A comedy about 45 million people with no health care in the richest country on earth

June 17, 2007 5:56 PM

Michael Moore's Sicko on Google Video
posted by petsounds (282 comments total)

so yeah im not sure about the legality of this and the video quality is notsogreat but as for the movie.. well i just finished watching it and its really good
posted by petsounds at 5:59 PM on June 17, 2007

I watched this last night and it's very much worth the time. Probably his best film yet.
posted by dhammond at 6:02 PM on June 17, 2007

What's the easiest way to get this to DVD? Can I just plop the avi file into Nero and it'll convert it to DVD?
posted by geoff. at 6:02 PM on June 17, 2007

ARRRR. Why I think it's booty. Buh-uh-huh Booty.
posted by loquacious at 6:05 PM on June 17, 2007 [1 favorite]

What's the easiest way to get this to DVD?

AVI to DVD works well and is rather simple, though the transcoding takes several hours (even with a quick machine). More info here.
posted by dhammond at 6:07 PM on June 17, 2007 [2 favorites]

Yay copyright infringement! Yay $100,000 fine per incident, times several thousand active MeFites!

Dude, if you're not actually trying to destroy Metafilter, let me suggest not posting screeners of unreleased movies. The movie studios get rather upset about this.
posted by Malor at 6:08 PM on June 17, 2007 [1 favorite]

Nero won't convert it to you but other programs will. I use this one, convertxtodvd, to put .flv videos from youtube/google video onto dvd and it works great
posted by petsounds at 6:08 PM on June 17, 2007

pirates have lots of kids because they can't stop answering booty calls
posted by pyramid termite at 6:08 PM on June 17, 2007 [7 favorites]

Didn't it used to be that you could download .avi files directly from Google video? Now it's trying to get me to download "Google video player" and gives me a manual link to a 'gvp' file.

What a pain in the ass. Google is turning into Real.
posted by delmoi at 6:09 PM on June 17, 2007

Dude, if you're not actually trying to destroy Metafilter, let me suggest not posting screeners of unreleased movies. The movie studios get rather upset about this.

He's not posting a screener, he's posting a link to a screener. The first complaint will go to Google, and if they remove it, then the link will no longer work.

So chillax.
posted by delmoi at 6:10 PM on June 17, 2007 [1 favorite]

I would think it's Google's problem, Malor, not Matt's.
posted by BeerFilter at 6:12 PM on June 17, 2007

but isnt that responsibility of whoever ripped it, or more to the point google because theyre actually hosting the video? i dont think its illegal to visit google yet..
posted by petsounds at 6:12 PM on June 17, 2007

Moore Approves of Movie Pirating.

You know, in case you care.
posted by meh at 6:13 PM on June 17, 2007

Didn't it used to be that you could download .avi files directly from Google video? Now it's trying to get me to download "Google video player" and gives me a manual link to a 'gvp' file.

What a pain in the ass. Google is turning into Real.

I got the avi by clicking on "Download", it has a random alphanumeric string followed by avi.avi, which is weird but it works. Looks like it maxes out around 700KB/s though, so it'll probably take 15 minutes or so.
posted by geoff. at 6:13 PM on June 17, 2007

I'm not sure if the thread title is the film's ad tagline or what, but in the intro Moore explicitly says the film is *not* about American without health coverage -- it's about Americans who have health coverage, or at least think they do, and what happens to them when they try to use it.
posted by aaronetc at 6:16 PM on June 17, 2007

Michael Moore on Oprah, with some excerpts from the film.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:30 PM on June 17, 2007

Has anyone ever been prosecuted for hyperlinking to copyrighted material hosted by someone else?
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 6:34 PM on June 17, 2007

I found a DVDrip of it in super high quality last week on usenet. Haven't sat down to watch it yet, but a very high quality version came out more than two weeks before release. I suspect it was someone on Moore's team and probably with his approval, since he doesn't hate file sharing and just wants people to see his movies.
posted by mathowie at 6:38 PM on June 17, 2007 [2 favorites]

piratebay.org has it as a "DVDrip." Also a RealVideo format, which is actually good quality for computer viewing.

It's a very good film, with the usual Moore methods of selective editing. I had 2 questions I tried to email him, on the slim chance someone would reply, but the mail bounced back with a "mailbox full" error

My 2 questions, in case anyone sees him hanging around:

What happens to drug and other medical R&D when the profit motive is removed? (I am assuming other countries benefit from US investments in R&D.)

The 9-11 workers got better health care in Cuba than the US, yet in the quality-of-healthcare list in the film ("America is just ahead of Slovenia"), it clearly shows Cuba as below Slovenia. What's up with that?

I plan on seeing this when it's in theaters.
posted by The Deej at 6:43 PM on June 17, 2007

It's been pirated. It may well appear on the torrents.

But perhaps it shouldn't be posted here.

It's weird how google leaves these things up. Surely they have a few people looking? You would almost think it's up their deliberately, or at least with the awareness of lawyers or management.
posted by sien at 6:43 PM on June 17, 2007

Well, it will be more fun to go out and see it Sicko with friends, and then have a drink afterward, right? Also, by seeing it in a theater I'll boost the numbers for Moore's film, and thereby pave the way for the production of more such documentaries. So, I'll just wait.
posted by washburn at 6:45 PM on June 17, 2007 [1 favorite]

This better not bring any attention to the six pound brick of uncut Peruvian cocaine I have sitting on top of my monitor right now.
posted by The Straightener at 6:46 PM on June 17, 2007 [2 favorites]

Yay copyright infringement! Yay $100,000 fine per incident, times several thousand active MeFites!

Ya, Matt has been pretty clear on this. It's not hosted on MeFi's servers, it's just a link, the same as many news stories on the web have a link. Matt can delete if he thinks it's not a good post, but the copyright issue has been discussed many times.
posted by The Deej at 6:47 PM on June 17, 2007

The 9-11 workers got better health care in Cuba than the US, yet in the quality-of-healthcare list in the film ("America is just ahead of Slovenia"), it clearly shows Cuba as below Slovenia. What's up with that?

Depends on your definition of quality.

Basic public health care (ie maternal mortality, infant mortality, % vaccinated, etc.) I'd expect Cuba to be better than Slovenia -- and parts of the US (I'm looking at you, Mississippi and many Indian reservations.) Availability of on-demand surgery, of advanced pharmaceuticals, ER mortality: They'd all be far, far better in the US.
posted by docgonzo at 6:51 PM on June 17, 2007

What happens to drug and other medical R&D when the profit motive is removed?

