Michael Moore's 'Sicko' Scrutinizes Canada's Healthcar

[SkyhookJackson]

No, you are mistaken. Since the 1960's Great Society programs were enacted, they have gobbled up far more than the defense budgets, including the "wars". The USA actually made money on Gulf War I. Recurring entitlement programs with a growing class of users really puts the hurt on the federal budget, war or no war.

I went and checked your figures on this. It appears your claim that health spending is larger than military spending is nominally correct even if you include the 100 billion for Iraq which is not included in the official budget. However, the difference is not large (640 billion vs. 660 billion). Social security is another 570 billion so saying that health spending exceeds military + social security is wrong.

That said, those numbers do not include the income from medicare deductions off paychecks. These amount to 57% of money spent. Accounting for those premiums means that net healthspending is only about 400 billion which is much less than the military spending.

Thank you for confirming my claim...Medicare payroll taxes are paid by employer and employee as revenue to the US Treasury, and as such are not separate premiums. Social Security is off budget and collections are a net gain as of now. The main point of my claim, even with the small difference, is that the Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP entitlement programs are recurring outlays that will only grow larger....not so "wars".

Even if I basically agree with your numbers, it's obvious that single payer, universal care, with the government bargaining with providers, would be more efficient than the current mishmash. Incorporating Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP and the VA into one health care entity would eliminate 3 giant, budget items. The current Mitt-inspired options being offered by some candidates (Obama and Edwards, specifically), on the other hand, would create 50+ (territories) separate systems for delivering health care, all dealing with private insurance companies. That's a recipe for a worse nightmare than we've already got. The insurance companies have to be taken out of the mix. Their mission in life is to make money and the only way to make money is to deny care. If the fire department was "for profit," they might let your house burn down if you didn't ante up. The police department would allow your home to be burglarized. The school system would turn your kid away at the door. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." 18,000 lives are lost each year because people cannot afford insurance. As for recurring outlays not meaning "wars." Don't count on it. My money's on Shrub dropping bombs on Iran in the not too distant future. Back to the original topic, Michael Moore and "Sicko." Anyone who didn't catch him on CNN with Wolf Blitzer might enjoy watching the video here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...dress=385x39570

[Xman]

And further to the original topic:

The WHO rated health care systems worldwide, and following are some interesting results.

#1 France

#2 Italy

#30 Canada

#37 America

Perhaps, the Canadian health care system which is provincial, of course, needs scrutiny.

Edited July 10, 2007 by Xman

[ScottSA]

One thing that's misleading is how Canada's health care is referred to as "free." It's not free. The money is coming from Canadians through their tax dollars. Which is why it must be really annoying (to put it mildly) when people like Adrianne (I think that was her name) went into Windsor from Michigan claiming to be the common law wife of her Canadian friend to get "free" health care. Of course for her it was free.

Desperate people do desperate things. Wouldn't it be wonderful if our U.S. tax dollars went for health care instead of bombs?

Wouldn't it be wonderful if petrodollars went for improving the lives of Arabs and not into human walking bombs?

I have a wonderful idea. Instead of allowing these people to finance the spread of a death cult and its contingent human bombs, lets colonize them again, take away the petrodollars, and institute healthcare both there and here with them. Then we can send another Lawrence of Arabia over there to get them riled up to attack Turkey or somewhere to take their minds off petrodollars.

[Xman]

And further to the original topic:

The WHO rated health care systems worldwide, and following are some interesting results.

#1 France

#2 Italy

#30 Canada

#37 America

Perhaps, the Canadian health care system which is provincial, of course, needs scrutiny.

It's worth repeating.

Edited July 10, 2007 by Xman

[bush_cheney2004]

Even if I basically agree with your numbers, it's obvious that single payer, universal care, with the government bargaining with providers, would be more efficient than the current mishmash. Incorporating Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP and the VA into one health care entity would eliminate 3 giant, budget items...

Probably would be more "efficient", but who cares? Seniors vote more consistently than any other block, and they will not sit still for watered down Medicare. We just gave them more with Medicare Part D for prescription drugs last year, and even that plan is not standardized.

The Clintons found out in 1993 what happens when you dick around with Big Insurance, Big Pharma, Hospitals, Physicians, and Trial Lawyers.

[jbg]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if petrodollars went for improving the lives of Arabs and not into human walking bombs?

