and one of the worst when it comes to life expectancy amongst the same.
After, you’ve told us enough times just how well things are in your little bubble of a world. You’ve got your piece of the pie, bully for you. It’s the one’s that don’t I’m concerned about…as is MM. Roughly fifty million Americans at last count. Not quite a drop in the bucket methinks.
Right then. Ready again for yet another of your roll-eye smilies cluttered, “substantial,” flag-waving responses…
Enjoy.
Certainly Red…anything for you. This will be a smiley free post.
The point…yes. The point is, there is no free ride. The French don’t give away free health care as you stated. Simply put, you are wrong. The French pay for their health care system by having high levels of taxation. See? Nothing is free.
Its debatable if the French system is better than our system here in the US…and beside the point. I didn’t say that the US had a better system…what I said was the French system isn’t free. YOU said that…and you are wrong. Its not a free system…they pay for it with their taxes.
As long as our priorities are straight here…yes, I’m the most vital link and as long as I’m taken care of, its all good. (note the lack of smiley? Thats because I’m obviously deadly serious here…)
What you don’t seem to be able to wrap your mind around Red (no real surprise here) is that this is a democracy…and its not just ‘XT’ that makes these decisions. If we, as a people want the system you have in Europe then we will have it. We don’t at present. Learn to embrace the diversity…
It obviously flew over your head. Again, no surprise that you are unable to wrap your mind around what I was getting at.
-XT
But, Red Fury, it’s not for free. One pays for it with ones taxes.
Now as to whether using taxes to pay for, or subsidize, or administer, universal health care is a valid use of taxes is a different argument, and one I would largely support. But there’s no such thing as a free lunch.