Ask the people who need effective prophylaxis or treatment for malaria or tuberculosis.

Oh, wait -- you can't. They're dead.

The profit motive may be a driver of tremendous innovation in pharmaceuticals but let's not delude ourselves that the drug development pipeline is aimed at the world's top public health concerns. Simply, diseases that affect people who cannot pay for drugs are not of interest to Big Pharma.

First up against the wall when doconzo's revolution comes, lemme tell you...
posted by docgonzo at 6:58 PM on June 17, 2007 [6 favorites]

Thanks!
posted by phrontist at 7:03 PM on June 17, 2007

Has anyone ever been prosecuted for hyperlinking to copyrighted material hosted by someone else?

Yes, many times. All over the world. See: bittorrent link sites.
posted by Malor at 7:07 PM on June 17, 2007

The 9-11 workers got better health care in Cuba than the US, yet in the quality-of-healthcare list in the film ("America is just ahead of Slovenia"), it clearly shows Cuba as below Slovenia. What's up with that?

Guantánamo Bay is U.S. territory (under a lease set up in the wake of the 1898 Spanish-American War) and is not considered legally to be a part of Cuba. Thus -- the health care ranking of Gitmo is not considered or factored into the ranking Cuba. The health-care provided there is under the direction of the U.S. military.
posted by ericb at 7:14 PM on June 17, 2007

"Yay copyright infringement! Yay $100,000 fine per incident, times several thousand active MeFites!"

LOL, yeah they're gonna sue us all.

Also pigs have been spotted in airborne trajectories.
posted by quarter waters and a bag of chips at 7:14 PM on June 17, 2007

geoff., I got 1700kB/s... but that's what you get for wasting time at the lab.
posted by anthill at 7:17 PM on June 17, 2007

Thanks for the input, doconzo. I think Moore states that Cuba's infant mortality rate is lower than the US. The 911 workers were teary-eyed at the care they were given in Cuba, and to be honest it made me misty as well. Of course, with cameras running I'm sure everyone is on their best behavior.

Although I tend to be right-leaning, I have always loved Moore's films and have them all on DVD. They are entertaining and insightful, regardless of whether or not you agree with his viewpoint. And for those who may disagree with some or all aspects of the film, it will move you, and make you think, and may open a great national discussion on healthcare, and provide some public pressure for improvement.
posted by The Deej at 7:17 PM on June 17, 2007 [1 favorite]

LOL, yeah they're gonna sue us all.

Nope, they'll just pick a few examples and really put the screws to them while completely ignoring the rest. Thanks for volunteering to take one for the team!
posted by IronLizard at 7:22 PM on June 17, 2007

ericb -- they got care *in Cuba* (specifically in Havana), not from the Guantanamo Bay base.
posted by aaronetc at 7:23 PM on June 17, 2007

aaronetc -- thanks for the clarification. I'm now off to watch the full documentary.
posted by ericb at 7:28 PM on June 17, 2007

Not that Michael Moore has ever been hurting for publicity, but you can't ignore the fact that this perfectly timed "leak" of his new movie is generating tons of free publicity right when he needs it. Personally, I think the leak was deliberate, but I might be wrong. Either way, I have a feeling that when the movie eventually does come out and all the dollars have been counted, it will turn out that having the movie online actually helped rather than hurt ticket sales. 'Sicko' could turn out to represent a major turning point for the way movies are marketed.
posted by spilon at 7:28 PM on June 17, 2007 [1 favorite]

What happens to drug and other medical R&D when the profit motive is removed?
Much medical research is funded by governmental or non-profit organisations. For instance: the NIH in America; cancer research charities worldwide; the European Union; the British Medical Research Council, etc. etc.
I work in a prominent cancer research institute in NYC, and just as at all medical schools, research institutes and University departments, the walls everywhere are festoned with the names of philanthropists. Research can and is done without profit; the R&D done by drug companies is all founded on more basic academic research usually paid for by taxpayers and charities. Research would continue without profiteering, as long as people think it is something society should spend money on.
I am assuming other countries benefit from US investments in R&D. Whilst America is undoubtedly the world leader in both biomedical research and money-grabbing pharmaceutical corporations, those quaint place overseas are not just waiting for the nice Americans to send them some crumbs, you know.
There's a whole lot of good research done in Europe, especially in the UK and Germany, and plenty going on in Japan, Australia and Canada. China, Korea and Singapore are working hard at increasing their status too. On the corporate side, GlaxoSmithKline are British, Sanofi-Aventis are French, Novartis and Hoffman-La Roche both Swiss. According to Wikipedia, only five of the top ten pharmaceutical giants are American.
posted by nowonmai at 7:32 PM on June 17, 2007 [7 favorites]

Didn't it used to be that you could download .avi files directly from Google video?

Here you go.
posted by danb at 7:33 PM on June 17, 2007 [9 favorites]

I thought it was a good documentary (kind of drags towards the end), but Moore always has a way of filtering out information that doesn't put his objections in unfavorable light (never once mentioning the impact universal health care has on taxes). I personally prefer a more balanced approach so I can make up my own mind, but this film is good for opening debate.
posted by Mach3avelli at 7:34 PM on June 17, 2007

Michael Moore in his first live interview in 2^1/2 years: he talks about SICKO on Bill Maher's 'Real Time.'

"Even Fox News said it was brilliant and uplifting."

posted by ericb at 7:40 PM on June 17, 2007 [1 favorite]

Ask the people who need effective prophylaxis or treatment for malaria or tuberculosis.

WHO, Sanger Institute, Pharmacopeia, GSK and a mix of other non-profit and for-profit institutions have been working together on malaria, which is a tropical disease and therefore one without much of a profitable market.

While there's probably not a whole lot of profit in curing malaria, there is definitely profit in the systems biology approaches used in learning about the disease, which are applicable to other diseases.

Profit isn't bad in itself. Profit at the benefit of marketing — to the exclusion of vital R&D — is bad.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:43 PM on June 17, 2007

What happens to drug and other medical R&D when the profit motive is removed? (I am assuming other countries benefit from US investments in R&D.)

US taxpayers fund the vast majority of R&D that drug companies profit from.

