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

[bush_cheney2004]

Money is what keeps people from getting the care they need (in the US). If they don't have the money they do not recieve treatment. Ever.

Nonsense....this is utter ignorance. People without "money" can actually qualify for government sponsored programs that dwarf Canada's system and waiting game.

[Drea]

American Woman -- Many folks around the world participate in charity events. It is not exclusively an "American thing".

Let's compare...

An example: A Canadian boy gets lukemia, gets treatment (paid for) and yet his family/community does something like bicycle across the country or swim the St. Lawrence to raise money for researching the disease so that others do not suffer the same fate.

Another example: An American boy gets lukemia, his parents, friends and community members join together and raise enough money for his treatment. Does this entourage continue to raise money for a possible future cure?

If in the first example the fundraising is not a success, the child still lives.

If in second example the fundraising is not a success, the child dies.

How can a nation so technologically and militarily advanced allow a child to die (even one) because his family's fundraising efforts were insufficient?

Edited July 23, 2007 by Drea

[bush_cheney2004]

America contributes far more money than Canada, which still benefits from the Yankee research.

Example: Jerry Lewis' Labor Day telethon demonstrates the deep pockets and charitable giving from Americans.

[Guest American Woman]

Many folks around the world participate in charity events. It is not exclusively an "American thing".

An example: A Canadian boy gets lukemia, gets treatment (paid for) and yet his family/community does something like bicycle across the country or swim the St. Lawrence to raise money for researching the disease so that others do not suffer the same fate.

Another example: An American boy gets lukemia, his parents, friends and community members join together and raise enough money for his treatment. Does this entourage continue to raise money for a possible future cure?

If in the first example the fundraising is not a success, the child still lives.

If in second example the fundraising is not a success, the child dies.

To my knowledge, no one has said that participating in charity events is exclusively an American thing. By the same token, Americans also donate money for research. That's not exclusively a "Canadian thing."

[Drea]

Would you agree that fundraising is an inefficient, failure prone way to pay for medical treatment?

Not all people are cute enough to garner the "aaahhh" from people so that they reach into their wallets. It would be just terrible if I would have had to fundraise to help my mom pay for her cancer treatments IMO.

[jbg]

In the United States, it would not be the health CARE that would change (other than everyone would get it), it would be the health PAYMENT system that would change. The government will not be directing a person's medical care. Like Medicare and Medicaid, you will go to your doctor of choice, produce your card, receive your treatment, go home. There will be no sleepless nights worrying about money, no bake sales to pay for your chemo, you'll be able to focus on getting better and becoming a productive citizen again.

And for how long could the "government" (really an amalgam of the taxpayers) afford that? They'd have to ration somehow.

[Drea]

Taxes, premiums and user fees.

[sharkman]

Would you agree that fundraising is an inefficient, failure prone way to pay for medical treatment?

Not all people are cute enough to garner the "aaahhh" from people so that they reach into their wallets. It would be just terrible if I would have had to fundraise to help my mom pay for her cancer treatments IMO.

Your mom got her treatments paid for? Damn it all. My mom just finished some and had to pay for accomodation. Five weeks and this in frickin Kelowna. Dad paid too since he wasn't about to let her go it alone. A wonderful system we have. She suffered something awful but there was no staying at the hospital even. And this is the shining example of a medical system for the Americans to follow? Hah.

With taxes premiums and user fees, add line ups and jacked up out patient care.

[jbg]

Taxes, premiums and user fees.

And what about people who cannot afford "taxes, premiums and user fees"?

[Drea]

jbg, low income people would not pay premiums or user fees. Or at least there could be a sliding scale with regard to income level.

Sharkman, my mom stayed in her hometown. Town of >15,000 people. She recieved all her radiation treatments there.

[Riverwind]

It has nothing to do with a "popularity contest" and "charisma." Americans care about their neighbors; we are very giving and caring as a nation and I'm proud of that fact.

Only neighbors with the right connections and suitable charisma attract those kinds of donations (i.e. i am fairly certain that a child of a single mom living in an urban center would not get the same support that a child of a middle class family in the suburbs would get).

This is human nature and not a failing unique to Americans. Environmental groups understand this which is why they put so much emphasis charismatic mega fauna like polar bears and baby seals. Private charity is an arbitrary and inefficient mechanism and cannot be considered a substiture for a universal health care plan.

