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 3)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Aug 04, 2007
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?


No, it wasn't right and it wasn't proper. But the depressing thing is that many of those stolen and their descendents have a much better life than those left behind. It's pretty depressing. It's a terrible thing to have to face, that ethics don't make a better place, tralala and all that. I don't see socialised healthcare as ripping children from parents though, and nor do I think a biological link is necessarily the best qualification for raising children. I'd be all for certification if I thought humans were capable of rational thought.

A hypocritical socialised system just seems like a better halfway point to me; your limits on freedoms will necessarily differ due to your strong basis in true liberalism.

Interesting that people like you worry about shit like wiretapping but have no problem with governments stealing children from the homes of poor parents!


I guess because as a young, white, privately schooled middle-class male I have more reason to fear war than bureaucrats.

Your mileage may vary. It's what makes the world such an interesting place, the way we each obsess over different things. For me the only freedom I really value is intellectual, and wiretapping is an attempt to limit that freedom through fear of the government knowing what you think.

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


All right, we're obviously hitting a definitional barrier here. Who's your basis for your understanding of socialism? I can see the Marxist link behind your reasoning for communism, although I would have said Lenin, Mao and Stalin are better examples of Communist thinkers.


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.


I just think people will complain more loudly. It's the lassaiz faire systems of the third world that have the most corruption. Australia ranks pretty well on the corruption scale and always has; I don't see a direct link between big government and corruption. There is a link though between secretive government and corruption.


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?


No, but we have to draw the line somewhere. I think it's okay to have greater limits on children than on adults.
on Aug 04, 2007
. I don't see socialised healthcare as ripping children from parents though


no, it's not the healthcare itself. What happens is this: a child comes into the doctor, is growing too fast or too slow, according to the "charts". Doctor alerts CPS. CPS removes the child for neglect.

Think it's over simplistic, cacto? I've SEEN it happen!

All right, we're obviously hitting a definitional barrier here. Who's your basis for your understanding of socialism? I can see the Marxist link behind your reasoning for communism, although I would have said Lenin, Mao and Stalin are better examples of Communist thinkers.


No, the USSR was socialist, cacto. Communism can take place without government, but socialism cannot. My definition only comes from Marx...a pretty lousy source.

And, umm, yes, I have read Marx. I used to have a copy of "The Communist Manifesto" on my nightstand, cacto!
on Aug 04, 2007
no, it's not the healthcare itself. What happens is this: a child comes into the doctor, is growing too fast or too slow, according to the "charts". Doctor alerts CPS. CPS removes the child for neglect.


The American people's refusal to hold their government to account is hardly any of my concern. If you refuse to govern yourselves you can expect to get exploited.

No, the USSR was socialist, cacto. Communism can take place without government, but socialism cannot. My definition only comes from Marx...a pretty lousy source.


No, I mean what are you basing your definition of socialism on - the ideas of Owen? Saint-Simon? the Paris Commune? the New Deal? Keynesianism?

I don't understand your separation of socialism and communism here. What you seem to be calling socialism I would call communism.

And, umm, yes, I have read Marx. I used to have a copy of "The Communist Manifesto" on my nightstand, cacto!


Really? I'm so sorry for you! It's so badly written!
on Aug 05, 2007
The American people's refusal to hold their government to account is hardly any of my concern. If you refuse to govern yourselves you can expect to get exploited.


Again, Australia is not without her transgressions in this regard either, cacto, as I have pointed out.

And who's this "you" you speak of? I've been working pretty damned hard on the whole deal. That's why I even HAVE these files!
on Aug 05, 2007
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?


Do you really think either of these guys would die alone in horrible agony without Socialized Medicine? LOL
on Aug 05, 2007
Again, Australia is not without her transgressions in this regard either, cacto, as I have pointed out.


Yes, but they are quite rare cases. You seem to suggest that if the same system were installed in the US there would be transgressions everywhere. If that's the case then Americans obviously don't care overly much about their own well-being, or aren't prepared to do anything when said well-being is threatened.



Do you really think either of these guys would die alone in horrible agony without Socialized Medicine?


Not especially. Do you? Why else would anyone give a stuff if their tax dollars went towards healing them? Their tax dollars would go into the healthcare system just as much as anyone else.
on Aug 05, 2007
Not especially. Do you? Why else would anyone give a stuff if their tax dollars went towards healing them? Their tax dollars would go into the healthcare system just as much as anyone else.




now you want the rich to pay but not use.
on Aug 05, 2007
Not especially. Do you? Why else would anyone give a stuff if their tax dollars went towards healing them? Their tax dollars would go into the healthcare system just as much as anyone else.


and yet, as it stands their healthcare costs the taxpayer NOTHING.
on Aug 05, 2007

and yet, as it stands their healthcare costs the taxpayer NOTHING.