NIH (taxpayer funded 100%) funds 1/3 of biomedical R&D. From 1955 to 1992, 92% of drugs approved by the FDA to treat cancer were researched and developed by the NIH. Between 1992 and 1996, drug companies received $27.4 billion in R&D tax credits (tax credits to companies posting billion dollar profits, mind you). (all from David Sirota's wonderful, Hostile Takeover)

I think they'll be fine. Since they're making a metric shit ton off of US taxpayer money.

I dl'ed Sicko this weekend and watched it. Pretty much an affirmation of my feelings toward this issue. I thought it was great and fairly non-controversial vis-a-vis partisan politics. I'll be buying multiple copies of the DVD when it's out and donating several to the local libraries.

I also encourage all of the other physicians at MeFi to look into PNHP.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 7:49 PM on June 17, 2007 [4 favorites]

Moore has indeed had no problem with the file-sharing of his previous documentary 'Fahrenheit 9/11.' He even encouraged the online sharing, as noted by meh (above).

I think spilon may be onto something regarding the market dynamics for this film. Early online viewing will likely spur the froth of in-theater and later home-DVD (i.e. Netflix | Blockbuster et al) viewings.

Michael Moore has been able to generate siginificant attention and revenue from low-cost, yet highly-impactful (documentary) films. No star salaries; no special effects required!!!
posted by ericb at 7:50 PM on June 17, 2007

*the online sharing of such* || *significant attention*
posted by ericb at 7:52 PM on June 17, 2007

I'll tell you this, last year I had to visit doctors & hospitals in Turkey, Greece and Austria for health issues (broken foot in April, ruptured ear in May) I suffered during travels. The doctors in Turkey were definitely hit and miss, but my last ear doctor in Austria was by far better than any I've had since, and he was a specialist that took me as a walk-in with no insurance. Not one of the bills ever cost more than $100, as a matter of fact my doctor visit in Santorini cost me $9 total. Not one person ever asked me if I had an insurance card or if I could pay. They just took care of me.

The runaround and lack of help I got AFTER arriving home not only didn't help me but it broke me both financially and emotionally. I had to make an appointment with my GP to get an appointment with a specialist who referred me to two more specialists. Who referred me to an allergy doctor and sent me for all sorts of lovely expensive tests. I had 400 allergy patch tests, CT scans, you name it. And then in the end when I said, "It feels like you people are just doing tests for the sake of doing tests and aren't fixing anything or giving me any answers," they basically told me "Yeah, we don't know what to tell you. We don't know why your ear ruptured. And not sure what to do about it. But there's another specialist I'd like to send you to..."

Pardon my french, but fuck the American medical system.
posted by miss lynnster at 7:55 PM on June 17, 2007 [7 favorites]

petsounds: Thank you very much. I'm about twenty minutes into the documentary but felt compelled to pause and get back here. Fuck the critics of Michael Moore. This is fantastic. This highlights exactly the problems with the US health care system.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 7:57 PM on June 17, 2007

I don't want to be any more depressed about our system than I already am, so I won't be watching this, legally or otherwise.
posted by konolia at 8:02 PM on June 17, 2007 [1 favorite]

I'm pretty much in step with Moore's politics, but can't stand him personally. I realize that's my problem, but for all the good questions he raised in Bowling for Columbine, he almost ruined the whole thing by superimposing himself as "auteur" over the whole damn thing. When he tones down his own bloated ego, he's really quite effective at what he does.

Hopefully there's less of him in this new one. It does look good, and I eagerly await the right-wing spin machine trying to bash him yet again ("Lawl he's fat amirite!") when he makes a simple point that even the most die-hard red-staters would have to appreciate: In the richest country ever, why should you have to go into life-long debt if you, your wife, or one of your kids gets really sick?
posted by bardic at 8:05 PM on June 17, 2007 [2 favorites]

nowonmai
Thanks, great info!
posted by The Deej at 8:14 PM on June 17, 2007

never once mentioning the impact universal health care has on taxes

That was the whole point of the segment with the $96K/year French couple and their awesome condo. They get taxed like crazy so that the government can somebody over to do new mothers' laundry, but because so much is paid for out of public coffers, they don't have any big expenses after their mortgage.
posted by aaronetc at 8:17 PM on June 17, 2007

This movie is really facinating. Those of you who think they might want to watch it later, I'd say you should start it and see if you want to turn it off. It's very engaging.

bardic: Moore narrates the film, and he's in it a little bit, mostly just interviewing people.
posted by delmoi at 8:17 PM on June 17, 2007

bardic: It amazes me what gets people bent out of shape over Moore. I, like you, agree with him generally but have other reservations about him as a spokesman for "my side." Mainly, I think his ego and his manipulative filmmaking get in the way of his message. If he would tone down his presence and be more evenhanded in his presentation of material, I think it would make a much stronger case and get people on multiple sides of an issue talking and thinking.

But this last semester I showed the film The Corporation to my freshman composition students. Moore is in the movie for about 5 minutes getting interviewed, but I could tell it completely turned my students off to the whole thing. Only 1 or 2 of them had actually seen a Michael Moore film, but they all thought he was a fat, obnoxious jerk, and therefore everything he said was wrong, and anyone who agreed with him was also wrong. For the vast majority of the students, they hated him just because their parents had told them to hate him, but had no real basis for their opinions. It made me sad, because for all his faults, at least he talks about things that should be talked about, but so many people don't listen because it's Michael Moore.
posted by papakwanz at 8:27 PM on June 17, 2007 [1 favorite]

The Deej wrote: The 911 workers were teary-eyed at the care they were given in Cuba, and to be honest it made me misty as well. Of course, with cameras running I'm sure everyone is on their best behavior.

I read an interview with Michael Moore in Entertainment Weekly where he said that the film crew and the 9/11 workers were curious about this too (whether they had received good care because the camera crews were there). So, one of the workers who was fluent in Spanish sneaked out to a different ward where the health care staff didn't know her. She pretended to be a Puerto Rican tourist who had become ill while travelling in Cuba, and she said she was treated with exactly the same professionalism and compassion as she had received from the health care workers who were working in front of the film crew.

