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

[Guest American Woman]

I will say this about Moore's reference to Cuba; he says that Cuba has a health care system that's one of the best in the world. If it's ranked lower than ours, I don't see how he can correctly draw that conclusion. But since Cubans have a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate, I'd like to know what the rankings are based on.

[bush_cheney2004]

Repeating that the systems "co-exist" doesn't change the fact that they don't. "Public" health coverage isn't selective; it covers the entire public. As for 85% of the public being served by the entire system (the majority by private healthcare); again, that leaves 40+ million NOT being served. That's a lot of people not being served. That leaves a lot of people going without or drowning in debt. And the 60% with favorable views is hardly an impressive majority and I'm guessing that figure is getting lower and lower with passing time.

But "CommieCare?" Surely you have more intelligence than that ...

Why do you insist on ignoring the obvious...Medicare is a "public" program, with eligibility for the elderly, disabled, and other special cases. I purposely use "CommieCare" in the spirit of Michael Moore and his film's title "Sicko"....two can play at that game.

What part of not allowing private insurance and other health care commerce by statute to preserve a government monopoly on egalitarian misery do you not understand?

Edited July 14, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

Why do you insist on ignoring the obvious...Medicare is a "public" program, with eligibility for the elderly, disabled, and other special cases. I purposely use "CommieCare" in the spirit of Michael Moore and his film's title "Sicko"....two can play at that game.

What part of not not allowing private insurance and other health care commerce by statute to preserve a government monopoly on egalitarian misery do you not understand?

Why do you insist on ignoring the obvious?? Medicare is NOT for "the American public." Therefore, it does not "co-exist" along with a system that does not have the same restrictions. You make it sound as if we have two programs serving the American public; one public, one private. That is NOT the case.

You keep arguing against public health care ("public" meaning the actual entire PUBLIC) as if there is no other way to do it than Canada's way. I didn't realize we have to have a clone of their system. I didn't realize that's what all of us "progressives" were pushing for.

One last thing ... you're replying to me here, not Michael Moore, so perhaps you could lose the "CommieCare" mentality here; especially since I don't see any of this as a "game."

[bush_cheney2004]

Why do you insist on ignoring the obvious?? Medicare is NOT for "the American public." Therefore, it does not "co-exist" along with a system that does not have the same restrictions. You make it sound as if we have two programs serving the American public; one public, one private. That is NOT the case.

You keep arguing against public health care ("public" meaning the actual entire PUBLIC) as if there is no other way to do it than Canada's way. I didn't realize we have to have a clone of their system. I didn't realize that's what all of us "progressives" were pushing for.

One last thing ... you're replying to me here, not Michael Moore, so perhaps you could lose the "CommieCare" mentality here; especially since I don't see any of this as a "game."

It's plain to see that Medicare is a public program....eligible Americans may use it or buy care on their own nickel.

We already have "public care" in spades...even Michael Moore says so in his film.

I will continue to emphasize "CommieCare" whenever I please, particularly since it dost prick "progressives" so. (It's not all about you, and it is a game to me.)

Edited July 14, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

Yes. Medicare is a public program for the elderly, as well as a select few others. It's not a program for the public. And sorry to disappoint, but "CommieCare" doesn't "prick" me in the least; it just makes me feel as if I'm trying to have a discussion with someone who's just not up to it intellectually.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes. Medicare is a public program for the elderly, as well as a select few others. It's not a program for the public. And sorry to disappoint, but "CommieCare" doesn't "prick" me in the least; it just makes me feel as if I'm trying to have a discussion with someone who's just not up to it intellectually.

Then please ignore my posts and continue to be superior in every way. I have been abandoned by other frustrated "elites" as well, particularly when they find that their intellectual efforts have been left in tatters by my brutal version of economic reality.

"CommieCare"....yes...I like that. It is pithy, biting, and even has alliteration.

[jdobbin]

I will say this about Moore's reference to Cuba; he says that Cuba has a health care system that's one of the best in the world. If it's ranked lower than ours, I don't see how he can correctly draw that conclusion. But since Cubans have a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate, I'd like to know what the rankings are based on.

There has been some debate about the WHO ratings. They are not posting another rating until they resolve the very question that you are asking.

I can't recall Moore saying they had a better system. I thought his main point was that it was universal despite the fact that they were poorer.

[Guest American Woman]

I will say this about Moore's reference to Cuba; he says that Cuba has a health care system that's one of the best in the world. If it's ranked lower than ours, I don't see how he can correctly draw that conclusion. But since Cubans have a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate, I'd like to know what the rankings are based on.

There has been some debate about the WHO ratings. They are not posting another rating until they resolve the very question that you are asking.

I can't recall Moore saying they had a better system. I thought his main point was that it was universal despite the fact that they were poorer.

He says Cuba "has become known around the world ... as having one of the best health care systems ... "

If theirs is one of the best, and we're ranked above them, what does that say about our system? But then, it sounds as if there are unanswered questions in the ranking system, which would make the U.S.'s ranking questionable too.

