Dull thoughts on a shiny, shiny world.
Blame Americans for it if you must
Published on August 4, 2007 By cactoblasta In Politics
Today I went and saw an advance screening for Michael Moore's latest vehicle, Sicko.

As far as Moore movies go it wasn't a bad example of the genre - some melodrama, some sticking it to man yee-hah moments, a little additional pathos and some laughs.

NOTE: For the hard of thinking I of course add on the obvious rider that he, like most people, believes in truth management. Far be it from me to fail in pointing out the flaws of everyone who considers themselves a mouthpiece.

Now that that's out of the way, let's move to his material.

The US health system. Call me crazy, but in the unlikely event that there are any Americans reading, your healthcare system bites monkey balls.

I'm not simply saying that because I saw the movie and, like any good man of the world, believe everything I see on a movie screen that's bigger than I am.

The figures are all there, peoples. Child mortality - bodgy. Life expectancy - limited (although these figures really don't matter much - one or two extra years of being a helpless old cripple aren't exactly golden years). Medical fees - astronomical.

And, I'm sure you'll be pleased to hear, the problem isn't socialised healthcare or exploitative hmos.

It's the American people.

Let's go through this like rational adults. The United States is the world's only real superpower. Their influence extends across the entire planet. Their military can strike anywhere with almost no notice needed. They spend more on international aid than some countries get through their entire GDP. There are literally dozens of foreign governments that would fall mere weeks after the US stopped propping them up.

Basically the US is the man, it's the top dog, it's the bomb diggety if you happen to be a 16-year-old rapper from far north Queensland with a lisp and a strange way of pronouncing vowels.

It's also a country that doesn't believe in cooperation, it believes in competition. It doesn't believe in community, it believes in individuals. It doesn't believe that governments are the representatives of the people but are, oddly, something entirely separate.

But, and let's get back to this for a moment, it's a country with a global empire.

Its industries operate almost entirely outside of the national borders. It attracts tribute of one sort or another (largely skilled workers) from nearly every nation on earth, including those who are its sworn enemies.

And it can't afford to look after the health of its poorest. That's their problem, seems to be the American thinking.

And frankly it's bizarre. For a country of patriots they don't seem to think highly of each other. They squabble incessantly over important issues, where they should be united, and are united on trivialities, where they can afford to squabble. They think that every American should pull themselves up by their own bootstrap, and that if they fail to do so it's their fault.

And then, somehow, the decision is made that failures don't deserve any help.

That puzzles me. These days the US claims to be Christian (in spite of its roots), yet doesn't seem to contain a single good shepherd in the entirety of high-level government.

One would expect that they would go after those stray sheep with everything they had available to them - protect the individual sheep and you don't lose the herd after all.

But they don't. They let them run off and top themselves, or get lost and die alone in the wilderness.

I realise that the US' war footing is based on the 'have cake and eat it too' principle put forward most eloquently by Stone and Parker (2006), but from the looks of its medical situation not only is no one owning any cake, but no one gets to eat it either.

Is it because the meritocratic tendencies of Americans make them despise weakness of any kind? If so, how do we explain their prodigious aid donations? They're clearly not averse to helping the foreign helpless. But when it comes to their own they say, "Bugger 'em."

They leave their most vulnerable in the hands of money-grubbing private industry. They abandon their middle classes, the very foundation of their wealth, to the predations of lawyers and accountants who are just waiting for someone to call for a doctor.

What is wrong with Americans?

As a case study for this increasingly lengthy rant, let's consider the Australian situation. My country lies somewhere between the socialist states of Europe and the private industries of the US. Residents can choose to hold private cover as well as the 'free' healthcare provided for by the traditional social cohesiveness and egalitarianism of the Australian people.

All residents pay a Medicare levy. This is used to pay for the public health system. Don't get me wrong - it's a creaky, haphazard little construct barely surviving under the weight of a political system that allows blame to be thrown between state and federal governments. But it works, after a fashion. Waiting times can be lengthy, but things do happen, it's free and, depending on where you live, it can give you some of the best care available anywhere in the world (the Darwin hospital has a particularly fine reputation for burns treatment).

Another note for the hard of thinking: This doesn't necessarily apply for those idiotic enough to live in remote communities or those unfortunate enough to be born aboriginal. Their health, education and general lifestyles are appalling. No government has really done much to change this, although a lot has been said and spent to little avail. But as they comprise less than 1.5% of the population they're barely even numerically significant.

The average person my age (23) can get private cover for around AUS$10 (US$7-8) a week. This covers for most things that could conceivably happen. Private cover means you have a private room at hospital, free ambo coverage (I think it's about 80 bucks a year to just get that; a private ambo trip could cost a couple of hundred dollars depending on what they give you and how far they have to travel), coverage for most procedures and all that rubbish. If the provider refuses to pay you're in a similar situation to poor unfortunates in the US, but with one crucial difference - there's a public system to fall back on.