I haven't seen SICKO! yet, but I would like to. I live in Canada and there is a lot of loud complaining from conservatives and calls for privatization of our public healthcare system, but I hear these stories about the US system and wonder why people would think private health care serves anyone but the very rich.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 8:32 PM on June 17, 2007 [3 favorites]

thanks, really want to see this. just gonna have a quick cigarette first.
posted by andywolf at 8:35 PM on June 17, 2007 [1 favorite]

Why not put down the cigarette and have a nice, tasty CUBAN CIGAR????
posted by IronLizard at 8:40 PM on June 17, 2007 [1 favorite]

I think his ego and his manipulative filmmaking get in the way of his message

True that- also, he's a lightweight, and unfortunately too much of a polemicist. Li

But, he gets his message out which is laudatory.
posted by mattoxic at 8:41 PM on June 17, 2007

Moore is in the movie for about 5 minutes getting interviewed, but I could tell it completely turned my students off to the whole thing.

Sounds like there's a market for generating "de-Moored" versions of these films. Not just editing out Moore, but changing his voice a bit. Seriously. It sounds like a lot of people need to hear these issues but not be distracted by whatever dad/frat friends/Rush said about Moore.
posted by rolypolyman at 8:41 PM on June 17, 2007

Recommended.
posted by acro at 8:42 PM on June 17, 2007

Yay copyright infringement! Yay $100,000 fine per incident, times several thousand active MeFites!

My feeling is, some movies transcend the guilt of watching it "illegally"...

Fast Food Nation... that movie looks cool. Definitely going to rent that.

Sicko... have to watch this. Now. Then rent/buy it.

Austin Powers 3... pirate that crap.
posted by starman at 8:43 PM on June 17, 2007

It sounds like a lot of people need to hear these issues but not be distracted by whatever dad/frat friends/Rush said about Moore.

is there anyone who would say the kinds of things moore says and supports what he does who wouldn't become a target of character assassination by the wingnuts?

it just doesn't matter ... no matter who you have saying it, they'll find something to ridicule because that's what they want to do ... they don't actually want to debate the issues, they just want to bury whoever brings them up under a load of bullshit

moore isn't mocked because he's moore, he's mocked because of what he advocates
posted by pyramid termite at 8:49 PM on June 17, 2007 [6 favorites]

I don't want to be any more depressed about our system than I already am, so I won't be watching this, legally or otherwise.

Now there's a healthy attitude.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:50 PM on June 17, 2007 [7 favorites]

I just finished watching it, and was strongly reminded of a core difference between between the UK where I grew up and the US where I live now, which is that the lack of universal care in the U.S. contributes to labor immobility and a lack of flexibility in the labor market.

When you have to think about the impact on your health and that of your family of a job change, that creates a very strong incentive to not change. In the U.K. it's a non-issue.

Psychologically, it makes an enormous difference too. It's a whole area of your life that you stress about in the U.S. that is a non-issue in the U.K..
posted by idb at 8:53 PM on June 17, 2007 [5 favorites]

I don't want to be any more depressed about our system than I already am, so I won't be watching this, legally or otherwise.

Nayh-nayh, I can't hear you.
posted by ericb at 8:53 PM on June 17, 2007 [3 favorites]

I'm having a great time watching Moore dismantle the argument against socialized medicine in Canada. Any Canadian MeFites want to chime in (if you've seen the documentary) and dispute Moore's depiction of the Canadian system?
posted by photoslob at 8:55 PM on June 17, 2007

Okay, I'm almost done. Here is my take:

Moore's previous films have always made me a bit uneasy at times. He takes cheap shots, portrays situations in ways that, while usually not blatant distortion, invite attack by those who disagree. He's learned a lot, and it shows in this film. Most MeFites (a generally worldly and educated bunch) won't learn too much, but many others will. It was a film that needed to be made, and to my surprise, I Moore did an excellent job. This film could make a difference in the upcoming elections.
posted by phrontist at 8:56 PM on June 17, 2007 [1 favorite]

Now there's a healthy attitude.

No, he's right. If you already know that the state of healthcare in your country is piss-poor in comparison to so many others, why would you watch this? The target audience is those who have no idea how much better others have it. Why preach to the choir?
posted by IronLizard at 8:57 PM on June 17, 2007

I like it so far. I bet this will be what causes the US to adopt the same sort of health care of every other first world nation. This will cause the poor and demoralized people with no chance of getting proper preventative care or paying for even 1/100th of the cost of emergency care to rise up. Or maybe not. I don't think there's anything that can pry industry bribes out of the cold dead hands of our senators.

Alexis Crumeau (sp) looks like a young Scott Thompson from The Kids in the Hall.
posted by stavrogin at 8:57 PM on June 17, 2007

to my surprise, I Moore did an excellent job

This iMoore, is it made by Apple? Does it vibrate?
posted by IronLizard at 8:59 PM on June 17, 2007 [1 favorite]

Actually, ericb, Moore does that at 1:22 or so...
posted by anthill at 8:59 PM on June 17, 2007

what a great statement!
posted by growabrain at 9:00 PM on June 17, 2007

Moore Approves of Movie Pirating.

Wow, he's thoughtful and articulate and soft-spoken and everything. Good clip.
posted by mediareport at 9:01 PM on June 17, 2007

I spoke too soon. The Cuba thing is fucking stupid.

Very, very, close though.
posted by phrontist at 9:05 PM on June 17, 2007

I'm a Canadian, and owe my life to the medical system. I was born with a hole between the two sides of my heart, and had open heart surgery twice: one at age 1, one at age 3. How would that have worked out under the US system, with follow up every few months (and even every few years now), I don't know. So I owe the country a lot. [NOT BIASED]

The Canadian healthcare system varies slightly from province to province. Moore went to Ontario; back in British Columbia when I was working an engineering job I paid about $2,400 a year in provincial medical insurance premiums. It's scaled to your income, so poor folks pay less. Not everything is covered under Canadian healthcare - optical, dental, things like that are often covered by your employer's health insurance. So to some extent it's a mix. Crappy job = no braces and ugly glasses. Not the end of the world, but not the paradise that Moore projects.

Waiting times are fine in my experience. If you go to the hospital with a cut on your toe, you will wait awhile. If you have a heart attack, in you go. This of course varies from region to region as well, though a recent study found that the "tail of the curve" was very narrow.

For some procedures, like big medical imaging machines, it can be a little longer. There's a big furor going on about the possibility of opening up private clinics for things like MRIs, to let those with the $ skip the line for their cat scans. We'll see if it works out: things like medical laboratory work (e.g. pap smears) are already handled almost entirely by the private sector, and there's no problem. It just depends on how accountable the service is, and if it's vulnerable to corruption or fraud.

