think tank forum

Anyone seen it? Thoughts about it? Do you believe America needs a better health care system?

Haven't seen it (yet) but I do think a national health care system (similar to say Canada) would be a good thing.

i think so too only because change generally delivers in a long term system like health care.

haven't seen it and don't really want to.

this is my take on Michael Moore in general and why I don't want to see Sicko (from another forum that I posted this on a while back):

I think moore's movies do more harm than good because they encourage people to take standpoints that are supported by anecdotal stories and that would not be nearly as extreme if they were founded in legitimately-attempting-to-be-objective evidence.

based solely on his other two movies, moore focuses a lot on stirring up emotions in people with stupid stuff like putting pictures of dead kids in front of charlton heston's house. he doesnt seem very concerned about doing an honest evaluation of the situation.

even if you agree with his agenda, it's kind of insulting to watch his movies and think that they're supposed to teach you anything or convince you of anything other than "this is sad and sucks."

I guess I just have higher expectations.

like an examination of WHY things are the way they are, why they aren't getting fixed, what are some possible ways to go about fixing them or making them better, etc.

instead of a thousand examples of stuff that sucks. and it's worse because a million people are going to whine about the healthcare industry because of this movie but have no idea how it works or why it works that way or what some good ways to fix it might be. they're just going to whine their asses off.

if you whine you have to do it constructively. or you should, at least.

ultimately, I think that the value of Moore's contribution to creating a better healthcare system is hugely debatable.

and to answer the last question posed in this thread, I definitely think we need a better healthcare system. what exactly that better system would look like, I don't know, I'd have to do a lot of research to figure out what I think!

I saw it in theatres when it came out (woo! free passes, take that Moore). I agreed with the movie in spirit, but, like asemi, I felt it to be childish and doing more harm than good. I wonder what is his idea of how to fix the system is?

totally. i haven't seen it, and don't really want to.

Asemia a lot of your standpoints is what the movie showed. Perphaps you guys should view something before giving it a bad rap. Does the movie spark emotion and worse case scenarios? of course it does, thats the point. It still doesn't change the fact that our healthcare system in the U.S sucks and there are many other countries out there to prove it.

what do you mean the movie showed my standpoints?

I've probably gone too far in giving Sicko a bad rap without seeing it, but I'm perfectly comfortable giving Michael Moore a bad rap based on the two movies of his that I did see.

I don't disagree with you about the healthcare system being messed up. I'm just skeptical that Moore conducted an honest, balanced evaluation of the problem rather than pandering to people who like to whine incessantly about things they don't fully understand.

yeah canada

They don't complain about nothing, the people who really need healthcare die and do this because our system requires them to pay $$$$$$. The rich of course can afford whatever, so why would they say anything. And of course in our country those with the money have the power. But, I suppose that is true of any country. Either way, in our country it has affected health care.

To be honest, I don't believe in equality of medical care. Some people are a greater asset to our society than others. Joe poor unskilled worker isn't really valuable to our society compared to say timmy skilled architect. The idea of our country revolves around a central ideal of a meritocracy. As a component to that a competitive healthcare system ensures that the best and brightest receive the best care. This is not at all a bad thing.

While I do feel bad that joe the unskilled worker isn't getting proper care, I certainly wouldn't want him to receive proper care at the risk of hurting timmy skilled architect.

Now it's all well and good to say I want universal healthcare. Personally I'd love that and a free unicorn, maybe some rocket boots too. But we can't have that, because it's impossible... cept for the rocket boots, which would probably just be obscenely dangerous but cool none the less.

I mean sicko presents a lot of false pictures... for instance cuba, those guys maintain a pretty wacked out eugenics program... they abort any kid that looks like its going to be a marginally dangerous birth to the mother or the kid. As a result their infant mortality rates drop drastically even though they are having far less successful births. And that's really not the only problem with the way michael moore presents things.

I do agree there are problems with the medical system in the united states, but I am steadfast in pointing out that michael moore is an idiot and a liar, and basing your opinions on his "documentaries" is most likely an unsafe decision.

We need reform, sure certainly... But, lets establish what it is we want before we try to choose a means by which to achieve it.

I'd want the best and brightest to recieve priority in care. I'd not want the time of our best doctors wasted. And I'd want less malpractice suits. Additionally cheaper meds and hospital bills for the uninsured and everyone else involved. As it is, its like playing with monopoly money. It's just fantasy at this point that bills could possibly cost as much as they do.

