Capitalism and Health Care

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by ZZZzzzzzzz, Sep 11, 2006.

Should the U.S. Health Care system be governed by Capitalism?

  1. Yes

    1 vote(s)
    12.5%
  2. No

    3 vote(s)
    37.5%
  3. A mixture of both capitalism and socialism

    4 vote(s)
    50.0%
  1. Michael Moore's new film "Sicko" debuted at the Toronto Film Festival to positive reviews from both conservatives and liberals.

    The film has been described as non partisan and non political, focusing on the problems with our Capitalistic based Health Care system.

    Should capitalism govern the nature and behavior of health care in America, or should heath care be governed by principles of patient care above profit?
     
  2. Michael Moore Dissects U.S. Health Care
    Sep 9, 8:46 PM (ET)

    By DAVID GERMAIN

    TORONTO (AP) - First, General Motors. Then gun control, followed by George W. Bush. Now rabble-rousing filmmaker Michael Moore has turned his irreverent camera on health care in America.

    "Sicko," Moore's dissection of the health care system, promises to be another hilarious documentary romp, based on excerpts he showed Friday night at the Toronto International Film Festival.

    During a two-hour appearance, Moore discussed his career as a counterculture journalist, provocative filmmaker and liberal standard-bearer, and he played three clips from "Sicko," which he said would be in theaters next June.

    The segments presented stories of personal health care nightmares, including that of a woman denied payment for an ambulance ride after a head-on collision because it was not preapproved.

    "They try to find every way they can to deny it to you or not sell it to you," he told a packed theater. "Or they try to find anyway they can not to pay the bill."

    The "Sicko" excerpts also included a segment comparing Canada's public health care to the privatized system in the United States, concluding that Canadians have more equitable access to medical services.

    The idea for "Sicko" grew out of a segment from Moore's TV show "The Awful Truth," in which he staged a mock funeral outside a health-maintenance organization that had declined a pancreas transplant for a diabetic man. The HMO later relented.

    Health care representatives downplay the potential impact of Moore's documentary.

    "We can't control what a major Hollywood entertainer does," said Mohit Ghose, a spokesman for the trade group America's Health Insurance Plans. "Our focus remains on a positive agenda of high-quality health care for more Americans."

    With a laid-back persona but an in-your-face documentary style, Moore broke onto the scene with 1989's "Roger & Me," chronicling his efforts to meet with GM boss Roger Smith amid the economic chaos the automaker's plant closings had on Moore's hometown of Flint, Mich.

    Moore's 2002 gun-control film "Bowling for Columbine" won the documentary prize at the Academy Awards. He followed with 2004's "Fahrenheit 9/11," skewering Bush for his actions over the Sept. 11 attacks. The film topped $100 million at the box office to become the biggest documentary hit ever.

    Given Moore's devoted fans and a subjective, opinionated documentary style the filmmaker likens to a newspaper's op-ed section, "Sicko" has set the health-services industry on edge.

    Ken Johnson, senior vice president of the trade group Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America, said industry officials were "freaking out and pulling their hair out" when they first got word of Moore's documentary.

    They have since calmed down, Johnson said.

    "Michael Moore is a political activist with a track record for sensationalism. He has no intention of being fair and balanced," Johnson said.

    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060910/D8K1M12G2.html
     
  3. Pekelo

    Pekelo

    I first thought it was a Michael Jackson biography...
     
  4. neophyte321

    neophyte321 Guest


    Let's hear from some Canadians. American's have little direct experience under a socialized medical system, run by a huge-bloated-insanely-inefficient-government bureaucracy.

    The notion that "free" health care will result in lower costs and improved services is a fanatasy. "Don't worry about how fat your getting!! Lipo is now Free!"

    Blah, liberal-socialist-pukes
     
  5. neophyte321

    neophyte321 Guest

    Actually, Canada would not be a great source for comparision.

    Unless canada has been forced to incorporate 10-50 million illegal, uneducated, third-worlders into their "free" healthcare system.
     
  6. Let's hear from some Canadians.
    Canadian healthcare system is far from the best, quite a number of european countries have universal healthcare systems that are significantly better than the canadian (let alone american) system.


    American's have little direct experience under a socialized medical system, run by a huge-bloated-insanely-inefficient-government bureaucracy.
    True, Americans have a lot of direct experience under a healthcare system run by a huge-bloated-insanely-inefficient-hmo/insurance bureaucracy interested in one and only one thing - maximizing their profits at the expense of both doctors and patients.

    The notion that "free" health care will result in lower costs and improved services is a fanatasy.
    It's not free, it's universal. It's no more free than free police or free military. And the "fantasy" that it costs half of what we pay and yet is more efficient and covers everyone has been repeatedly confirmed by multiple independent and unbiased researches and surveys conducted by professional medical, financial and statistical organizations. Do you actually know that Medicare's overhead is about 3% while private insurance/HMO companies pocket about 40-45% of healthcare expenses.
     
  7. neophyte321

    neophyte321 Guest


    Well, I'd look the fool, (more-so even), if I argued that the current healthcare-insurance hmo model we are living in is anywhere close to efficient.

    But, using Medicare as an example of success is a bit fool-hardy, considering that system in its present state is likely to bankrupt the country in 20-30 years.
    http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/bg1740.cfm

    The "healthcare crisis" is fodder for socialists to demand the government take over 11-14% of the economy. The "healthcare crisis" is probably due at least in large part to the enormous advances in medical technology. Remember when MRI's were an exotic procedure? Hip-Replacements??? That's bionic man type of stuff. Now everyone demands these services for little-money. Granted, the medical industry wants to give it too them because they make bucko dinero from them.


    Socializing medicine in this country would results in two things: (actually three)

    1. A precipitous drop in services.
    2. Higher, much higher taxes. (before you suggest that it would be countered by more take-home-pay, provide one example in human history when the government increased taxes by 50% that people earned more.)
    3. People who are able would end up paying healthcare taxes and premiums for private services, thus doubling their costs.

    (And a 4th ... I've obviously missed a million more)
    4. Any talk of costs would go out-the-window because it would be part of the government budget. Thus reducing such "costs" would be an impossibility, therefore taxes (or gov debt) would just continue to rise and rise and rise ... probably outpacing today's healthcare costs.


    It just strikes me as an obvious truism ... Take the profit motive out, and things go to shit. Plain and simple.
     
  8. So basically, your point is that government does things far more efficiently than the private sector?

    And that under "universal health care", no rationing will be necessary? That we can just see the doctor of our choice as much as we want and have any procedures we want, anytime we want, all courtesy of Uncle Sam?
     
  9. neophyte321

    neophyte321 Guest

     
  10. So basically, your point is that government does things far more efficiently than the private sector?
    The per capita cost of healthcare in France (Italy, Israel, Austarlia, Japan, Hong Kong, Ireland.....) is about half of what we pay, yet everyone is covered, they get better services, better results and their satisfaction is way higher than in this country. Besides Universal Healthcare does not mean that hospitals and drug companies will be owned by the government and doctors will become government employees. Only distribution of health services would be centralized - in essence one non-profit government-run HMO would replace hundreds of for-profit insurance companies and HMOs which are not competing with each other anyway and robbing both doctors and patiens blind instead.

    And that under "universal health care", no rationing will be necessary?
    That's the idea.

    That we can just see the doctor of our choice as much as we want and have any procedures we want, anytime we want, all courtesy of Uncle Sam?
    Of course not, your PCP will keep making those decisions. And actually if you're insured right now you can go see your PCP as many times as you want anyway, assuming that $15 - $25 co-payment is not a real deterrent.
     
    #10     Sep 11, 2006