My take on things: If the rich and powerful can opt to not have to deal with the public health system by buying their way past it, they'll never really feel the need to do more than lip service to keeping it livable. Same access to treatment for everyone = fundamental equality in society.
posted by anthill at 9:11 PM on June 17, 2007 [1 favorite]

I'm having a great time watching Moore dismantle the argument against socialized medicine in Canada. Any Canadian MeFites want to chime in (if you've seen the documentary) and dispute Moore's depiction of the Canadian system?

Your use of the term 'socialised medicine' indicates, and pardon my use of technical lingo, you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.
posted by docgonzo at 9:11 PM on June 17, 2007

Your use of the term 'socialised medicine' indicates, and pardon my use of technical lingo, you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.

Thanks for explaining everything so clearly.
posted by dhammond at 9:19 PM on June 17, 2007 [2 favorites]

SOCIALIZED

i'm clearly a completely clueless fuck because i misspelled a word. please except my apology and then go eat a dick.

posted by photoslob at 9:29 PM on June 17, 2007 [10 favorites]

Yay internets!
posted by furtive at 9:30 PM on June 17, 2007

and btw docgonzo, since you live in BC why not talk about your experience with the medical system in Canada? or maybe even add something to the conversation?
posted by photoslob at 9:32 PM on June 17, 2007

Well at least rich people don't have separate tax systems and penal systems, oh, right...
posted by furtive at 9:38 PM on June 17, 2007

32 minutes in, the movie is a vehicle for Hilary Clinton as president.
posted by furtive at 9:40 PM on June 17, 2007

38 minutes in I take back my previous statement.
posted by furtive at 9:46 PM on June 17, 2007

32 minutes in, the movie is a vehicle for Hilary Clinton as president

That would explain the favorable press courtesy of the Mudoch-owned News Corporation.

Hillary receives large contributions from a number of telecommunications and media corporations. These corporations are moving into or already have a significant Internet, news, cable and television presence.

She has raised nearly two and a half times as much money in 2006 than in 2004 and 2002.

Given the contributions she's amassed and the influence peddling that comes with them, and further given the increasingly slim chance of a GOP presidency in 2008, it would be little surprise that Murdoch wants to get ready to jump ship.

The FCC is directed by five Commisioners appointed by the President. Murdoch would then be well prepared to further corrupt FCC policy under a second Clinton presidency and expand American interests, including buying controlling interests in larger numbers of local television stations, cable operations and other media delivery outlets.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:48 PM on June 17, 2007 [1 favorite]

man, i want a copy of that album "Ronald Reagan speaks out against socialized medicine."
posted by andywolf at 9:52 PM on June 17, 2007

Finally a coherent Michael Moore film that isn't painful to watch.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:55 PM on June 17, 2007

thanks for posting this.
posted by brevator at 9:55 PM on June 17, 2007

More about Sicko and Hillary Clinton.
posted by mediareport at 10:06 PM on June 17, 2007 [1 favorite]

Guantánamo Bay is U.S. territory (under a lease set up in the wake of the 1898 Spanish-American War) and is not considered legally to be a part of Cuba. Thus -- the health care ranking of Gitmo is not considered or factored into the ranking Cuba. The health-care provided there is under the direction of the U.S. military.

Did you watch the movie? The patients were treated in Havana, not in Cuba. The care they got wasn't really what the average Cuban gets either, According to the NYT, there are really two levels of care. One for party officials, the wealthy, and tourists, and another for the average person. The second level is still good, of course.

Cuba had a lot to gain by treating these people well, and so it would have been worthwhile for them to get that kind of treatment.

I spoke too soon. The Cuba thing is fucking stupid.

Yeah I cringed a bit, especially the part where they boated up to Gitmo, as opposed to Cuba proper. But it turned out to be not that bad. I think the trip was more about marketing then anything else. A stunt to get press then anything that really helps the narrative.
posted by delmoi at 10:08 PM on June 17, 2007

In Australia, every citizen or permanent resident has free at the point of consumption health care. Prescription medications are also subsidised for all to about $20 per script for most (around $4 if you are retired or on welfare).
As mentioned about Canada, emergency treatment is rapid and free. If you have a cold or something else minor, you can attend a hospital emergency room, but you would probably be urged to visit a GP.
85% of GP visits are free at the point of consumption (called bulk billing) the remainder require up front payment, but you can claim about $25 back. Of course, if you are poor you go to a doctor who bulk bills everyone, these are common in the city, but if you are wealthy or particularly like some doctor, you can choose them and still received the $25 refund if they charge more.
If you have non-emergency hospital needs, you will likely need to wait until resources are available, this can be anywhere from weeks to, in extreme cases, a year.
If you want quicker attention, you can pay cash to a private hospital and be treated immediately, and about a 3rd of the population pays an additional "private" health insurance premium that covers these costs (usually >80% with you paying the rest - average family premium is around $1400p.a.).
For non-core health like optical and dental, there is free coverage for those on welfare but this has been under funded, so you might have to wait a year for a new pair of glasses, or more disturbingly, dental work.
So, in effect, everybody gets free care, the market is in place so you can purchase more immediate or customised care (plus perks like a private room and gourmet hospital food) if you wish to spend your money that way, and here is no reduction in quality of outcome for any member of society.
And Australia spends about as much per percent of GDP for this as the USA spends on Medicaid and the associated welfare health programs that cover only a fraction of the population.
I'll repeat that so it is clear - the US tax burden need not increase to deliver a 100% coverage health care system.
Of course those health benefits premiums you now pay would be optional, but you guys love those HMOs, so you would still keep that coverage even if free care was available, right ;-)
People is Australia do not go bankrupt due to healthcare bills.
So who is against public healthcare?
posted by bystander at 10:17 PM on June 17, 2007

Au an Australian I'm watching with horror with which the conservative government is dismantling our wonderful universal health care and replacing it with privatised US model.

I love the spin, everything is new and improved. I love the conservatives concept of a leveling services for all. "Well I can afford it, I don't see why they can't- after all we breath the same oxygen"
posted by mattoxic at 10:19 PM on June 17, 2007 [1 favorite]

Jesus, that section on Canada and Great Britain just brought tears to my eyes. The sheer incredulousness on their faces when asked about money... Fuck.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:22 PM on June 17, 2007

I'm really enjoying this film, if that's the right word. I'm skipping around, have seen about half of it.