But yeah. That's my opinion. Canada, Finland... these countries don't have 300,000,000 people in them. So looking at their medical system as a model for our own is just silly. Unless you can prove it can scale in relation to our population size theres no point to be made there at all.

I have a question about your opinion that the best and brightest should receive care priority, nny.

what about the children of these "best and brightest?" if the children of unskilled workers who are most likely going to become unskilled workers themselves aren't receiving equal medical care at an early age, there are going to be less children of unskilled workers given a chance to up their status in society or make valuable contributions to society.

basically, I'm concerned that this would unfairly diminish the potential of children based on their parents' status in society, and I don't like that!

of course, I'm coming from the position of believing that healthcare should be distributed equally to all, regardless of money, at least on some level (if you want to pay a bunch of money for some experimental, non-FDA approved treatment from a private company, go for it.).

this is of course the ideal situation. I don't know of the practicality of it. and that's why I'm not whining about our healthcare system, because I'd want to know more about our current system and the alternatives before making any big criticisms.

children's potential is diminished by their parents status in society.

now here's the real ethical dilemma... do we deny decent healthcare to the insane and mentally retarded? what of the old and the lame? since they contribute nothing should we forsake their health completely?

there's an option here that rids us having to make this decision... and that's simply reducing the population to a point where we can guaruntee a society in which a childs potential to achieve can be fully explored, and their contributions will provide them with security in old age.

Sadly... that world is not the one we live in.

these are some tough questions :).

Oh, FUCK YOU, Nny.

"To be honest, I don't believe in equality of medical care. Some people are a greater asset to our society than others. Joe poor unskilled worker isn't really valuable to our society compared to say timmy skilled architect. The idea of our country revolves around a central ideal of a meritocracy. As a component to that a competitive healthcare system ensures that the best and brightest receive the best care. This is not at all a bad thing."

You say they aren't valuable? Fine, let's see how long it is before you crack when there are no cashiers, food service workers, parts of the construction industry, sanitation workers, janitors, and any other number of people aren't there. After all, they're not valuable right?

The US is not a meritocracy, though while the best and brightest can succeed (and often do), it's the idea that anyone, can get ahead because of their own character. That you don't have to be good at business to run a fortune 500 company, you can be a smooth talker with good common sense.

"While I do feel bad that joe the unskilled worker isn't getting proper care, I certainly wouldn't want him to receive proper care at the risk of hurting timmy skilled architect."

You fucking liar. You say you don't want him to get proper care, now you're trying to say you feel bad about that? That's best part about a single-payer system: everyone receives the same (hopefully) awesome care, with the option of paying for an HMO if they want to.

"Now it's all well and good to say I want universal healthcare. Personally I'd love that and a free unicorn, maybe some rocket boots too. But we can't have that, because it's impossible... cept for the rocket boots, which would probably just be obscenely dangerous but cool none the less."

That's a pretty big strawman you got there. Try focusing on the argument and hand and not confusing the issues.

"I mean sicko presents a lot of false pictures... for instance cuba, those guys maintain a pretty wacked out eugenics program... they abort any kid that looks like its going to be a marginally dangerous birth to the mother or the kid. As a result their infant mortality rates drop drastically even though they are having far less successful births. And that's really not the only problem with the way michael moore presents things."

Get fucked, shit bag. So because Einstein thought weird thing X that would invalidate the theory of relativity? Regardless of the bad things Cuba does, Michael Moore was using Cuba as an example of one thing.

"I do agree there are problems with the medical system in the united states, but I am steadfast in pointing out that michael moore is an idiot and a liar, and basing your opinions on his "documentaries" is most likely an unsafe decision."

No one is contesting that point. He is a propagandist, but the point isn't in the details, it's that there needs to be a change. I for one agree with that. I've thought that for a long time. What's wrong with a few people being swayed? That's why he made the fucking movie.

"We need reform, sure certainly... But, lets establish what it is we want before we try to choose a means by which to achieve it."

Simple: a healthcare system funded by the government but run by doctors who care about their patients unburdened by bureaucracy.

"I'd want the best and brightest to recieve priority in care. I'd not want the time of our best doctors wasted. And I'd want less malpractice suits. Additionally cheaper meds and hospital bills for the uninsured and everyone else involved. As it is, its like playing with monopoly money. It's just fantasy at this point that bills could possibly cost as much as they do."

First, you assume that all doctors would want to treat the "best and brightest." Why wouldn't a good deal of them want to work with the people who don't "deserve" (in your myopic view) good care? That's why groups like Doctors Without Borders exist.

