Moore's scene in the Cuban hospital has all the truth/ sincerity of Dorthea Langes "Migrant Woman" it was set up.
Sent from Olywa On Mar 22, 2010, at 12:13 PM, "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
He is a master of deception in his movie making. Do not believe what he puts on film.On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Laurence Cuffe <cuffe@xxxxxxx> wrote:I watched Sicko by Micheal Moore on German TV a week or so ago, it was a deeply depressing experience. It is polemic and partisan, but it is also a documentary describing real cases, and interviewing real people.I hope some form of universal heath care gets through for the USA, as I think its a good piece of governance technology and it seems to work ok for the countries that adopt it.I find it depressing to note that most of the voices I hear speaking out against it, have coverage either through their work or through veterans benefit.I spent two years in the states buying private cover, and I was not impressed by the limitations on cover even though I was paying over $1000 a month for coverage. My private health insurance premium over here for my family is about that much a year, and is used to supplement the basic level of care provided by the state. This generally means that you will get a private room if available.What is this system like in practice?This time last year, here in Ireland, my son started walking with a limp and this proved to be an bone infection in his foot which required myself and himself spending a week in a children's hospital. We had X-Rays, MRI scans, and lots of medication. I think I paid out about $75 in total.Our medical system over here is not without its critics, but it costs only half as much on a per capita basis than the American system, and life expectancy is much the same. This is based on WHO figures.I think you can make an argument in favor of universal health care based on value for money, however I think the arguments should be made along the lines of "Its the kind of fundamental service that any country that can afford it should provide for its citizens, just like a police force, a judiciary and an army". Thor has this right.My 2c. Laurence CuffeOn Sunday, March 21, 2010, at 02:56PM, "Thor Legvold" <tlegvold@xxxxxxx > wrote:>Health care is part of the basic lowest-common-demoninator needs a >government provides for it's people Part of the health, safety and >welfare (in the correct use of the word) of the populace. It's funny >to see the US jump up and down and shout that they're number 1, and>then look at the actual numbers across a range of social, economic and>other issues :-). > >The US is big on toys for the guys (i.e. military/defense spending) >but not so much on the health and well being of it's general >population, or so it would seem. I won't even touch the ever-growing >girth of the American population in general, and what that's going to >mean further down the road... > >I was told by a guy in the US a while back that the problem really >started escalating when the government changed the system from >strictly not-for-profit to regular for-profit (for health insurers/ >plans). At that point the focus changed from providing a valuable>service and balancing costs with expenses, to making as much profit as>possible and cutting expenses where ever possible. I'll bet it's >difficult having two diametrically opposed goals when running a large >insurance company - the highest possible returns for the stockholders >against providing a high level of quality and service to those who >need it most and have paid for it. >>He said that, combined with balooning malpractice lawsuit payouts, was>where the whole thing started to go terribly wrong. I don't know if >his explination is correct, but it sounds interesting. > >Cheers, >Thor > > >On 21. mars. 2010, at 16.31, Douglas Nygren wrote: > >> In Switzerland, insurance companies are forbidden to make a profit >> on their health insurance coverage. They made the switch to this>> system in the 1990s because in the Swiss view too many citizens were>> without coverage. They became alarmed when 5% were without health >> insurance. We are closer to 18%. >> >> The insurance companies make money on the other products they sell >> and use health insurance to show what good companies they are. >>>> In this country, we spend 30 cents of every premium for nothing. The>> insurance companies skim 30% for profit and handling costs. >> Medicare's handling costs are about 5.5%. >> >> The logic of managed care would be to eliminate the insurance>> companies. It's an easy 25% to pick up in savings, but would be only>> one step in the process of reigning in runaway healthcare costs. We >> get nothing for that 25%. I bet Marc wouldn't pay someone 25% more >> for work on his house. For that 25%, the person would simply cash >> your checks, deny you work on your home, then cheat the workmen and >> companies doing the work out of their money by denying their bills. >> This system makes no sense it is also producing bad results. We pay>> more and get less than other countries. We are not healthier for the>> extra money we pay. >>>> The premiums for my company rose 29% last year. Who can afford jumps>> in costs like that for long? We dealt with the jump by finding a >> better price from another company. The quality of the insurance >> dropped and people's deductible jumped out of sight. The deductible >> for my family went from little to $4,000. In my view, the insurance >> company became a tax collector. What would George Washington think >> of