Edited July 23, 2007 by Riverwind

[geoffrey]

jbg, low income people would not pay premiums or user fees. Or at least there could be a sliding scale with regard to income level.

Ah. So health care should not be equal. It should be another scheme of social transfers. I realise it already is through taxes, but to ramp it up even more where rich people have to pay and poor people get free care... nah. Not going to happen. Most would just leave if the price got high enough.

If I pay more, I want to get more. If I had user fees in Canada, I'd just do my health care in the states... as my family has been forced to do twice, due to the stone age attitude towards care in the system up here.

[Renegade]

To those of you who are proponents of universal health care and believe everyone should have free access to the same level medical care, I have a question. Why does your concept of univerality end at your country's borders? Why not fund universality in healthcare for all the poor of Asia, Africa, and Latin-America?

[Pliny]

It has nothing to do with a "popularity contest" and "charisma." Americans care about their neighbors; we are very giving and caring as a nation and I'm proud of that fact.

Only neighbors with the right connections and suitable charisma attract those kinds of donations (i.e. i am fairly certain that a child of a single mom living in an urban center would not get the same support that a child of a middle class family in the suburbs would get).

This is human nature and not a failing unique to Americans. Environmental groups understand this which is why they put so much emphasis charismatic mega fauna like polar bears and baby seals. Private charity is an arbitrary and inefficient mechanism and cannot be considered a substiture for a universal health care plan.

Charity is to help the less fortunate not be a substitute for a "universal" health care plan.

You are fairly certain a single Mom would not get the same support a child of a middle class family in the suburbs would get. Well.....

If people knew they had to be responsible for themselves and knew that their welfare depended upon their relationships, their community and their contribution to both there wouldn't be too many single Moms around.

And I know you are probably thinking entirely of the woman in these matters but men would have to be a little more responsible as well.

The politically correct world of government problem solving would, of course, have us do whatever made us feel good. We would just be demanding our rights (food, clothing, shelter, health care, education) and blaming someone else or some nebulous entity like "society" for our situations. I think there are individuals that think food, clothing, shelter, health care and education are products of the federal government who have an endless supply of these commodities in stock and the ability to print money should keep the cupboards overflowing. Once the people that actually do supply these things start to find their work unrewarding or the majority of it is confiscated they will either leave for greener pastures or become one of those demanding their "rights" and blaming someone else for their problems.

[Pliny]

To those of you who are proponents of universal health care and believe everyone should have free access to the same level medical care, I have a question. Why does your concept of univerality end at your country's borders? Why not fund universality in healthcare for all the poor of Asia, Africa, and Latin-America?

They are working on it. See UN Charter.

[Renegade]

They are working on it. See UN Charter.

Un Charter directives are generally "motherhood and apple-pie" statements. They do not generally address the hard choices which have to be made to implement those initiatives.

[stevoh]

To those of you who are proponents of universal health care and believe everyone should have free access to the same level medical care, I have a question. Why does your concept of univerality end at your country's borders? Why not fund universality in healthcare for all the poor of Asia, Africa, and Latin-America?

I agree with the concept, but universal health care has to pay for itself somehow, how would we fund this system?

[Guest American Woman]

To those of you who are proponents of universal health care and believe everyone should have free access to the same level medical care, I have a question. Why does your concept of univerality end at your country's borders? Why not fund universality in healthcare for all the poor of Asia, Africa, and Latin-America?

For the same reason we're not providing police protection, building their roads, and funding their schools.

[Renegade]

For the same reason we're not providing police protection, building their roads, and funding their schools.

And what reason is that?

[Renegade]

I agree with the concept, but universal health care has to pay for itself somehow, how would we fund this system?

Universal health care doesn't ever "pay for itself". The wealthier subsidize the poorer in order to have a uniform standard of care. In order to have a better standard of care for a poorer nation a wealthier nation would either have to lower the standard of care it provided or require people to pay more. That's the hard choice, isn't it?

Edited July 23, 2007 by Renegade

[Riverwind]

And what reason is that?