You misspelled "receive," which means your entire argument is now bunk (that's sarcasm by the way).

"
But yeah. That's my opinion. Canada, Finland... these countries don't have 300,000,000 people in them. So looking at their medical system as a model for our own is just silly. Unless you can prove it can scale in relation to our population size theres no point to be made there at all."

The hell we can't. Why shouldn't we look to see how such a system might be applied here?

It's time for me to join this thread I think.

Nny did raise a lot of good points here(and I'm at work posting this by the way so if I misspell something, please note that it is strictly due to me working tickets or taking calls here). Here is my rebuttal to the key points listed here:

"To be honest, I don't believe in equality of medical care. Some people are a greater asset to our society than others. Joe poor unskilled worker isn't really valuable to our society compared to say timmy skilled architect. The idea of our country revolves around a central ideal of a meritocracy. As a component to that a competitive healthcare system ensures that the best and brightest receive the best care. This is not at all a bad thing."

Nny, I'm going to assume you are a basic John Q. Have you ever noticed why there are so many unskilled workers in the economy? It's a direct sociological effect of having a system that is racially biased. You say you want priority healthcare for the rich, however, you fail to realize that even minorities that have money are still discriminated against. Like a previous thread, Asemi is correct in the statement that race is a social construct. You cannot factor that out of the equation. You are simplifying your argument down to the all that matters is the color green. It's not that simple.

Also, your basis for discriminating against unskilled workers deeply perturbs me. You are stating that an unskilled worker has less to offer to society than say, an educated person. Unskilled workers are unskilled for a sociological reason. Trade programs are at an all-time low. Social programs to help people acquire job skills are also being cut due to lack of funding. How are these people supposed to get skills if they are being denied them by their own government? Getting an education is going to come second to food/shelter. The only difference between the skilled architech and the unskilled worker is opportunity. If someone has a will, they can develop their interest given the right circumstances.

"children's potential is diminished by their parents status in society."

This is another sociological outcome of discrimination.

"Now it's all well and good to say I want universal healthcare. Personally I'd love that and a free unicorn, maybe some rocket boots too. But we can't have that, because it's impossible... cept for the rocket boots, which would probably just be obscenely dangerous but cool none the less."

Universal healthcare is not impossible. The problem is people do not want to be taxed for it. Unfortunately, I do not know of a way around this issue. It's going to take some serious statistical work with supercomputers to determine how each individual income bracket should contribute. It's not impossible.

Oh, FUCK YOU, Nny.

doesn't exactly make me think you're coming at this with an open mind, Bachalon.

this is a discussion of the healthcare system here and now. if you want to tackle the inequalities of the educational system and anything else you have a problem with feel free to do so, in fact I might agree with you, but it's ultimately irrelevant to the current state of healthcare. if you want to fix healthcare accept the realities surrounding it, including the problems resulting from the many inequalities you've listed as contributing factors, but don't let it detract from your ability to actually address the problem at hand.

things aren't going to magically right themselves... if you want to fix something or discuss the problems with something, stay in scope.

I'm not saying people are worthless because they aren't architects and they happen to be cashiers, or gas station attendants. I'm saying that good healthcare is a commodity, and we only have limited amounts of it. We should use it with a priority system that protects our other human assets first and foremost. This makes absolute sense regardless of your feelings torwards unfair opportunities and inequal education... or any other contributing factor for why someone might not happen to be skilled labor.

Try not to leave the scope of the argument and get pissed off at the idea of some poor, possibly awesome cashier being left to die because some asshole architect needs care... think about it in terms of resource management. I know that's dehumanizing, and difficult to do... and hell you may not ever want to... but in the larger picture you know that I am probably correct in saying that protecting our human assets will have a greater positive effect over all than will a truly equal healthcare system.

That's kind of my point. Regardless of specifics.

I'll add an addendum. I don't believe people are equal. I believe people are unique in their experiences and that we are each shaped by a myriad of things be they cultural, sociological, or even circumstance. Trying to figure out how to carve the best human is a dangerous path, accepting people for what they are and attempting to capitalize on their strengths is a much "cleaner" approach for us. That means looking at people and acknowledging both their potential contributions as well as their past contributions and assigning a value to them. We already do this in a number of ways... not the least of which being the age old credit check. Not everyone is going to achieve great things, and just because one has the potential to doesn't mean we should necessarily indulge that dream at the risk of proven performance.

