Michael Moore the Fraud

[JayB]

I think we've got ourselves an acolyte. Now if he can summarize the central argument, proposition, or thesis that the Prophet pur forward in "Farhenheit 9/11"...

 

[mattp]

What is your point, Jay? I answered your question and you come back with all these big words. Is your point that you are smart? Here:

 

 

[JayB]

My conclusion from your reply was that you were intentionally being vague, evasive, and mendacious so as to avoid having to defend a specific central argument. Emulation in word and deed is a much higher form of tribute than mere praise.

[Snide]

matt, please stop interrupting jay's soliloquy. The sound of anyone else's voice wrecks his mood, and he has to start all over again at foreplay.

 

Your unwelcome intrusions are wreaking havoc on his supplies of vaseline and baby wipes.

[JayB]

I'm more partial to screeds, perorations, and phillipics than soliloquys, but it's nice to see that Carl has an acolyte....

[AlpineK]

I enjoyed Rodger and Me, but I never kept pace with his other movies.

[mattp]

Fahrenheit was really just kind of a shotgun blast at Bush, a somewhat crude collection of essays not unlike Roger and Me. As I think was part of Dechristo's point, whether you enjoyed the movie or not had a lot to do with whether you like Bush.

[Roy]

If Moore can make people think about our healthcare in this country it is a good thing. Most people put to much trust in doctors.You are in charge of your health and should always do your homework.

Hell if I was a doctor I would not trust myself.

The good people get overshadowed but they are there.

 

 

[mattp]

It not only the doctors who should draw our suspicion. Most of them are actually trying to do their job. The insurance and health care management system, on the other hand, is not really aimed at keeping you healthy or helping you get better except where that happens to be profitable.

[JayB]

Cost-controls, like statutory caps on liability, will be a fixture of any comprehensive single-payer system. In the case of a state-run system, the motive will be different, but the rationing will be at least, if not more severe than anything people have to endure at the hands of private insurers.

 

There's also the matter of what happens to the allocation of health care resources when the government attempts to replace the price system with planning. Even if you accept that folks in whatever health-care bureaucracy that would emerge after the advent of a single payer system have everyone's best interests at heart, the fact remains that they will be attempting to do the impossible - and the misallocation of resources that results from price controls and central planning will be at least as severe as anything that we have to contend with today, and here I'm speaking only of the health-care resources that are on the table today. The effect on innovation will be even more dramatic when central planning makes it impossible to measure, let alone respond to effective demand.

[cj001f]

for the record, JayB is my favorite polysyllabic prat

[ivan]

the solution to the health-care system is simple -

 

don't get sick!

 

if the gov did provide all our health-care i imagine it'd be like the military health-care system i grew up in as a kid - i usually felt like a lab rat, made to endure hours of bad day-time tv in the waiting room before being fondled by folks who almost, but not quite, were completly incapable of speaking english

 

or was that just the janitors?

[mattp]

• The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990
• The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960
• The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.
• The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana
• Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.
  

 

propaganda

[kevbone]

• The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990
• The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960
• The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.
• The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana
• Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.
  

 

propaganda

 

 

WOW

[JayB]

• The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990
• The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960
• The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.
• The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana
• Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.
  

 

propaganda

 

Just to take the case of the first statistic alone, the standards by which infant mortality is assessed vary massively from one country to the next, so what counts as an infant death in the US may not even be logged as a live birth in another country.

 

": Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2002 Jan;16(1):16-22.Click here to read Links

Registration artifacts in international comparisons of infant mortality.

Kramer MS, Platt RW, Yang H, Haglund B, Cnattingius S, Bergsjo P.

 

Department of Pediatrics, McGill University Faculty of Medicine, Montreal, Canada. michael.kramer@mcgill.ca

 