I think it works because Moore is telling other people's stories, not constantly shifting the whole thing back to him, which drove me crazy in Bowling for Columbine.

The interviews with the women who have cancer, and then the voice-over nonchalantly letting us know that they're dead is absolutely staggering.

It really is fucking insane to be an American these days. All I can do for myself or tell anyone else is, do what you can to stay healthy, because if you get sick, you, your money and house, and your family are well and truly fucked forever. I don't want to imagine what it's like if you don't have health insurance, but I honestly can't imagine it could be much worse.
posted by bardic at 10:28 PM on June 17, 2007

Your use of the term 'socialised medicine' indicates, and pardon my use of technical lingo, you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.

Your spelling of the word "socialized" indicates, and pardon my use of technical lingo, you don't have a fucking clue how Canadian spelling works.
posted by oaf at 10:31 PM on June 17, 2007

Moore's depiction of the Canadian system?

Overly rosy, according to As It Happens. Moore's defense was something along the lines of "You can't tell the whole story in a film. If you want the whole story, go read a book."
posted by oaf at 10:35 PM on June 17, 2007

never once mentioning the impact universal health care has on taxes

The US could cut the defense budget by 25% and still spend more than everyone else in the world put together.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:38 PM on June 17, 2007 [7 favorites]

I remember reading that the US spends more tax dollars per capita on health care than Canada because it has to subsidise emergency rooms, which are packed with uninsured who wait until the last minute to seek medical attention, require costly interventions and are unable to pay. That is, the cost of this on top of medicare and medicaid, plus the grotesque medicare drug plan/giveaway to pharmaceutical firms, costs the taxpayer more than the Canadian system.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 10:39 PM on June 17, 2007

Well I'll tell you this, I've listened to old people discuss trying to decide between whether to buy food or medicine... and I've driven people to Mexico to get cheap prescriptions filled... and I've seen my own credit card bills go sky high with doctor bills over the years (even though I have insurance, which already costs me over $300 a month)... and it all makes me pretty sick to my stomach. I have said more than a few times that I hope to God I can retire in France somehow because I've often found myself ashamed of how America treats their senior citizens and sick people. It terrifies me! The little money my mom has, I constantly pray that it will last and that she won't get any new expensive long-term illnesses because when her money is gone I honestly can't afford to pay for her health care. And that's just horrible to be thinking about all the time in the back of your mind.

Also, I've read quite a bit about LA's skid row hospital dumps featured in the movie... just makes me cringe with disgust. If this movie changes anything at all? Then all I can say is thank God for Michael Moore. Obnoxious fat slob or no. I want to be proud of my country and sometimes I'm just not... so if the guy makes a difference and could possibly make this country a better and easier place to live in, then bless him.
posted by miss lynnster at 10:39 PM on June 17, 2007 [7 favorites]

bardic: did you see the scene about the little girl who was refused care at MLK hospital (yes, this MLK hospital, I think) because her HMO wouldn't cover it? What's interesting to me is that the mother requested that the daughter be treated there, and they refused. I had always thought that medical care had to be given, even if a patient had to pay, and that the hospital would then have to bill the person and hope they could collect. The daughter died before she got to an in-network hospital.

When I was growing up me and my sister had government health insurance, and to this day it's really a surprise to find that some children don't. Presumably she was in the HMO because of her job, and the irony is if she'd been on welfare her daughter would have gotten better treatment. That's seriously fucked up.

And the contrast with the next scene really drives the point home.
posted by delmoi at 10:44 PM on June 17, 2007

idb - I know that exact same freaky feelng. Gets freakier when you have a family.
posted by Artw at 10:45 PM on June 17, 2007

IMHO the Tony Benn segment at 1:07:00 sent chills down my spine. because it seems so true :(
posted by spacelux at 10:51 PM on June 17, 2007

Wow, this is really good.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:52 PM on June 17, 2007

I remember reading that the US spends more tax dollars per capita on health care than Canada because it has to subsidise emergency rooms, which are packed with uninsured who wait until the last minute to seek medical attention,

It is true that the US spends a shitload of money health care, and to compare it to taxes, well. A big part of my paycheck goes to taxes, and a big part goes to health insurance -- despite the fact that I'm pretty healthy and my premiums would be far lower if they were based on my actual health risk (IMO). I can't Opt out of the insurance (not that I'd want too, it does provide piece of mind) so in effect it's like being taxed by a private, for-profit company anyway.
posted by delmoi at 10:55 PM on June 17, 2007

Man I am really inarticulate tonight.
posted by delmoi at 10:56 PM on June 17, 2007

or maybe even add something to the conversation?

I did. Look up thread -- two posts that I hope were relatively informative and free, I think, of cussing.

My (maybe rash) reaction was due to your use of the phrase "socialis/zed medicine" -- code to the Canadian listener we're about to get a lecture from an ignorant Yank who's spent too much time listening to Rush and not enough time understanding how the system works, and doesn't.

First, it has little to do with socialism nor state-controlled systems a la the EU. The federal government collects the cash, largely through paycheque deductions and mandatory employer payments, and cuts a big cheque to Canada's provincial governments. They, in turn, decide how their system works, within the context of the Canada Health Act, a federal law that guarantees the basic principles of the medicare system, such as universality, public administration (checks wikipedia), portability and accessibility.

It's in the provincial ministries of health that the rubber meets the road. They interpret the CHA and mandate how the system works: What gets covered, how much doctors get paid per service, whether a new hospital will get built, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

That's, really, where the state ends and private enterprise takes over. I work for an inner-city hospital in Vancouver; it is run by Providence Health Care, a private non-profit owned by the local Catholic diocese. People turn up at our ER, we provide care and bill the government (provided they show us their care card.) Many things -- blood tests, prescriptions -- are billed privately and paid for by the patient or their third-party insurance.

The real difference between Canada and the US is efficiency. The US system is set-up whereby if you're insured, or you have a platinum card, you can turn up at any major hospital tomorrow and get whatever medically-necessary (or many that are not) procedure. The Canadian system contains rationing. If a fellow turns up with heart pains, say, in an ER, they're assessed; if they need immediate care, like an immediate bypass, they get it. If not, they wait, based upon the severity of their underlying condition. This is a more efficient system as you can predict how many procedures you'll need to do per year -- and how many surgical teams, ORs, gloves, etc. etc. etc.