Our system is heading towards the US model, but at this stage it still has some advantages. Let's recap them. One - there is a system where you will never have to pay for anything done under it. Ever.
Two. If you consider the free healthcare unsatisfactory you can choose to have private health coverage as well, and get a discount to your medicare levy to thank you for unburdening the public system. This private system is generally although not always better than the public one.
Three. All drugs are heavily subsidised. The most any citizen is likely to pay for medical care in a year is $AUS2000. Subsidies mean most drugs are $50 or so max, and limits on pharmaceutical costs mean you get tax writeoffs and various other benefits the more you spend (the interested can check the Medicare website for the details).

Australia's ranking in the health stakes? Pretty much top ten in every category, although we're rapidly catching up with America in the number of fat tubs of goo lazy enough to sweat copiously and smell awful within our borders.

So I guess if I have a point at all at the end of this rather rambling little piece it's that Americans have only themselves to blame for their problems. They don't care about each other. They refuse to make the only nationwide institution in which they are all involved do the legwork of looking after everyone. And so they all suffer in the end, whether it's through getting dead homeless person on their shoes after a nasty cold snap or getting a wall street broker's leather shoe attached to their chest wounds after a nasty cold snap.

But really, when we get right down to it, they really need to stop their bitching. Nothing is going to get better because they don't want it to get better. They want their unfortunates to suffer. They like to see failures understand all the nasty little consequences of failure in life.

And who can blame them? With their international efforts disastrous on nearly every front it helps to have someone to look down on, even if you have to find them within your own people. God knows it's hard to look down on foreigners when they're kicking your arse across a few hundred miles of desert and camels.

So next time you hear an American complain about their health system, or you hear an American complain about Americans complaining about their health system, just remember - they wouldn't have it any other way.

Oh, and be glad you live somewhere else. But I'm sure you don't need me to say that!
Comments (Page 1)
4 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Aug 04, 2007
The infant mortality stat is misleading, cacto. I've addressed that so many times it doesn't bear repeating here. If you're going to start out with a completely flawed premise, though, there's no sense in discussing it with you!
on Aug 04, 2007
If you're going to start out with a completely flawed premise, though, there's no sense in discussing it with you!


You don't have to discuss anything with me. No one said you had to read this article, and if you don't want to talk about infant mortality and its usefulness as a general indicator of of health system effectiveness then no one is going to force you to. It's a big internet. There's room for non-child-mortality-based talk, crazy as it may sound...
on Aug 04, 2007
OK, reading further it wasn't as irrational as it seemed at surface. Still, the point of infant mortality holds



As a case study for this increasingly lengthy rant, let's consider the Australian situation. My country lies somewhere between the socialist states of Europe and the private industries of the US. Residents can choose to hold private cover as well as the 'free' healthcare provided for by the traditional social cohesiveness and egalitarianism of the Australian people.




While I am not a fan of socialized medicine, cacto, I find your system a MUCH more acceptable proposal than what Moore is proposing. Moore wants universal, "FREE" health coverage for all, a BAN on insurance companies, and STRICT regulation of pharmaceutical companies. "Free" health care coverage pretty much guarantees the quality of our care will drop, as there's no way the government will pay $100k a year plus for thousands of doctors across the country. The incentive to education will be largely lost.




That puzzles me. These days the US claims to be Christian (in spite of its roots), yet doesn't seem to contain a single good shepherd in the entirety of high-level government.




Oddly enough, the ones demanding socialized medicine usually insist we're NOT a Christian nation!



It's also a country that doesn't believe in cooperation, it believes in competition. It doesn't believe in community, it believes in individuals. It doesn't believe that governments are the representatives of the people but are, oddly, something entirely separate.




I wouldn't say we don't believe in cooperation, cacto. Yes, we are individualist, but we are selectively cooperative, in a quid pro quo sort of way.



I personally am inclined to what I call MICROsocialism. I think we've discussed this before. I believe that small groups operating on communal principles within a free market environment offers the best chance for progress. Not only is it doable, but it has been proven so for thousands of years.



So I guess if I have a point at all at the end of this rather rambling little piece it's that Americans have only themselves to blame for their problems.




This sentence I agree with 100%.



They don't care about each other.