Edited July 14, 2007 by American Woman

[jdobbin]

He says Cuba "has become known around the world ... as having one of the best health care systems ... "

If theirs is one of the best, and we're ranked above them, what does that say about our system? But then, it sounds as if there are unanswered questions in the ranking system, which would make the U.S.'s ranking questionable too.

There are aspects of their system that have done quite well but overall it ranks below the U.S. which Moore noted in his movie.

The U.S. rating could indeed go up with WHO's new formula.

[geoffrey]

Canada needs to improve its system but I don't know that there is evidence that a massive privatization will do that.

Lots of evidence. I present to you the Western countries with sizeable populations that ranked better than us on the WHO list (and from what I can tell their health care systems are):

1 France (Government insurer - mostly private provision)

2 Italy (Government insurer - mostly private provision)

7 Spain (Government insurer - mostly private provision)

9 Austria (Government insurer - mostly private provision)

10 Japan (Government insurer - mostly private provision)

11 Norway (Single insurer - private provision, lots of public provision)

12 Portugal (Government insurer - mostly private provision)

14 Greece (Government insurer - mostly private provision)

15 Iceland (Government insurer - mostly private provision)

16 Luxembourg (Government insurer - mostly private provision)

17 Netherlands (Government insurer - mostly private provision)

18 United Kingdom (Government insurer - mostly private provision, considerable public provision)

19 Ireland (Government insurer - mostly private provision)

20 Switzerland (Government insurer - mostly private provision)

21 Belgium (Government insurer - mostly private provision)

23 Sweden (Government insurer - private provision, lots of public provision)

25 Germany (Government insurer - mostly private provision)

And in 30th

30 Canada (Exclusively Government Insured - public provision with laws against private provision and insurance)

Where are the other two countries that use that model:

39 Cuba

167 North Korea

Edited July 14, 2007 by geoffrey

[ScottSA]

You say "progressives" as if it's a dirty word. Don't tell me you think progress is a bad thing?

Progressives is a dirty word. It has about as much to do with progress as "gay" has to do with happy.

[jdobbin]

Lots of evidence. I present to you the Western countries with sizeable populations that ranked better than us on the WHO list (and from what I can tell their health care systems are):

And in 30th

30 Canada (Exclusively Government Insured - public provision with laws against private provision and insurance)

I was referring to a U.S.-type privatization to end universality and go the route they are going rather than the European example which I have already said is worth exploring.

You would prefer France or Italy's model?

Edited July 14, 2007 by jdobbin

[SkyhookJackson]

Yes. Medicare is a public program for the elderly, as well as a select few others. It's not a program for the public. And sorry to disappoint, but "CommieCare" doesn't "prick" me in the least; it just makes me feel as if I'm trying to have a discussion with someone who's just not up to it intellectually.

Then please ignore my posts and continue to be superior in every way. I have been abandoned by other frustrated "elites" as well, particularly when they find that their intellectual efforts have been left in tatters by my brutal version of economic reality.

"CommieCare"....yes...I like that. It is pithy, biting, and even has alliteration.

Maybe you've been abandoned because it's like talking to a rock.

[SkyhookJackson]

He says Cuba "has become known around the world ... as having one of the best health care systems ... "

If theirs is one of the best, and we're ranked above them, what does that say about our system? But then, it sounds as if there are unanswered questions in the ranking system, which would make the U.S.'s ranking questionable too.

There are aspects of their system that have done quite well but overall it ranks below the U.S. which Moore noted in his movie.

The U.S. rating could indeed go up with WHO's new formula.

I think Michael Moore made a very good point that Cuba, a near third world nation, is only 2 jogs below the U.S. in the health care rating. Considering the overall differences in the 2 countries, it's ludicrous the United States wouldn't be higher on the list and speaks volumes about our "for profit" health care. Adding salt to the wound is that Cuba provides all of its citizens basic health care.

[jdobbin]

Maybe you've been abandoned because it's like talking to a rock.

Imagine what some people will be like with a Democratic President in 2008.

[runningdog]

Yes. Medicare is a public program for the elderly, as well as a select few others. It's not a program for the public. And sorry to disappoint, but "CommieCare" doesn't "prick" me in the least; it just makes me feel as if I'm trying to have a discussion with someone who's just not up to it intellectually.

Then please ignore my posts and continue to be superior in every way. I have been abandoned by other frustrated "elites" as well, particularly when they find that their intellectual efforts have been left in tatters by my brutal version of economic reality.

"CommieCare"....yes...I like that. It is pithy, biting, and even has alliteration.

Maybe you've been abandoned because it's like talking to a rock.

LOL...BC2004: But Canada, but Canada, but but but....." One gets sick of his typical response after awhile.

[geoffrey]

You would prefer France or Italy's model?