that--taxation without rerpresentation. >> >> I laugh when I hear politicians ask, "do you want government>> between you and your doctor?" Certainly would be better than what we>> have now, which is profit-driven insurance companies between my >> doctors and me. I can call my congressman, my senator. I can't call >> the insurance company. They are not elected, they don't have to >> answer to the public. >> >> And I must admit, I fear more that I will lose my insurance or be >> dropped to a pre-existing condition and end up losing everything >> when I get sick than I worry about a terrorist attack. My insurance >> company is more likely to kill me than any terrorist. >> >> Doug >> >> >> >> On Mar 21, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Eric Goldstein wrote: >> >>> Marc - >>> >>> I agree that this is a thoughtful reply. >>> >>> I will take issue with your implication that MDs in this country >>> earn 50-75 thousand dollar salaries; the average PCP salary in the >>> US is twice that. Also, to suggest that the average salary of>>> specialists such as Cardiologists, around 450 thousand annually, is >>> justified is crazy; no where else in the world do you see this kind>>> of compensation. >>>>>> Basically you are accurate in saying that it is insurance companies>>> who have escalated health care costs far above the rate of>>> inflation over the decades, and that cost containment is the key to>>> bringing affordability back into the US health care system. They>>> have done it because of the failure of the so-called "free market,">>> they have done it via a fee-for-survices reimbursement structure, >>> and they have done it by adding an additional 10-13+% to the cost >>> of health care via their administration and profit. >>> >>> Where your argument goes astray is the suggestion that tort reform >>> is the answer. At most, successful tort reform, if it could be >>> meaningfully achieved, would result in about a 2% reduction in >>> health care costs, which won't cut it no matter what your goal for>>> the future of health care. We need to find about 13% to get us to a>>> place where we can move forward by insuring most every citizen, if >>> that is the goal, and about 8-10% to get us to future solvency >>> under existing programs. >>> >>> Real life has shown us that successful cost containment within a >>> private insurance model has only been achieved, and can only be >>> achieved, via comprehensive and strict government insurance >>> guidelines in health care systems. There are numerous examples of >>> successful health care systems with outcomes better, and costs >>> lower, than those in the US which substantial this and none which >>> refute it. >>> >>> To keep the discussion simple and focused, I won't address in >>> detail your constitutional argument as it relates to health care. >>> The fact is the vast majority of US citizens support Social >>> Security, Medicare and other federal programs which are not>>> referenced in the Constitution. In our democracy, it is the will of>>> the majority exercised within our framework of laws and government >>> which prevails; and for that I am thankful. >>> >>> >>> Eric Goldstein >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 4:35 AM, Marc James Small <marcsmall@xxxxxxxxxxx >>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> Thank you, Eric. Allow me a reasoned response. I do occasionally>>>> post outrageous remarks to get active discussions going, such as >>>> my recent one on vegeterarians, but I am being a lot more serious >>>> in this note. >>>> >>>> First, we in the US have suffered for sixty years due to the >>>> growth of medical insurance. From the early 1950's into the >>>> 1980's, there was just no cost containment on this. In 1950, the >>>> US medical field was almost all self-paid, and so MD's ran the >>>> gamut from Dr Tubes the Back-Alley Abortionist to some real silk- >>>> stocking types taking care of the wealthy. (Richard Knoppow will>>>> appreciate my noting Raymond Chandler's inclusion of some of these>>>> silk-stocking doctors as bit of nasty work, indeed.) So, from>>>> 1955 or so (when Blue Cross/Blue Shield finally sold their package >>>> to the US labor unions) until, roughly 1985, the medical insurance >>>> companies did not quibble over charges. And so, ALL doctors began>>>> to anticipate getting paid the sort of salaries previously>>>> restricted to specialists and society docs. The, around 1985, the>>>> health insurance companies began to cramp down their payment >>>> rates, and this has led to a lot of the problems. >>>> >>>> We now have a system where most "Family Practitioners" are making>>>> decent, but not outstanding, salaries ($50,000 to $75,000) but the>>>> working conditions are intolerable. I know a few husband-wife >>>> doctor teams who make it work by splitting the duties so each >>>> works half-time (half-time being 40 hours a week) to earn one >>>> salary. I get my health care at the Veterans Administration, and>>>> the doctors I know there all describe themselves as "refugees from>>>> private practice". Specialists make a lot more and, to be blunt,>>>> almost all earn their keep. But then look at the salaries paid to >>>> medical administrators! Oh, my! $500,000 a year to be a CEO of a >>>> regional hospital system? Back in the day, that system would have>>>> been run by the docs and the administrator would have been paid a>>>> journeyman's wage. This all changed when the insurance companies,>>>> at the gunpoint of the Labor Relations guys in Washington, just >>>> paid the bills without