Not true, cacto. The amount of charity work many Americans do is staggering. True there are some in it only for themselves, but most Americans commit a good deal of time and/or money towards helping others. We have food banks in towns smaller than 10,000 in population; we have homeless shelters in every major city. We have soup kitchens in every major city. We have "Free" clinics in many of these major cities. I think people on other continents are unaware of what we DO have; and I would encourage you to keep reading my stuff. At some point, I plan to bring more of these organizations to light because of the misconceptions on the world stage.
on Aug 04, 2007
Well, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on the infant mortality issue. Consider it an "attaboy" for a well written article (even if I disagreed with many of the points).



From skepticism.net:



The primary reason Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the United States is that the United States is a world leader in an odd category -- the percentage of infants who die on their birthday. In any given year in the United States anywhere from 30-40 percent of infants die before they are even a day old.



Why? Because the United States also easily has the most intensive system of emergency intervention to keep low birth weight and premature infants alive in the world. The United States is, for example, one of only a handful countries that keeps detailed statistics on early fetal mortality -- the survival rate of infants who are born as early as the 20th week of gestation.



How does this skew the statistics? Because in the United States if an infant is born weighing only 400 grams and not breathing, a doctor will likely spend lot of time and money trying to revive that infant. If the infant does not survive -- and the mortality rate for such infants is in excess of 50 percent -- that sequence of events will be recorded as a live birth and then a death.



In many countries, however, (including many European countries) such severe medical intervention would not be attempted and, moreover, regardless of whether or not it was, this would be recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth. That unfortunate infant would never show up in infant mortality statistics.



This is clearly what is happening in Cuba. In the United States about 1.3 percent of all live births are very low birth weight -- less than 1,500 grams. In Cuba, on the other hand, only about 0.4 percent of all births are less than 1,500 grams. This is despite the fact that the United States and Cuba have very similar low birth rates (births where the infant weighs less than 2500g). The United States actually has a much better low birth rate than Cuba if you control for multiple births -- i.e. the growing number of multiple births in the United States due to technological interventions has resulted in a marked increase in the number of births under 2,500 g.



It is odd if both Cuba and the U.S. have similar birth weight distributions that the U.S. has more than 3 times the number of births under 1,500g, unless there is a marked discrepancy in the way that very low birth weight births are recorded. Cuba probably does much the same thing that many other countries do and does not register births under 1000g. In fact, this is precisely what the World Health Organization itself recommends that for official record keeping purposes, only live births of greater than 1,000g should be included.



The result is that the statistics make it appear as if Cuba's infant mortality rate is significantly better than the United States', but in fact what is really being measured in this difference is that the United States takes far more serious (and expensive) interventions among extremely low birth weight and extremely premature infants than Cuba (or much of the rest of the world for that matter) does.



This does not diminish in any way Cuba's progress on infant mortality, which is one of the few long term improvements that the Cuban state has made, but infant mortality statistics that are that close to one another are often extremely difficult to compare cross-culturally.


WWW Link
on Aug 04, 2007
Don't blame me. I haven't seen Sicko yet but I do think our healthcare system is broken and I do care about other people. You definately hit it on the head with the whole "there's something wrong with YOU if you don't have insurance, so why should I have to pay for your laziness and stupidity". Obviously you are either lazy, stupid, poor (the worst of the bunch for which there is no excuse) or all of the above, or you would have coverage like me.

I think the Australian model sounds like a decent idea. State covered healthcare but you may not get the best quality of care and may have to wait OR pay for private insurance and have it your way. Of course, that would come with a big tax increase and I can hear all the insurance, medical professional lobbyists getting ready to go to battle. Not to mention the smaller government even if that means our highways collapse contingent.

It would be great if we could get coverage for $8 a week. For a family it's more like $800-$1000 a month.

I wouldn't want to see a completely government run program. My hubby is in the military and I think we have had some horrible issues with quality of care and bureacracy that would be expanded times our entire population. There definately should be healthcare/insurance reform of some sort. Who will get it done? I don't know. Right now we have the president threatening to veto legislation that would cover poor kids. Conservatives only care about "life" before you are born. Once you are out of the birth canal, you're on your own. You should have known better than to be born to poor, lazy and stupid parents.
on Aug 04, 2007
Yup, that's it, Loca. I serve my kids homeless infants for dinner once a week!
on Aug 04, 2007
Don't blame me.


Liberals are AS MUCH to blame as Conservatives in this country for the sad state of our health care system (and we agree on this much, cacto, it IS a sad state of affairs). They aren't offering viable solutions, and are as much for sale as the conservatives.

One thing I WILL give Mikey Moore credit for. Go to his website, and he lists the top "for sale" politicians in this country. Number one? Hillary Rodham Clinton. Number three? Barak Obama. Number two, not surprisingly,is Mitt Romney. But the Dems STILL have their fingers in the pie. And pretty deeply, too.
on Aug 04, 2007
"Free" health care coverage pretty much guarantees the quality of our care will drop, as there's no way the government will pay $100k a year plus for thousands of doctors across the country.