Whether the Canadian public medicare system is sustainable over the long term is in question. The system is under tremendous strain for a very simple reason: The population is aging. Concurrently, they're expecting a higher standard of care, or, rather, they're expecting care that includes the latest pharmaceuticals and medical interventions. Debate will return to the principles of the Canada Health Act: Does "comprehensiveness" mean every Canadian is guaranteed access to the highest level of care currently medically possible?

I am in public health and am thus aware that despite the best accomplishments of the governments under the Canada Health Act, inequalities -- in access to care, in standard of care, etc. -- exist in Canada. Just visit any aboriginal reservation and tell me if the local system provides as much care as a clinic in Vancouver's tonier neighbourhoods. But, compared side-by-side, there is no way the Canadian system is inferior to the US by whatever metric you want to use: economic, social or medical.
posted by docgonzo at 11:02 PM on June 17, 2007 [20 favorites]

Your spelling of the word "socialized" indicates, and pardon my use of technical lingo, you don't have a fucking clue how Canadian spelling works.

Oooo, a spelling burn. You win at teh internets.
posted by docgonzo at 11:04 PM on June 17, 2007 [2 favorites]

The US system is set-up whereby if you're insured, or you have a platinum card, you can turn up at any major hospital tomorrow and get whatever medically-necessary (or many that are not) procedure.

Provided your HMO covers it, obvs.
posted by docgonzo at 11:07 PM on June 17, 2007

I'll tell you this... I just noticed that whenever I start to comment in this thread I apparently feel the need to preface it with "I'll tell you this." Which is weird.
posted by miss lynnster at 11:11 PM on June 17, 2007

As a guy who did a stint denying old people medication due to their insurance, I'm all for this movie.

'Course, he loses it in the last half an hour and forgets that he's trying to make a point instead of just leaning on hollow pathos.

Nonetheless, this is a good movie, and will hopefully cause some change. But I haven't seen any reduced murders in Oakland since "Bowling for Columbine" came out, and we've just had a "surge."
posted by OrangeDrink at 11:13 PM on June 17, 2007

Oooo, a spelling burn. You win at teh internets.

Fine, I'll give you some content-based burn: your saying that photoslob is totally wrong is...well, totally wrong.
posted by oaf at 11:22 PM on June 17, 2007

I'm actually watching this a second time.
posted by delmoi at 11:26 PM on June 17, 2007

Miss Lynster? (even though I have insurance, which already costs me over $300 a month)...

I have insurance, too, and it costs me just short of $900 per month. That includes minimal prescription coverage, so that I *only* have to pay 50% of my Rx costs (and since I have Lupus and assorted subsidiary effects, I must take many pills per day.)

I am enormously grateful that my dad's UAW contract had the coverage it did when he retired, so that he and my mom only have to pay (an enviable) $3 per Rx. But at least that's one worry off my mind.

As far as Canada and other countries with low prescription costs? That's why USAns have to pay the huge amounts we do. Someone has to pay for the multi-millions of dollars that go into research and testing of each new medication, and since the majority of European countries have price caps on their Rx's, we Americans have to make up the difference.

I've been without insurance in the past, and know how devestating it can be (I had a stroke as a result of not being able to afford my meds), but on the other hand, living just across the river from Windsor, I regularly hear news reports on Canadian stations about how Hotel-Dieu Grace Hospital in Windsor is closed to all except extreme emergency patients once again because of a doctor/nurse shortage. (For that matter, at least 50% of the nurses in Detroit area hospitals are Canadians, who work here because they can earn far more than what Canada's National Heath System pays.)
posted by Oriole Adams at 11:27 PM on June 17, 2007

you can predict how many procedures you'll need to do per year

Given the expert statisticians employed by the industry, you can't really say this isn't just as true of the American system.
posted by oaf at 11:27 PM on June 17, 2007

I regularly hear news reports on Canadian stations about how Hotel-Dieu Grace Hospital in Windsor is closed to all except extreme emergency patients once again because of a doctor/nurse shortage.

It's really bad in the eastern provinces, especially in the rural parts. Equalization payments only go so far when you have half the population of Edmonton on an island the size of Newfoundland.
posted by oaf at 11:31 PM on June 17, 2007

So what's everybody's prediction? Will there or will there not be universal health care in the US within the next 10 years?
posted by philosophistry at 11:35 PM on June 17, 2007

This had a profound effect on me as well, bringing tears to my eyes several times. This is a more subdued Michael Moore, and I appreciate it; it allows the horrors he's describing speak more eloquently for themselves.

The usual useful idiots will do their nitpicking over the film's points but I hope that for most it's impossible to deny this as an issue of fundamental decency and common sense. The part that moved me the most even in the midst of all those compelling personal stories was how essential that collective struggle was and is for these systems to function. How England, despite such poverty and uncertainty, decided at the end of the war to create the NHS. How the French take to the streets to defend their tremendous quality of life. People all over the western world laughing at the thought someone would be charged for their health care -- when's the last time you heard an American laugh about the subject? I'm far more familiar with the look and sound of abject fear when it comes to health care -- to say nothing of debt, housing, and retirement -- including my own.

We've become so easily defeated and manipulated, so sick and so tired. I've watched my girlfriends go back to work six weeks post labor with no help save that provided by family (if they have it), crying but hiding it because it's "unprofessional." I've watched coworkers and friends having yet another bake sale or barbecue for somebody with cancer. How many sad little benefits have I attended for dying people? A hat full of cash to pay for a brain tumor, for quadriplegia -- there's a brilliant safety net for you, but it's the only one most of us have.

I never want to stand in another parking lot as long as I live eating a hot dog I paid $50 for so another person can get some goddamn chemotherapy. It's inhuman. It's evil. We can do better. We have to.
posted by melissa may at 11:39 PM on June 17, 2007 [25 favorites]

Will there or will there not be universal health care in the US within the next 10 years?

It really depends on how much high-fructose corn syrup we keep shoving down our collective gullet.
posted by oaf at 11:42 PM on June 17, 2007

As far as Canada and other countries with low prescription costs? That's why USAns have to pay the huge amounts we do. Someone has to pay for the multi-millions of dollars that go into research and testing of each new medication, and since the majority of European countries have price caps on their Rx's, we Americans have to make up the difference.