I have a wonderful idea. Instead of allowing these people to finance the spread of a death cult and its contingent human bombs, lets colonize them again, take away the petrodollars, and institute healthcare both there and here with them. Then we can send another Lawrence of Arabia over there to get them riled up to attack Turkey or somewhere to take their minds off petrodollars.

Then we'd have to take care of all of these peoples' 72 virgins?

[SkyhookJackson]

Even if I basically agree with your numbers, it's obvious that single payer, universal care, with the government bargaining with providers, would be more efficient than the current mishmash. Incorporating Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP and the VA into one health care entity would eliminate 3 giant, budget items...

Probably would be more "efficient", but who cares? Seniors vote more consistently than any other block, and they will not sit still for watered down Medicare. We just gave them more with Medicare Part D for prescription drugs last year, and even that plan is not standardized.

The Clintons found out in 1993 what happens when you dick around with Big Insurance, Big Pharma, Hospitals, Physicians, and Trial Lawyers.

There you go. You hit the nail on the head. Our health care industry is controlled by a wealthy bunch of corporate giants. America's very own Soprano family. Truth be told, though, the physicians have been turning tail from the mob and siding more with the patients. Seniors, under universal health care, would not get "watered down" coverage. They would get the same coverage as everyone else. Do you think Medicare is as it currently exists is wonderful? Apparently not since the average retired couple is estimated to need a quarter of a million dollars in retirement funds set aside JUST FOR HEALTH CARE. I, personally, know of a man on Medicare who was paying $900 a month for supplemental insurance. And don't get me started on the drug bill. Yesterday a woman called the Washington Journal on CSPAN during a call-in segment about health care reform. She was weeping and related a story about being on Medicare Part D and hitting the "donut hole." Now her medications - which are necessary drugs for her condition - eat up all but $400 of her monthly income. Somehow I think we can get the Seniors on our side. I wasn't a fan of the Clinton plan because it still included the insurance/pharma industries in their plan, but if it had been instituted we'd be a heck of alot better off today, some 14 years later and tens of thousands of people dead from lack of care. And how many businesses might have stayed on U.S. shores if they hadn't been on the hook for insurance premiums? You should be ashamed that 1/6 of the population of the so-called "greatest nation on earth" cannot afford health care, while the entire population of Cuba, an impoverished nation, has health care. I know, I know. Their hospitals aren't as good as ours, they don't have the specialists we have, yadda, yadda, yadda. All I know is if I lived in Cuba and needed heart surgery, I would have a chance. In the United States I would die.

Edited July 11, 2007 by SkyhookJackson

[jdobbin]

CNN's Doctor Gupta and Moore debated on CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/...icko/index.html

[SkyhookJackson]

CNN's Doctor Gupta and Moore debated on CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/...icko/index.html

Unfortunately, CNN seems to be focusing on what they call Michael Moore's "fudged facts" as opposed to the underlying problem. Earlier in the day one of CNN's news readers, Kyra Phillips, urged watchers to stay tuned for a continuation of Michael Moore's interview, adding "if you can stomach it." It's clear what the problem is. If you watch CNN or MSNBC or virtually any other mainstream media in the U.S., the commercial interruptions are filled almost entirely by drug ads. Last Christmas I noticed how strange it seemed there weren't more annoying "Chia pet" ads, cosmetic gift ads, toy commercials, etc. That's because the drug industry is paying the news outlets megabucks to dominate the airways. It stands to reason CNN and their ilk will not screw their benefactors. MSM is part of the corporate culture that loves war and its profits and is now looking at U.S. healthcare through rose-colored glasses. We've got an uphill battle.

[jazzer]

Let this be a note to everyone that once again I prove myself right and back my claims up with facts that I have spent MANY, MANY hours in the past researching...It isn't free. We all pay for it and don't kid yourself. There's a REASON our taxes are so high.

I don't think you've researched enough. I don't pay taxes or health care premiums yet I'm fully covered. I am on a disability pension though. So we don't "all pay for it" as you erroneously claim.

Edited July 11, 2007 by jazzer

[margrace]

Well the bottom line seems to be that the US is controlled by the big insurance companies and drug companies. Let me give you a bit of advice. Edgar Cayce years ago, backed by the Mayo Clinic advised the use of Slippery Elm for stomach troubles. Guess what, it works, the ones recommended by the doctors and drug companies do not. Been there, done that, my stomach has been helped for the first time by Slippery Elm.