There are a finite number of skilled medical professionals. There are a finite number of cutting edge technical resources for them to take advantage of. And sadly at this point in time, despite having access to the global majority of them, we still have far from enough to service the needs of our entire population. This is a fact. And statistically just look up the number of neuro surgeons or MRI machines that meet US medical standards to practice medicine then cross it against the number of patients that could benefit or need access to that care. The simple fact is, the numbers don't add up to a happy ending.

Skilled labor takes time and resources to train. Try to estimate the costs of training a successful pilot, or an architect, or an electrician. Then tell me the costs of training a successful cashier. It's a simple numbers game. You want to crunch stats go right ahead, but be ready to assign values to people that correlate to their ability to have a positive impact on society.

And acknowledge that in doing so, innocent people will be left to die even if the reasons for that are far beyond their ability to control. That sucks, but that's where we're at.

nny I just don't see how your ideal is reality. I mean just like you said about those other countries not being 300,000,000 people, how is a country the size of ours going to agree to prioritizing the top percentage of the wealthy? It's not realistic at all and it just shows your bourgeois aspirations, to the chagrin of many middle class, and intolerance from lower class people.

interesting proposed solution, but I don't see how it's much different than the reality now: more money, more treatment -- except that there is this odd protected profession bias.

I was also going to bring up the leeching of the masses via entertainment. I mean a good portion of the super rich are so because of the classes of people you don't care to treat. maybe your argument does not include these people/professions but it kind of shows the faults in your ideal: you want the betterment of society by certain protected professions but those are built on the shoulders of the rest of society.

The elderly don't contribute to our society -- how is that? what do you think they were doing in their lives? and then what is contributing to our society, do you do it, have you even come close to what your parents/grandparents have contributed?

ceasing to contribute = zero continued contribution.

the elderly may have been exceedingly valuable, but as age comes so does disability and a rapid decline in contribution to society.

while on a personal level I want to ensure the best I can in recognition of a persons contribution the simple fact is its not in the best interest of society.

do I care more about individuals or the society as a whole. I care more about the society as a whole. If I cared more about the individuals I might as well suggest we go back to hunting buffalo on the plains on horseback, its certainly a better all around quality of life.

as for bourgeois aspirations... the difference between the bourgeois class in the french revolution and our upper class is at least in theory that the bourgeois of france ruled via divine providence, where as in our system we suggest that those who rise to prominence do so on their own merit.

there are of course instances in practice where this is not the case, and there are of course abuses of the system. is the system perfect? no. but we're not discussing reform of that system. we're discussing healthcare with the implied belief that we are structuring it with the current system and its abstract ideals as constraints in the hopes that continued reforms in the system will approach those ideals. it's a fundamental question of having faith in our system of government to achieve the goals it has set forth for itself. If we are willing to assume for the sake of argument that the system of government in the united states will instead grow increasingly closer to the ideal, then we can also assume that people who have achieved and are growing in achievement in society based on monetary success (ala capitalism being a measure of success)... then we can say that in our system of government a capitalist medical system simply further supports the meritocracy by protecting the achievers implicitly.

yeah?

now this is all theoretically and there will always be problems... I like to view government in the same way we view thermodynamics systems. we set an ideal and try to get as close to it as possible while acknowledging that we are far from it.

do i care about society yes. do i believe in capitalism as a means to enforce a meritocracy yes. do i want that yes. does a capitalist medical system support the protection of achievers and benefit society yes.

That's about the sum total of the base abstracts of my argument. Can we address case by case problems and abuses... sure we can add reform and legislature to protect the intent of the system.... carefully of course.

But fundamentally those are the themes of my argument. I don't give a shit about joe person. I give a shit about society. And what's best for society is ultimately best for humanity as a whole. Sadly, that means some people will be crushed underfoot and live a life in a very real hell only to be snuffed out sad crushed creatures. But, on the bright side we are all contributing to something greater than ourselves and working towards the infinite potential societies offer us.

I don't have so much a problem with healthcare based on value to society as I do with the idea that wealth in US society is based on someone's value or contribution to society.

I simply do not like the idea of prescribing higher value to someone's well-being because they are monetarily successful. if you want to propose we measure this some other way, my ears are open.

I will leave you with a quote.

Better lives have been lived in the margins, locked in the prisons, and lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in palaces.

Sicko Sucked

Thread Locked ":)

..... kidding

whether or system of measuring merit sucks or not is a whole nother discussion. we could certainly do better. but, we could also do worse.