Large differences in infant mortality are reported among and within industrialised countries. We hypothesised that these differences are at least partly the result of intercountry differences in registration of infants near the borderline of viability (<750 g birthweight) and/or their classification as stillbirths vs. live births. We used the database of the International Collaborative Effort (ICE) on Perinatal and Infant Mortality to compare infant mortality rates and registration practices in Norway (n = 112484), Sweden (n = 215 908), Israeli Jews (n = 148123), Israeli non-Jews (n = 52 606), US Whites (n = 6 074 222) and US Blacks (n = 1328332). To avoid confounding by strong secular trends in these outcomes, we restricted our analysis to 1987-88, the most recent years for which data are available in the ICE database for all six groups. Compared with Norway (with an infant mortality rate of 8.5 per 1000), the crude relative risks [95% confidence intervals] were 0.75 [0.69,0.81] in Sweden, 0.97 [0.90,1.06] in Israeli Jews, 1.98 [1.81,2.17] in Israeli non-Jews, 0.95 [0.89,1.01] in US Whites and 2.05 [1.95,2.19] in US Blacks. For borderline-viable infants, fetal deaths varied twofold as a proportion of perinatal deaths, with Norway reporting the highest (83.9% for births <500 g and 61.8% for births 500-749 g) and US Blacks the lowest (40.3% and 37.6% respectively) proportions. Reported proportions of live births <500 g varied 50-fold from 0.6 and 0.7 per 10000 in Sweden and Israeli Jews and non-Jews to 9.1 and 33.8 per 10000 in US Whites and Blacks respectively. Reported proportions 500-749 g varied sevenfold from 7.5 per 10000 in Sweden to 16.2 and 55.4 in US Whites and Blacks respectively. After eliminating births <750 g, the relative risks (again with Norway as the reference) of infant mortality changed drastically for US Whites and Blacks: 0.82 [0.76,0.87] and 1.42 [1.33,1.53] respectively. The huge disparities in the ratio of fetal to infant deaths <750 g and in the proportion of live births <750 g among these developed countries probably result from differences in birth and death registration practices. International comparisons and rankings of infant mortality should be interpreted with caution."

 

With regards to the rest of the statistics, assuming that they are accurate - the statistic with respect to immunization "ranking" strikes me as one that screams for further examination- argument must be that all of the statistics would improve under whatever health-care nationzalization scheme you are envisioning. If you look at the leading causes of death in the US, and what role lifestyle choices plays in their genesis, one crucial component of such a claim is that nationalizing health care would lead the citizens of this country to substantially modify their behaviors in a way that the operation of the current health-care market does not.

 

None of this deals with the previous argument about the effect about allocating the nation's health-care resources via centralized rationing/planning in comparison to efforts to limit expenditures on the part of private insurers. Then there's the quality aspect - since all lawsuits in a nationalized system are ultimately paid out of tax revenues, there's a very, very high probability that the legislature will strive to and succeed in placing caps on liability judgments against doctors and hospitals.

 

You seem to have argued that the threat of financial losses is an important means by which to force those in the medical industry to provide a certain standard of care. Are you arguing that nationalizing healthcare will suddenly promote a degree of caution and vigilance in doctors and hospitals that the threat of large financial losses hasn't?

 

I think if this debate about nationalizing health-care in this country ever gets too serious, the attorneys that make their living from the current system are smart enough to figure out what this will mean for their practices, and you'll see a fairly dramatic about face from the trial lawyers, who will become one of the most vocal and effective opponents of any such plan.

 

 

[chucK]

statuatory caps on liability: might not be a problem. The reason we need malpractice liability nowadays is because it is the only effective defense our society has versus inept or criminal caregivers. If a single payer system evolved, a fuck-up or shifty doctor would have to worry about getting fired from the only game in town. That seems like an effective deterrent (plus malpractice liability at whatever level it is capped)

 

effect on innovation: most innovation is currently funded by the government. That wouldn't change. Might even get better. Yes we would lose some of the incentive for big companies to innovate in big-money chronic meds that people may or may not need (i.e. cholesterol, blood-pressure, erectile dysfunction, toenail fungus, and tooth-whitening meds). More emphasis will be placed on preventing and curing over chronic dependency.

 

misallocation of resources: obviously if you think a single-payer system will make it harder to get care than today, then you are definitely either in a higher tax bracket and/or are young and healthy and don't need to see a doctor much. The system can only get better for the poor and needy. Though I think you are correct in that it could get inconvenient for those in the higher tax-brackets (for two reasons) and people that don't get sick.

 

JayB, your pronunciations are nothing more than dire predictions extrapolated from worst-case scenarios, though you present them as self-evident truths. How do you explain the fact that so many other countries do better than us in many areas? We are the richest country in the world. How do you explain how we are not doing BETTER than every country in the world?

[JayB]

-I'm not sure if you are familiar with the process that it takes for say, a nurse, to get fired from any unionized hospital - let alone a government run facility like the VA. If you think that the doctor's would be easier to fire under a system like the one you are proposing, you can believe that if you wish, but I think it's highly unlikely to say the least. The effect on who chooses to go into medicine, the extent to which they have the freedom and motivation to develop new treatment, technologies, etc is something that's rarely taken into consideration, but warrants at least a moment's consideration.

 

-Funding basic research is part of bringing new technologies to the market, but it's only one part of a much more complex picture. The collective circumstances, choices and priorities of hundreds of millions of people currently drive resource allocation and determine which of the potential new devices, drugs, and technologies ultimately make the move from concept to reality. The outcomes that this produces may not meet with your approval, but it's difficult to argue that this allocation is inconsistent with the needs of the people who are able to pay for their own care as they and their doctors understand them. When it comes to those that can't pay for their own care, you have to make the case that they'd be better served by central planning than by subsidized health insurance - which is a difficult case to make, especially when you factor in the fact that they will no longer be in a position to benefit from the innovations developed for those who can. I think that reforming the tax-incentives and regulations that are responsible for some of the problems associated with access to healthcare in this country is more likely to be beneficial than nationalization, but you are free to disagree.