I can assure you that 2% (or less, if they have private insurance) of the yearly income of a Bill Gates or a Rush Limbaugh should be more than enough to cover their healthcare needs.

There may even be some left over for the less wealthy members of society.
on Aug 05, 2007
I can assure you that 2% (or less, if they have private insurance) of the yearly income of a Bill Gates or a Rush Limbaugh should be more than enough to cover their healthcare needs



you don't know how healthy either of them are
on Aug 05, 2007
God forbid we live in a society where the consequences of failure can still be felt. No one must ever suffer, ever! Even if their suffering is of their own choosing, it must not be allowed. Consequences for laziness, stupidity, and bad decision making must be ameliorated, softened, if not entirely eliminated.


Countries that don't ameliorate the consequences of a retarded population face unrest and, from time to time, rioting and revolution. That's a historical fact. It's really not cost efficient to deal with domestic terror campaigns instead of buying your malcontents off with provision of services.

The problem is not as widespread as you think, cacto, and another small issue you tend to overlook is size. It's much easier to meet the needs of a small nation like Australia than it is to cater to every need of 350 million souls.


I don't think I believe that. Size improves cost efficiencies, it doesn't hurt them. When it comes to healthcare the needs of those 350 million souls are going to be pretty similar - doctor visits, decent hospitals, access to prescription medicine at reasonable prices. Much of the bureaucracy only needs to be done once - after all, to an accountant there's not much difference between six zeroes and nine or twelve.

As for provision of service it's still doable. Throw in a few thousand ombudsmen (maybe more in the beginning; the scale is tricky) whose sole purpose is to investigate complaints and prosecute and you'll keep the medical bureaucrats on their toes.

But when my government spends more per hour in Iraq as it does in an entire YEAR on dam inspections (we have over 80,000 dams in this country) while simultaneously blowing billions of dollars on pet projects (like woodstock memorials, bridges to nowhere, and useless monuments in remote areas no one visits anyway) there's just no way in HELL I'm going to trust them with decisions regarding my health care


The American people don't care about the corruption of their elected officials. They can hardly expect good governance from a group of individuals so heavily bribed their every move is sponsored by Pepsi and Walmart.

That doesn't mean there is no such thing as good governance, nor that America would benefit from such a thing if ever they bothered to consider it important.
on Aug 05, 2007
What about the 10 million 'uninsured' who aren't even Americans?


What about them? It's really not that expensive to provide basic health coverage. Here's an excerpt from a Medicare fact sheet from 2001 (it was the easiest to find reference - ):

"Australia's total spending on health care, as a proportion of GDP and in the proportion coming from the public sector, ranks in the middle of the developed countries for which data are available.

"Note that the USA, with only 46.7% of its health care expenditure in the public sector spends 67% more than Australia as a proportion of GDP and 2.3 times as much per capita. Yet despite this additional spending, the USA reports a worse population health status and has 40 million people without any form of health insurance. Most of its highest spending simply goes in higher costs.

"Every OECD nation's health spending has risen since 1970. However, where the public sector dominates the market, such as Australia and the UK, cost rises have been slower and more controlled. In Australia the cost of health care has been relatively stable for the last 10 years.

"Australia's proportion of GDP on health went from 5.2% to 8.4% between 1970 and 1995; while the USA rose from 7.4 to 14.5% over the same period (AIHW 1996). The USA rate has only plateaued in the 1990s, mainly as a result of bureaucratic 'managed care' restrictions on the supply of medical services, something Australia has so far avoided."
WWW Link
on Aug 07, 2007
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.


Why not? Do your math...US population: 301,139,947 Aussie population: 20,434,176
at a 15:1 population difference Austrailia can afford to care for 20 million a lot easier than 301 million.
on Aug 07, 2007
What about them?


Oh I don't know, maybe it's the "illegal" part that I have a problem with.
on Aug 07, 2007
"They can hardly expect good governance from a group of individuals so heavily bribed their every move is sponsored by Pepsi and Walmart."

Oh, we only wish it was Pepsi and Wal-Mart.

"And now, the Democratic National Convention, brought to you by Archer Daniels Midland! ADM - fixing prices and bribing officials since 1902."
4 Pages1 2 3 4