We have a civil society that functions well because of an unwritten social contract. This contract is ill-defined but very necessary because our society would collapse if people did not willingly follow the many laws and rules that do not benefit them personally. Most people see equality of opportunity is one of the core components of this social contract. Achieving equality of opportunity requires that the government provide basic services for free or at a low cost to all citizens. In our society today these services must include policing, primary and secondary education, transportation infrastructure and basic health care. We can, of course, argue the details of what should be include but that does not alter the fact that the social contract exists and everyone benefits from it - even the rich who expect the state to protect their wealth.

We have no such obligation towards people living in different countries because we don't expect them to follow our laws.

Edited July 23, 2007 by Riverwind

[Renegade]

We have a civil society that functions well because of an unwritten social contract. This contract is ill-defined but very necessary because our society would collapse if people did not willing follow the many laws and rules that do not benefit them personally. Most people see equality of opportunity is one of the core components of this social contract. Achieving equality of opportunity requires that the government provide basic services for free or at a low cost to all citizens. In our society today these services must include policing, primary and secondary education, transportation infrastructure and basic health care. We can, of course, argue the details of what should be include but that does not alter the fact that the social contract exists and everyone benefits from it - even the rich who expect the state to protect their wealth.

Yes I get this. You call it a social contract, I call it a balance of power. I agree that the rich benefit from social stability, but they only benefit to the extent that they are in danger of losing their wealth. I dont' believe that the rich are in danger of losng their wealth because they don't fund universal healthcare.

We have no such obligation towards people living in different countries because we don't expect them to follow our laws.

So is the obligation to follow our laws the differentiating criteria? It would seem to me that the argument advanced thus far has been a "moral" one. ie It is immoral to deprive anyone of healthcare. You seem to state that it is not a moral reason at all.

Let me pose a hypothetical to you. If you were prime minister and the governments of the 3rd world countries came to you and said, "we'll submit to your laws, so can we please have your benefits?", would you agree?

Edited July 23, 2007 by Renegade

[Riverwind]

So is the obligation to follow our laws the differentiating criteria? It would seem to me that the argument advanced thus far has been a "moral" one. ie It is immoral to deprive anyone of healthcare. You seem to state that it is not a moral reason at all.

The moral argument for universal health care is not that compelling because a purely moral argument would imply we would need to extend that to cover all human beings in need. I see universal health care as a necessary component in a society with an advanced economy like Canada. It falls into the same category as the other government services I listed.

Let me pose a hypothetical to you. If you were prime minister and the governments of the 3rd world countries came to you and said, "we'll submit to your laws, so can we please have your benefits?", would you agree?

It is not enough to say that they would simply 'follow our laws'. These 3rd world countries would have to become terrorities of Canada which are subject to the Canadian constitution. If this happened then they would be entitled to the same benefits.

Incidently, the Turks and Calacos have tried this with Canada but have been rebuffed by Canadian politicians who understand that assuming the obligations that go with it would be expensive.

[Renegade]

The moral argument for universal health care is not that compelling because a purely moral argument would imply we would need to extend that to cover all human beings in need.

Agreed!

I see universal health care as a necessary component in a society with an advanced economy like Canada. It falls into the same category as the other government services I listed.

I'm not convinced it is a necessary component. At least not the the way we define it today. For example, is it necessary to provide expensive care to a 90year-old with a severe illness. Sad as it is morally, it is in society's better interest to let that person perish.

Incidently, the Turks and Calacos have tried this with Canada but have been rebuffed by Canadian politicians who understand that assuming the obligations that go with it would be expensive.

Bingo!! You have hit the nail on the head as to why! They don't want to provide the benefit because it would cost them money to do so. Funny though, that is the exact reason why the weathy within a country don't push for universal healthcare.

It seem that the masses are happy to share wealth when sharing means sharing wih someone wealthier than themselves. They are not so happy when it means having to share their own wealth with somone much poorer than themselves.

[Riverwind]

I'm not convinced it is a necessary component. At least not the the way we define it today. For example, is it necessary to provide expensive care to a 90year-old with a severe illness. Sad as it is morally, it is in society's better interest to let that person perish.

The amount of money we can spend on public heath care is finite which means the public system will have to make choices based on the best interest of society. Unfortunately, the best interest of society is not always the same as the best interest of an individual. That is why we need to allow individuals to purchase additional care if they find that basic coverage is not sufficient.

That said, the fact that perfection is not possible in a universal public system does not mean we should throw up our hands and not even attempt to come up with some definition of basic health care coverage for everyone.