I get me brain medicine from the National 'Ealth!

[vovat]

bethje and I went to the movies to see Sicko yesterday. There was only one other person in the theater, which seems to be typical of matinees. Anyway, as with the other Michael Moore films I've seen, this was primarily anecdotal, providing a sympathetic look at people suffering under the current policies, but not necessarily the best place to turn for the Cold, Hard Facts. It was definitely moving, though. It's kind of weird that the commercials I've seen for the film seemed to be along the lines of "Moore's funniest film yet!", when I think it had less levity than his previous efforts. There was humor, sure, but it was mostly of the sardonic variety. As for the points made, most of them early in the film weren't particularly novel (greedy executives in the health, insurance, and pharmaceutical organizations are paying off even greedier politicians to maintain the for-profit system), but there was some interesting stuff that I hadn't heard about before, like the taped conversation with Nixon, and the fact that Hillary Clinton now takes a lot of money from the health care industry. I also thought the British guy that Moore talked to about the origins of the National Health Service made a point I hadn't really considered before, about how keeping a certain segment of the population in constant debt can serve to demoralize them, and keep them from fully participating in the democratic process. The point was reinforced when one of the Americans living in France (I think that was who said it, anyway) claimed that the French government fears its citizens, while American citizens fear their government. Whether or not this demoralization is intentional, I think there's definitely something in that.

I remember the last time I made a post to the effect of "Hey, what's wrong with socialized health care?", the main argument against it seemed to be that you'd have to wait a long time to receive treatment (especially in more serious cases). Moore did address this in his film, although the anecdotal nature of his movies (which, as you might remember, I mentioned in the last paragraph) meant that it wasn't exactly thoroughly debunked. That said, I'm not sure the people who talk about people in socialized countries having to wait three years for a heart transplant are basing this on a random sample, either. So I'm not totally sure what to think of that objection, but it definitely holds a lot more water than what the right-wing propaganda machine has been insisting on recently--that socialized health care would create bureaucracies. But, uh, isn't the health insurance industry a big, wasteful, faceless bureaucracy in and of itself? I know Bill Maher once said something about (and I'm paraphrasing quite liberally here) how the government can (and does) screw plenty of things up, but privatization is much worse. I think I would have to agree with this.

And to close the post on a different note entirely, one of the previews before Sicko was for some crappy-looking romantic movie that I can't remember the name of (and don't particularly want to, either) was playing a New Pornographers song. Why must Hollywood ruin everything I enjoy? :P

Comments

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

it definitely holds a lot more water than what the right-wing propaganda machine has been insisting on recently--that socialized health care would create bureaucracies. But, uh, isn't the health insurance industry a big, wasteful, faceless bureaucracy in and of itself?

Ugh, people are actually using that argument? Seriously. I have qualms about socialized health care, mainly the ones you mentioned-- long waits for procedures, and also things like buying cheap equipment and medicines and so forth--skimping to make up the difference. But claiming that socialized health care would create bureaucracies? What? Well, maybe the problem is that it would create bureaucracies that have to be paid for with tax money as opposed to independently funded bureaucracies... which come to think of it are already funded by deductions from people's paychecks so it might as well be tax money.

The thing that bugs me most about political issues, especially ones I hold opinions about, is that people keep using the WRONG ARGUMENTS. Like in the issue of gay marriage, people pro keep trying to tell people who are morally opposed to it that it's not morally wrong, which, guess what, isn't going to work! If they would only point out that the issue is one of a separation of church and state, and governments shouldn't have anything to do with marriage, and churches can marry or not marry whomever they wish, everyone except the fiercest of busybodies could be happy! Likewise when environmental activists waste time and money and even natural resources (fliers, electricity for TV and Internet, etc) trying to get people who obviously don't care to Save the Cute Little Animals, when they could be focusing on things like If you Waste Less, you Save Money in the Long Term; if you don't drain wetlands, you have less flooding problems in developed areas; so on so forth! And in an extreme example, what about people who bomb abortion clinics? Now THAT'S the way to be Pro-Life, eh? Seriously, sometimes I want to slap people who think they agree with me.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

it definitely holds a lot more water than what the right-wing propaganda machine has been insisting on recently--that socialized health care would create bureaucracies. But, uh, isn't the health insurance industry a big, wasteful, faceless bureaucracy in and of itself?