A tremendous amount of people I know are going back to the old methods

[bush_cheney2004]

It stands to reason CNN and their ilk will not screw their benefactors. MSM is part of the corporate culture that loves war and its profits and is now looking at U.S. healthcare through rose-colored glasses. We've got an uphill battle.

That's right...because it is all part of "corporate culture", including government itself. What is so special about health care? Why not universal food, clothing, and housing? About 16% of US GDP is diectly related to health care, and even more is indirectly related. Anybody proposing to change the status quo will definitely have an uphill battle.

[Guest American Woman]

What is so special about health care? Why not universal food, clothing, and housing? About 16% of US GDP is diectly related to health care, and even more is indirectly related. Anybody proposing to change the status quo will definitely have an uphill battle.

Along that line of thought, what's so special about education? Roads? The army? The navy? etc.

With 16% of US GDP going towards healthcare while so many citizens remain unisured, that pretty much shows how inefficient our healthcare system is. A lot of that money is going towards administrative costs, which are nearly double the administrative costs in Canada.

Edited July 11, 2007 by American Woman

[Riverwind]

About 16% of US GDP is diectly related to health care, and even more is indirectly related. Anybody proposing to change the status quo will definitely have an uphill battle.

That is the problem: Americans are spending twice as much as any other country and getting less for it.

[SkyhookJackson]

It stands to reason CNN and their ilk will not screw their benefactors. MSM is part of the corporate culture that loves war and its profits and is now looking at U.S. healthcare through rose-colored glasses. We've got an uphill battle.

That's right...because it is all part of "corporate culture", including government itself. What is so special about health care? Why not universal food, clothing, and housing? About 16% of US GDP is diectly related to health care, and even more is indirectly related. Anybody proposing to change the status quo will definitely have an uphill battle.

Why is the "corporate culture" a good thing to you? Is money really more important than the suffering of human beings? You must have read the story about the little boy with a toothache who had been kicked out of SCHIP for lack of funding. He didn't dare tell his mother about the sore tooth because he knew she couldn't afford to take him for care. He developed a brain infection and died weeks later after incurring a quarter of a million dollar bill . . . which you, my friend, are paying.

[jdobbin]

Unfortunately, CNN seems to be focusing on what they call Michael Moore's "fudged facts" as opposed to the underlying problem. Earlier in the day one of CNN's news readers, Kyra Phillips, urged watchers to stay tuned for a continuation of Michael Moore's interview, adding "if you can stomach it." It's clear what the problem is. If you watch CNN or MSNBC or virtually any other mainstream media in the U.S., the commercial interruptions are filled almost entirely by drug ads. Last Christmas I noticed how strange it seemed there weren't more annoying "Chia pet" ads, cosmetic gift ads, toy commercials, etc. That's because the drug industry is paying the news outlets megabucks to dominate the airways. It stands to reason CNN and their ilk will not screw their benefactors. MSM is part of the corporate culture that loves war and its profits and is now looking at U.S. healthcare through rose-colored glasses. We've got an uphill battle.

I was watching CNN this morning and it was basically bashing other countries health systems and largely ignoring American ones. Perhaps if CNN actually did some of its own journalism and investigated the health systems on their own rather than taking either Moore's or Gupta's word for it.

[Guest American Woman]

Perhaps CNN gets too much money in donations from the insurance companies to do that kind of investigative reporting.

[jdobbin]

Along that line of thought, what's so special about education? Roads? The army? The navy? etc.

With 16% of US GDP going towards healthcare while so many citizens remain unisured, that pretty much shows how inefficient our healthcare system is. A lot of that money is going towards administrative costs, which are nearly double the administrative costs in Canada.

Administrative costs are cheaper compared to American hospitals but there seems to be a large administrative structure being built around regional hospital systems. I'm not sure if it is helping with efficiency or not. There seems to be a debate about that happening across the provinces right now.

[bush_cheney2004]

Why is the "corporate culture" a good thing to you? Is money really more important than the suffering of human beings? You must have read the story about the little boy with a toothache who had been kicked out of SCHIP for lack of funding. He didn't dare tell his mother about the sore tooth because he knew she couldn't afford to take him for care. He developed a brain infection and died weeks later after incurring a quarter of a million dollar bill . . . which you, my friend, are paying.

Cute story....I remain un-moved. Corporate culture is neither good or bad, it simply is. Human beings are suffering all over the planet, but all Americans deserve universal health care? Would you accept a lower standard of health care in the USA to spread the wealth for just the basics in SubSaharan Africa? Let's see how many Americans (or Canadians) line up for that kind of egalitarian approach to health care.