question. >>>> >>>> If you want to bring health care costs down, you have to do some >>>> really severe cost containment. Hillarycare involved direct wage>>>> and price controls, and that was its main drawback. That will not>>>> work. Tort reform would help -- and I mean comprehensive tort >>>> reform, reform of the system, reform of the process. Until the >>>> late 1970's, health insurance companies would settle small claims >>>> out of court. Then the Great Mass Media started screeching about >>>> "killer docs getting away with murder" and insisted that the >>>> malpractice results for each doctor be made publicly available. >>>> This was dumb. The docs then insisted on having the right to>>>> approve settlements and, as each settlement becomes public record, >>>> they resist agreeing to ANY reasonable settlement. The first Tort>>>> Reform ought to be to set out that the insurance claims >>>> professionals handle the settlements, and the docs have no voice >>>> in yea or nay. >>>> >>>> Eric has raised the issue of obesity and the like, and these are >>>> good points. But, in the end, we are ruled by our genes and we >>>> are ruled in two regards. First, some folks come from long-lived >>>> families and never need any serious medical attention until the>>>> Medical Examiner signs off on the Death Certificate -- "body wore>>>> out at 91". And some folks have genes that allow them to eat >>>> outrageous foods but their defective "digestyum track", as Frank >>>> Zappa called it in THE THINGFISH, just passes it through, so they >>>> can eat a half-gallon of ice cream and never gain an ounce. >>>>>>>> I come from long-lived stock, my parents having died in their 80's>>>> and my grandparents in their 90's. That does not mean that I am >>>> not going to have a fatal stroke later today, but, then, as a >>>> Christian, I am happy to go when the summons comes. However, as >>>> my mother used to note, our family is living proof that only the >>>> good die young, so I expect I will be around for quite a while >>>> longer -- I am only 60, after all! >>>> >>>> And this raises all sorts of other issues -- should insurance >>>> companies be allowed to demand DNA samples from their insurees to >>>> look for possible future health problems? Now, whole life >>>> insurance purveyors want to know your family history back four or >>>> five generations -- I am surprised ANY Roosevelt, Hyde Park or>>>> Oyster Bay, could ever get a life insurance policy! Should health>>>> insurance carriers be permitted to do the same? I don't have >>>> answers, just questions. >>>> >>>> Almost any US citizen had the chance to get a great lifetime >>>> health insurance system by spending two years in the military. I >>>> have been treated by the VA since 1981, and I have no argument at>>>> all about the care I have received. My father was treated by them>>>> from his retirement in 1944 (on medical grounds) until his death >>>> in 2000. Primo care, all the way. I recently turned 60, so I>>>> switched from being a "gray area" Reserve retiree (base privileges>>>> only, and not all of those) to a full retiree, so I know receive >>>> the Widow's Pension every month, and I am now entitled to sign up >>>> for the military version of Medicare, aka Tricare. I have signed>>>> up. It goes into effect on April Fool's Day, and appropriate that>>>> is, as the doofuses in Congress are probably going to vote later>>>> today to eliminate this plan. I hope I get a refund of my premium!>>>> >>>> Finally, as I have noted here before, I seem to have a defective >>>> copy of the US Constitution. Nothing in my copy says anything >>>> about a requirement for the Federal Government to provide health >>>> insurance to anyone. The wonderful part of all this is that when>>>> Pelosi manages to force her way through, she has just lost her own>>>> job as Speaker and has cost at least 50 of her folks their seats >>>> come November. And, bless the Chief Justice of the US: this >>>> scheme will never pass Constitutional muster. >>>> >>>> Those of you who WANT to have a Federal government entitled to do >>>> such things ought to be working to convene a new Constitutional >>>> Convention. Whatever came out of such a circus would probably be >>>> a vile mess, but at least it would be an honest mess, unlike the >>>> "interpretations" we now use to protect government intrusions far >>>> beyond what the Founidng Fathers intended. >>>>>>>> George Washington and National Health Care? Think about it, folks!>>>> >>>> Back to your regularly scheduled programming. >>>> >>>> Marc >> >> --- >> Rollei List >> >> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' >> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org >> >> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with >> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into >> www.freelists.org >> >> - Online, searchable archives are available at >> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list >> > >--- >Rollei List > >- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > >- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' >in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org > >- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with >'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org > >- Online, searchable archives are available at >//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list > > > --- Rollei List - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org- Online, searchable archives are available at //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list -- Peter K Ó¿Õ¬