Ugh, people are actually using that argument?

Yeah, I remember hearing that someone on Fox News said that socialized medicine could support terrorism, because the bureaucracies created would mean they'd be less able to check on whether any doctors were contributing to terrorism, or something crazy like that. You'd think that, if anything, this would actually be a better argument FOR socialized medicine, since the government would probably be better able to investigate and suppress such activity from their direct employees than from private practitioners, but finding logic in something stated on Fox News is like trying to find Waldo...in a book that ISN'T part of the Where's Waldo? series.

Well, maybe the problem is that it would create bureaucracies that have to be paid for with tax money as opposed to independently funded bureaucracies... which come to think of it are already funded by deductions from people's paychecks so it might as well be tax money.

Pretty much, not to mention that the government seems to be largely under the control of corporate interests anyway, so privatization and deregulation tend to actually take power AWAY from (to put it colloquially) The People. Not to mention that the same people who claim they don't want the government interfering in the affairs of doctors and insurance companies seem to have no problem with them tapping phone calls and knowing what library books people checked out. But then, I guess the people making the phone calls and checking out the books don't typically belong to organizations that make huge financial contributions to politicians.

[arfies.livejournal.com]

I remember reading some comment about people waiting too long for health care in socialized medicine-using countries, which said something to the effect of, "You wait three years for a heart transplant, provided you don't die first. Or, if you have money, you go to the States and get it done much quicker." The reply was something like, "But in the States, if you don't have money, you don't have the option of waiting three years for a heart transplant. You're dead no matter what."

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's pretty much the way I see it. And as far as the demoralization issue goes, perhaps knowing that you're going to get the necessary care at some point can make a person a lot more hopeful than the prospect of being diseased AND in debt for years to come.

health care

[bec-87rb.livejournal.com]

I think they ought to do a study of whether or not all the people who are not insured are costing the system more or less.

The explanations of this I have heard sound suspiciously simplistic - that the uninsured use the expensive emergency room as their only care, the cost of which is passed onto patients with insurance. So we pay for them in a costly inefficient way.

What you don't hear people talking about is that using ERs helps to kill off the unhealthy uninsured, because waiting until you are so bad off you need the emergency room may cut years off your life, and hence, thousands of dollars in cost off your care on the public's dime.

So I suspect there is a disincentive among the insurance companies or the government to insure the poor and unhealthy, because the ER is really rationing care for them already, a method that neatly kills them off before they get too crashingly expensive.

Consider that rich people who are going to get heart disease (and you're gonna, if you're American) get years of preventive care and screening, eventually have a heart attack anyway, and then spend 20 years getting expensive drugs and hospital procedures to extend their unhealthy lives. Think Dick Cheney.

The poorer guy never gets his cholesterol checked or anything, and drops dead of his first MI at 53, which he never sees coming, and saves the hospital paying for those 20 years of tests, balloon angioplasties, stents, bypasses, etc. That shit costs real money, and so it is in the interest of everyone that people who can't pay at least part of it drop dead sooner.

It's awful, and you notice, no one talks about it. I think they should. Someone should do a study, and publicize the results, bring them into the general policy discussion.

Re: health care

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Well, it doesn't strike me that the government is particularly concerned with human life, considering how many people they're sending over to die in Iraq. For that matter, for all the ballyhoo from the current administration about fetuses and Terri Schiavo, I don't think pregnant women and people in vegetative states are getting free medical care either.

Re: health care

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

Pregnant women are, at least in the state of Pennsylvania. You automatically qualify for assistance as soon as you test positive. Likewise children are qualified for assistance-- all they have to do is apply. In fact it kind of shocked us when we applied for Sammy's insurance through the CHIP program, which covers all otherwise uninsured children in pennsylvania regardless of income, only to find out we were too poor for that program, that we actually qualified for Medicaid instead! Which means the two years I was going without health insurance I actually could have been covered by government aid! I think a lot of people go without insurance only because they dont realize there is help available.