[bush_cheney2004]

Along that line of thought, what's so special about education? Roads? The army? The navy? etc.

With 16% of US GDP going towards healthcare while so many citizens remain unisured, that pretty much shows how inefficient our healthcare system is. A lot of that money is going towards administrative costs, which are nearly double the administrative costs in Canada.

Armed Forces? See US Constitution

Roads and Education are far more dependent on state tax bases, not the Feds.

Whoever said the US health care "system" was designed to be "efficient". It is designed to generate profits.

[Guest American Woman]

I realize the armed forces are mentioned in the Constitution. I also realize the Constitution can be, and has been, amended. So my question stands.

As for roads and education being "far more" dependent on state taxes, I'd like some facts that define just how "far more" they are dependent on states taxes, especially when it comes to interstates. But be that as it may, education is a "must." The federal government says a free education through grade 12 must be provided to everyone. So again, my question stands.

But evidently you don't dispute the fact that we spend more yet provide less care. Interesting. The way you've been throwing figures and percentages out, I assumed it was to somehow defend how 'good' our healthcare system is and how much money our government is spending on the people for healthcare.

But if you think spending our tax dollars on profit for administrative costs is a good thing, I find it extremely difficult to understand why you wouldn't think spending it on the people to give them actual health care would be a good thing. As for myself, I'd rather pay tax dollars for care than for administrative fees; and I think the amount of care our government provides, not the percentage of money spent, would be the measure of how good it is.

[SkyhookJackson]

Why is the "corporate culture" a good thing to you? Is money really more important than the suffering of human beings? You must have read the story about the little boy with a toothache who had been kicked out of SCHIP for lack of funding. He didn't dare tell his mother about the sore tooth because he knew she couldn't afford to take him for care. He developed a brain infection and died weeks later after incurring a quarter of a million dollar bill . . . which you, my friend, are paying.

Cute story....I remain un-moved. Corporate culture is neither good or bad, it simply is. Human beings are suffering all over the planet, but all Americans deserve universal health care? Would you accept a lower standard of health care in the USA to spread the wealth for just the basics in SubSaharan Africa? Let's see how many Americans (or Canadians) line up for that kind of egalitarian approach to health care.

In the end, we're all in this together. You can't take it with you, BC2004. I'm pretty much done debating you since it's apparent you're in that 26% who would support King George even if he got on television and bashed puppies with a hammer.

[jdobbin]

I realize the armed forces are mentioned in the Constitution. I also realize the Constitution can be, and has been, amended. So my question stands.

Wasn't slavery in the Constitution as well? I guess from a strict Constitutionalist, it should have remained and slavery should have been left to businesses to decide. heh

[Xman]

I realize the armed forces are mentioned in the Constitution. I also realize the Constitution can be, and has been, amended. So my question stands.

Wasn't slavery in the Constitution as well? I guess from a strict Constitutionalist, it should have remained and slavery should have been left to businesses to decide. heh

Was it? Citation, please.

[jdobbin]

Was it? Citation, please.

Slavery was codified in a number of places in the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html

Slavery is seen in the Constitution in a few key places. The first is in the Enumeration Clause, where representatives are apportioned. Each state is given a number of representatives based on its population - in that population, slaves, called "other persons," are counted as three-fifths of a whole person. This compromise was hard-fought, with Northerners wishing that slaves, legally property, but uncounted, much as mules and horses are uncounted. Southerners, however, well aware of the high proportion of slaves to the total population in their states, wanted them counted as whole persons despite their legal status. The three-fifths number was a ratio used by the Congress in contemporary legislation and was agreed upon with little debate.

In Article 1, Section 9, Congress is limited, expressly, from prohibiting the "Importation" of slaves, before 1808. The slave trade was a bone of contention for many, with some who supported slavery abhorring the slave trade. The 1808 date, a compromise of 20 years, allowed the slave trade to continue, but placed a date-certain on its survival. Congress eventually passed a law outlawing the slave trade that became effective on January 1, 1808.

The Fugitive Slave Clause is the last mention. In it, a problem that slave states had with extradition of escaped slaves was resolved. The laws of one state, the clause says, cannot excuse a person from "Service or Labour" in another state. The clause expressly requires that the state in which an escapee is found deliver the slave to the state he escaped from "on Claim of the Party."

Edited July 12, 2007 by jdobbin