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 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Aug 04, 2007
Wow Cacto, a little testy this morning?
on Aug 04, 2007
I don't think it's at all relevant to this discussion.


I think it's very relevant, cacto, here's why:

See, realize that the "facts" Moore pulls for his movie are facts selectively culled to suit his agenda. There are other compelling facts he leaves out. Because those facts don't have shock value, and they don't sell tickets.

But you have set the standards for discussion, so in deference to you on your blog, that's the last I will bring up on this particular subject.

You and I agree on the salient points, cacto. The American health care system IS messed up, or, "bites monkey balls" as you put it. There are a number of problems, and NONE of our elected officials are doing much meaningful to try to set right a mess THEY created.

I'm not sure what's up today, but I'm used to having these good back and forth discussions with you, cacto. We may not agree, but understand I always respect your position, okay?
on Aug 04, 2007
I was here, I read, and refrained from any commenting because gid, pretty much covered all the bases and your responses to gid, were as I expected.
on Aug 04, 2007
but really if you're earning millions you should have private insurance.


this is one of the reasons that universal health care doesn't work.


if you have everyone on it then everyone has to pay.


however when the prices go up every year. then your taxes have to go up more. also if you don't have to pay for it. then you go in for everything.


also indirectly the united states is paying for your medicines. because your country and all other countries on the planet put caps on the profits for the pharm. companies. the only exception is the united states. and someone has to provide the real profits for these companies. so that these companies can take part of that profit and come up with new meds to help when the old ones start to fail.
on Aug 04, 2007
If anyone says America should have Universal Health Care, just ask them if they really want to pay for Rush Limbaugh and Bill Gate's healthcare. ;~D
on Aug 04, 2007
just ask them if they really want to pay for Rush Limbaugh and Bill Gate's healthcare. ;~D


just ask them if they want to pay for my healthcare. more than they already are anyways
on Aug 04, 2007
Yup. I've got six kids. I'd benefit more than most from socialized medicine. I'm actually working AGAINST my own self interest in opposing it.

Or so one would think. The prospect of universal health care frightens me. I'm genuinely concerned about the kids who will be removed from their parents because mommy and daddy weren't good enough to keep up with state mandated checkup schedules, which could be made mandatory under universal health care.

Don't believe it could happen? They remove kids for "medical neglect" all the time. Google Katie Wernecke, for starters!
on Aug 04, 2007

also indirectly the united states is paying for your medicines. because your country and all other countries on the planet put caps on the profits for the pharm. companies. the only exception is the united states. and someone has to provide the real profits for these companies. so that these companies can take part of that profit and come up with new meds to help when the old ones start to fail.


There is a substance that is highly effective in treating cancer. The drug companies refuse to research it because it can't be copyrighted. As capitalist entities in a market system pharmaceutical companies are only interested in massive profits, and I can see no good reason why they should be paid whatever they ask, especially when people would die otherwise. Their desire for more money must be tempered by the fact that what they do must continue to be done at the lowest price possible.

That Americans are willing to pay ridiculous prices is their choice, it's not a matter of ridiculous prices or no new drugs.
on Aug 04, 2007

Or so one would think. The prospect of universal health care frightens me. I'm genuinely concerned about the kids who will be removed from their parents because mommy and daddy weren't good enough to keep up with state mandated checkup schedules, which could be made mandatory under universal health care.


What's the old security line? The innocent have nothing to fear? Something like that anyway.

I don't see why there has to be mandatory check-ups, although frankly they're a good idea. I'm not sure what would be the basis for an opposition to regular medical care, but I'd to hear it from you.

Why are you opposed to the enforcement of what is, after all, an extremely useful way to pick up on any problems as they happen rather than when a child is dying or seriously ill?
on Aug 04, 2007
If anyone says America should have Universal Health Care, just ask them if they really want to pay for Rush Limbaugh and Bill Gate's healthcare.


See, there's the problem - America is a country at war with itself. Anyone an American doesn't like somehow deserves only to die alone in horrible agony. Where's that Christian compassion?
on Aug 04, 2007
The innocent have nothing to fear?


FLAT OUT BS, CACTO. You honestly believe innocent people have never ever been persecuted?

Why are you opposed to the enforcement of what is, after all, an extremely useful way to pick up on any problems as they happen rather than when a child is dying or seriously ill?


I have my reasons, Cacto. I have seen firsthand the abuses of an overly intrusive government. One day perhaps I will be free to write about it, but for the moment, you will have to trust me.

In the meantime, you might ask yourself: what kinds of things would turn a rabid socialist into a flaming, small government Libertarian? When you answer those questions, you MIGHT have some idea!
on Aug 04, 2007


FLAT OUT BS, CACTO. You honestly believe innocent people have never ever been persecuted?


No, I was being cynical. You're right of course. Innocent people sometimes do get shafted. But I think, and this is just conjecture of course, that more people will be protected by making everyone go to the doctor for a regular check-up than by letting parents make their own arrangements for their kids.

It's for the greater good! (cynicism again).

what kinds of things would turn a rabid socialist into a flaming, small government Libertarian? When you answer those questions, you MIGHT have some idea!


I've never seen the two as being particularly opposed to each other. A good socialist is always aiming for a society where there is no need for a government and a good libertarian believes there's no need for a government in the current society.

The only disagreements are on what to do, so I've never seen it as much of a jump. The ideologies aren't wholly opposed anyway.
on Aug 04, 2007
For the record, cacto, I could bring you REAMS of case studies of families who have had their lives torn apart who were completely innocent. And in fact, I have done so. And in fact, you have read it.



Someone like yourself would surely be aware of the "forgotten years" referenced in the Midnight Oil song...when the Aussie government stole away children of aborigines to be raised in the homes of white Australians. Was that right? Was that proper? Why is it any more proper when an American government steals away children of the poor to be raised in houses of the rich. I've researched the statistics, I've sourced them. Of the more than half a million children in the US foster care system, only 3% of the parents are ever criminally charged with abuse or neglect. Yet only 44% of those children will ever see their parents again. There is something wrong here, and I've proven my case so repeatedly that you and the rest of joeuser told me you were sick and damned tired of hearing about it! OBVIOUSLY I didn't say enough!



"The government" should never be the arbiter of our lives and our values, cacto. Interesting that people like you worry about shit like wiretapping but have no problem with governments stealing children from the homes of poor parents!
on Aug 04, 2007
A good socialist is always aiming for a society where there is no need for a government


No, that'd be a good communist. A good socialist's pretty dependent on "daddy government".

One of the fatal flaws of believing in a nanny state, IMO, is believing that people who are corrupt will become LESS corrupt in mass congregations. History shows the opposite to occur.

Incidentally, apologies for some of the snippiness of the last post! I didn't realize you were being sarcastic. It's an issue that's very near and dear to me.
on Aug 04, 2007
But I think, and this is just conjecture of course, that more people will be protected by making everyone go to the doctor for a regular check-up than by letting parents make their own arrangements for their kids.


Of course. And more people would be protected if they registered their travel plans with a government agency and made their homes in prisons rather than on streets in cities where they could freely travel. But would it be a GOOD thing?
4 Pages1 2 3 4