 

-Missallocation of resources - this has more to do with those decisions being driven by those who need care as opposed to those the government decides to fund. Even if you accept that the government will be staffed by competent people who act in good faith, the track record of those who have attempted to substitute central planning for the information conveyed by prices hasn't been terribly good.

 

Theres also the matter of who decides which new drugs, therapies, or technologies that do become available under this regime get funded, who gets them, and for how long. What about people who are willing to spend their own money over and above what the state provides? The ethical problems that this will present in terms of desperately ill people who may or may not respond to them are, if anything, going to get quite a bit more complex under a single-payer scheme. Providing for preventive care is cheap and easy by comparison.

 

 

 

When it comes to our status relative to the rest of the world, that's a good question. I'd chalk most of it up to the way we live, and the choices we make concerning our health. When you are comparing longevity from one society to the next, it's difficult to tell what's attributable to lifestyle and what's attributable to a particular approach to providing health-care.

 

Ultimately - the argument will be between reforming health-insurance and providing subsidies to expand coverage to those who can't afford it and some kind of nationalization. When you compare these two models, the net benefits derived from nationalization, price controls, and rationing will likely have costs and negative consequences that exceed the benefits.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

THIS THREAD HAS SUFFERED A JAYB52 STRIKE.

[Roy]

Our health care system is all about profit. My personal thought for what it is worth is this will be the next scandal. Refering to insurance companys and drug manufactures.

I feel so lucky that my wife and I both have good inaurance.

Big wigs are going to go down on this one and I hope they burn in HELL,or get some good sex in prison.

JMHO.

 

Greedy Bastards.

Edited June 23, 2007 by Roy

[Roy]

If you think all doctors are good your nuts. They are just people, some good some bad. I know from four knee operations.

I am lucky to still be climbing,only since I found a good Orthropod.

 

The only thing that saved me was taking contol of the situatuion.

 

Just my experience.

Edited June 23, 2007 by Roy

[Clavote]

I actually do look for counter-arguments and just plain factual background, DeChristo, but if we're casting aspersions according to the political views of those we're casting upon I'd have to observe that the right-leaning posters on this site have been much more prone to posting without actual information, ignoring new facts, and running from the discussion when strong counter-arguments are presented.

 

But, that's the beauty of the thing, you don't need real facts!

[ericb]

I actually do look for counter-arguments and just plain factual background, DeChristo, but if we're casting aspersions according to the political views of those we're casting upon I'd have to observe that the right-leaning posters on this site have been much more prone to posting without actual information, ignoring new facts, and running from the discussion when strong counter-arguments are presented.

 

MM has been quoted as saying that he "doesn't own stock in any corporation", but interesting that not only does he have quite a stock portfolio, he owns stock in Haliburton.

Edited June 25, 2007 by ericb

[Jim]

I heard that he actually sits on the Board of Halliburton.

[JayB]

If you think all doctors are good your nuts. They are just people, some good some bad. I know from four knee operations.

I am lucky to still be climbing,only since I found a good Orthropod.

 

The only thing that saved me was taking contol of the situatuion.

 

Just my experience.

 

I agree with your assessment, but am wondering how transferring control of the entire medical economy to the state would have affected your care. The odds are quite high that the state would not only determine whether or not you could even get the surgery, but also when, at what facility, and from whom you could get it. Other than the decision to seek treatment or not, it's not clear to me how one could take control of the situation in the manner that you advocate under a universal single payer-system.

 

 

[Jim]

The U.S. spends 16 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on health care, compared with 8 to 10 percent in most major industrialized nations. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) projects that growth in health spending will continue to outpace GDP over the next 10 years.

 

A study by the U.S. General Accounting Office concluded that the U.S. could save enough simply on administrative costs with a single payer national health program to cover all uninsured Americans. In addition, with more the more effective cost-containment mechanisms possible under single payer (negotiated fees, global hospital budgets, capital planning and budgeting), the U.S. Congressional Budget Office found that the U.S. could save $224 billion by 2007.

 

And the big number - about 47 million folks in the US have no health care coverage. We're the only industralized county to lack a universal plan.

 

It would be difficult to argue that the marketplace has been an efficient deliverer of health care. Markets can't solve everything. I know this a shock to some. And for those who want more coverage than a universal plan would offer then they can purchase supplemental insurance. The cost/benefit ratio of the current system is too high on the costs. That's because of the duplicity of all the administration of, what, 100 different insurance companies? Add to that their profit and advertising and it proves to be very inefficient and uneconomical.