Why not? They do in Australia and, from what Sicko suggested, the UK as well (I haven't seen figures for that country though). It's actually a good investment because doctors pay lots of taxes through purchases of luxury goods and income taxes, so the government gets a reasonable proportion back pretty much straight away.

Also high-quality staff means reduced medical costs through reduced waste, so even bean-counters can see it makes sense to pay at a rate that's competitive with other prestige occupations. Public doctors also get respect, which has a value all of its own.


I wouldn't say we don't believe in cooperation, cacto. Yes, we are individualist, but we are selectively cooperative, in a quid pro quo sort of way.


If you only cooperate when you get something out of it you're not naturally communal. You're naturally self-interested instead.

The amount of charity work many Americans do is staggering


Yes, but that's on a small scale and that's charity, which evidence suggests does bugger all for improving society. There is only one institution capable of providing services nation-wide with tolerable efficiency and cost, and that's the state.

Americans reject that out of distrust and so they don't have access to any methods of communal improvement on health matters.
on Aug 04, 2007
I'm not sure why people say there is no healthcare support for the "poor" in the U.S. I'm married, with 4 kids, we have almost always been below the poverty line as far as income. I've been to our family doctor all the way to the famed Mayo Clinic. I've had CAT Scans, EEGs, EKGs, MRIs, sleep studies, ER visits, ambulance services, trauma services, and full neuro, cardiac and psychological workups. I've been on cardiac meds, neuro meds, serotonin reuptake inhibitors and even meds for restless legs syndrome.

Our government spends billions on healthcare for the "poor" in this country. Private organizations raise millions more.

Is it perfect? Absolutely not, many of the things you site here are accurage, but guess what... when our hospitals close it isn't because the middle class or rich weren't paying their bills, it's because the government systems failed to pay the going rates for services to the "poor".

What does Socialized Medicine mean? It means that a third of your income goes to pay for "free" healthcare, whether you're using it or not.
on Aug 04, 2007
Of course, that would come with a big tax increase and I can hear all the insurance, medical professional lobbyists getting ready to go to battle. Not to mention the smaller government even if that means our highways collapse contingent.


It doesn't, actually. From memory the medicare levy is roughly 2% for most people - a thousand a year if you're on the average wage. If you're earning millions I guess it's a lot of money, but really if you're earning millions you should have private insurance.


It would be great if we could get coverage for $8 a week. For a family it's more like $800-$1000 a month.


Families are more expensive. If you want to know how much it would cost in Oz go to www.nib.com.au and have a looksee at their rates. That'll give you a rough idea of costs and services with private cover in Oz. Medicare is at www.medicare.gov.au

Yup, that's it, Loca. I serve my kids homeless infants for dinner once a week!


And there you go knocking abortion clinics! What could possibly be wrong with hunting/abortions if you use all parts of the animal?!?
on Aug 04, 2007

What does Socialized Medicine mean? It means that a third of your income goes to pay for "free" healthcare, whether you're using it or not.


No, it means that moron scaremongerers with a penchant for extremism and being dickheads make outrageous claims they can't back up whilst throwing capital letters around like they're confetti.

Bugger off Ted if you're not prepared to say something sensible, or at least be clever with your jokes if that was what it was.
on Aug 04, 2007
Why not? They do in Australia and, from what Sicko suggested, the UK as well


Didn't you just say that Australia allows for PRIVATE health care insurance, cacto? Moore's proposal would BAN that!

You're naturally self-interested instead.


Everyone's self interested, cacto. Americans are just honest about it!



And there you go knocking abortion clinics! What could possibly be wrong with hunting/abortions if you use all parts of the animal?!?


LOL!
on Aug 04, 2007

Didn't you just say that Australia allows for PRIVATE health care insurance, cacto? Moore's proposal would BAN that!


Who cares about what Moore wants? He's just raising the issue, you don't have to do what he says. Doctors in the public system get paid quite well. It makes good sense to do so. That doesn't change just because there isn't a private system anyway. There'll still be tonnes of foreign doctors you can attract if, for some strange reason, Libya decides to buy in your best US doctors. The US dollar is still an attractive currency and 100k worth a year is still an attractive salary.
on Aug 04, 2007
Moore's out to make a buck like all of the capitalists he derides. I only wish he were honest about that, cacto!
on Aug 04, 2007
Moore's out to make a buck like all of the capitalists he derides. I only wish he were honest about that, cacto!


You've said this before, I disagree and I'm over it, but you can talk about it on the article you've created for that very purpose. I don't think it's at all relevant to this discussion.
4 Pages1 2 3  Last