Ideally, yes. Universal coverage, but I can pay whoever I want if I choose to, and it's all privately provided with a profit motive for excellence. Why wouldn't someone go that way?

I'd only take the American way over our really really disasterous and ideologically twisted system... there are many way better examples than either of our systems.

The false dilemma proposed by the left is getting really annoying though. It's either Tommy Douglas or the American way. It's simply not so. The rest of the world does it completely different. It seems that providing good care isn't exactly what 'friends of medicare' are about. It's more protecting Health Canada paper pushers and union spots, isn't it?

[jdobbin]

Ideally, yes. Universal coverage, but I can pay whoever I want if I choose to, and it's all privately provided with a profit motive for excellence. Why wouldn't someone go that way?

I'd only take the American way over our really really disasterous and ideologically twisted system... there are many way better examples than either of our systems.

The false dilemma proposed by the left is getting really annoying though. It's either Tommy Douglas or the American way. It's simply not so. The rest of the world does it completely different. It seems that providing good care isn't exactly what 'friends of medicare' are about. It's more protecting Health Canada paper pushers and union spots, isn't it?

I think a segment of the right wing seems intent on ending universality with the thought that having people "opt out" because they can't afford it will make it possible for those who can afford it to not wait for service.

I have no problem adopting useful ideas from any of the 29 countries ahead of Canada in improving universal healthcare.

[bush_cheney2004]

LOL...BC2004: But Canada, but Canada, but but but....." One gets sick of his typical response after awhile.

Hmmm...let's see...Canadian board...Canadian politics....Canadian health care thread.

What else did you expect....more defining moments based on the USA?

Canada spends less on health care because Canadians get less...DUH!

[SkyhookJackson]

LOL...BC2004: But Canada, but Canada, but but but....." One gets sick of his typical response after awhile.

Hmmm...let's see...Canadian board...Canadian politics....Canadian health care thread.

What else did you expect....more defining moments based on the USA?

Canada spends less on health care because Canadians get less...DUH!

Duh! Canadians live longer than Americans and have a lower infant mortality rate. Maybe every living individual doesn't need to have a statin drug crammed down his or her throat to live a good life. Maybe every small town hospital doesn't need each and every bell and whistle to provide good health care. Our local hospital closed an entire floor several years ago because they couldn't fill it with inpatients. Now that outpatient care is preferred in many cases they're adding on a 10 million dollar addition to handle it . . . yet that inpatient floor is still empty. Waste, red tape and obscene profits have driven U.S. health care into the crapper. No good will every come from a system that pays it's CEOs over a $100,000,000 a year. Canadians appear to have a good, basic system to work on improving. It's not perfect, but it's fixable. The U.S., on the other hand, needs to wipe the slate clean and start from scratch.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....Waste, red tape and obscene profits have driven U.S. health care into the crapper. No good will every come from a system that pays it's CEOs over a $100,000,000 a year. Canadians appear to have a good, basic system to work on improving. It's not perfect, but it's fixable. The U.S., on the other hand, needs to wipe the slate clean and start from scratch.

If Canada does not have "waste, red tape, and obscene profits", what's the excuse for such poor performance wrt wait times, thorough diagnostics, imaging labs, and lack of other interventions at many points of delivery (e.g. post-MI revascularization). The Canadians headed south or abroad for faster access to such services and procedures find little comfort in better per-capita life expectancy back home.

Canada's system is not good when compared to other OECD nations with universal access as an objective.

[jbg]

I wasn't going to respond to you anymore, but you sure know how to press the right button: Elections. If you will recall, in the year 2000, your boy was appointed to the presidency AFTER the Supreme Court stopped the counting of votes in Florida. (Their conclusion had an amusing passage about it causing irreparable harm to the plaintiff - Shrub - if the vote was to continue. The harm, of course, would have been the loss of the White House.) The votes, as you must know, were later tallied up and - surprise, surprise - Mr. Gore, in truth, won Florida, despite a whole lot of monkey business with the voting machines and overt voter disenfranchisement. Fast forward to 2004. For the first time in history all the exit polls turned out the be "wrong."

I decided that a response to this post, as meritorious and dispassionate as this post is, deserves its own thread (link) in order to avoid further "thread drift"

[jbg]

The U.S. doesn't have a single payer system for everyone. Our single payer system, Medicaid, is for the elderly. That doesn't help the 40+ million uninsured Americans, so it's hardly "existing alongside private for-profit health care". But then, I'm sure you already knew that.

Medicare is for the elderly.

[jbg]

Maybe you've been abandoned because it's like talking to a rock.

Imagine what some people will be like with a Democratic President in 2008.

Unless someone other than Osama oops, Obama and/or Hilary gets the nomination, that's highly unlikely. They're both quite interesting and quite unelectable.

[KO2]

Micheal is as appealing to me as Rush Bimbaugh.

But for an person with little in the way of looks, the usual leg up for many in life, he sure is on a roll.