Hmm...Australia has de facto price caps. It regulates which drugs will be subsidised and the government negotiates with the drug companies for a bulk deal. If you want unsubsidised drugs you pay the market rate.
If the drug companies felt it wasn't economic to sell medicine in Oz I am sure they would not.
US residents have to pay high drug prices because there is no alternative, and the massive pharma profits, and huge marketing campaigns demonstrate how good pharma has it.
Big pharma is the most profitable industry in the world. It is true it can be costly to R&D new drugs, but don't believe for a second you are not being robbed blind by the drug companies and the government's lack of offering an alternative.
As others have commented, new drugs are not dependent on Phizer et al. and they rely on the line that the US subsidises the world to maintain their windfall profits.
When the US public stops swallowing this, some reality will return to the health market.
posted by bystander at 11:44 PM on June 17, 2007 [1 favorite]

"45 million people with no health care"

Actually, it should probably read "45 million with no health insurance." There is a BIG difference.
posted by davidmsc at 11:51 PM on June 17, 2007

I'll repeat that so it is clear - the US tax burden need not increase to deliver a 100% coverage health care system.

Of course it wouldn't. The problem is that Americans see healthcare as a zero-sum game where the system would be completely swamped if you were to open the floodgates. The thing they keep forgetting is the shitloads of money that insurance companies make when you're not sick. That's pure profit, baby!

If you want to know how you'd pay for a universal healthcare system, just look at the metric assload of insurance profits each year. That should pay for pretty decent care.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:51 PM on June 17, 2007

Could there be a more perfectly sinister, Dickensian name for a giant HMO than "Kaiser Permanente"? Why not call it Rex Terror or Invincible King Evil?
posted by stammer at 11:57 PM on June 17, 2007 [18 favorites]

just look at the metric assload of insurance profits each year. That should pay for pretty decent care.

Its even more insane than that, C_D. The taxes the US population pays for medicare and medicaid would cover a central healthcare system for all (not just the current medicare and medicaid recipients).
The US healtcare system costs almost twice that of Australia, and about half that is taxes, and the other half private insurance premiums. You could stop paying the private insurance and still have an equivalent system to Australia's.
posted by bystander at 11:58 PM on June 17, 2007

So what's everybody's prediction? Will there or will there not be universal health care in the US within the next 10 years?

You know, Obama is talking about "extending" Health care to more people, but not universality. I haven't heard Hillary say anything about universality either. I think Edwards is the only one (of the top three) with true universal health care.

Oddly enough Mitt Romney actually implemented "universal" health care in MA. How did he do it? By forcing everyone who could afford it to buy health insurance, from these same providers so lauded in this film. The same way you're forced to buy car insurance. But with car insurance, I can chose not to drive. I can't choose not to live. And there is the same risk of an insurance company not covering some procedure, denying claims, etc, etc.

The thing is, if everyone is forced to buy private insurance, then it pretty much becomes a tax, except that private companies get a big cut along the way. How is that even remotely reasonable? Right now private insurance companies take a mandatory slice of my paycheck every month the same way the government does. It's just like a tax but it goes to a for-profit company.

So while I think single-payer health insurance would be a good thing. Obama's plan is not single payer. Clinton dosn't seem to have a health plan on her website. There is an article about her ideas on the NYT, however it's nothing like '93. Basically she wants to fund more preventative health care and save money by reforming medical Information Technology. (Which I don't think is actually possible). There's nothing about insurance reform at all.
posted by delmoi at 11:58 PM on June 17, 2007 [3 favorites]

I heard Michael Moore the other day on CBC radio up here in Canada. He talked about his high esteem for Tommy Douglas, the founding father of universal health care in Canada.

Tommy Douglas was a Baptist minister who used to preach in the area of southern Saskatchewan where I grew up. He is beloved in all of Canada even by folks on the right of the political spectrum.

Here is a segment from the CBC documentary on Tommy Douglas where Tommy gives a speech on the why Canada adopted Universal Health Care (YouTube link).

This is the core of the speech and core value behind the Canadian system of universal health care.

Medicine is a universal need and it must be universally provided; a society that can't see that isn't much of a society at all.

Now no matter what they tell you when I am gone, I ask you to remember the founding principle of this party, the principle I have fought for in Parliament and out of Parliament my entire life. It is very simple actually. It is the principle that we are all in this world together and the only test of our character that matters is how we look after the least fortunate among us. How we look after each other, not how we look after ourselves and that is all that really matters I think.

posted by dougzilla at 12:01 AM on June 18, 2007 [16 favorites]

So to answer the question, no I don't think we'll see normal universal health care like NIH or the Canadian system. Instaid I think we'll see some Frankenstein beast where private, for-profit insurance companies still exist and people are forced to buy in.
posted by delmoi at 12:02 AM on June 18, 2007

doesn't seem as though we as a people are all that free when we've got so much fear and anxiety in just living our lives.
posted by andywolf at 12:17 AM on June 18, 2007 [4 favorites]

Thanks dougzilla, it's about time someone quoted Tommy Douglas in this thread. For those of you who haven't heard of him, Canadians revere him as the father of our health care system. It wasn't much of a surprise when he came out on top of CBC's "Greatest Canadian" thing. I was watching CBC's lame politics show a few days ago, and someone said something that pretty much sums up the Canadian sentiment on our system. Basically, the point made was that Canadians might get upset if a Prime Minister or Premier screws with the constitution, but if they start to mess with the Canada Health Act, that's when people really get livid.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 12:20 AM on June 18, 2007

Wouldn't it be nice if people were healthy and able to work, plus living longer lives, which equals to paying more taxes to the government?
posted by spacelux at 12:22 AM on June 18, 2007

I thought Moore kind of missed a step when he talked to the British doctor. Sure, it's clear that British MD's have upper-middle class lifestyles, but maybe not three houses like the wealthiest American doctors, but honestly -- who doesn't think a good doctor shouldn't be rich? They go to school for a decade, they help people, they save lives, they do good things under the right circumstances. Let them jet to Maui all they want in their free time.

The problem is that the real fat-cats in the American system aren't the doctors -- it's the HMO middle-men bureaucrats, who don't know and don't care about the actual health of any given patient. Some of these people have made obscene amounts of money under the drive to "freedomize" American health-care. And they've never worked on honest day in their lives.
posted by bardic at 12:22 AM on June 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

I don't know that I fully agree with the rosey picture painted by bystander about the current state of Australian health care. One very large consideration of the last few years is that there has been a virtual bludgeon to anyone with a job such that they have a fairly hefty tax slug if they don't take out private health insurance, something vaguely akin to what delmoi seems to be describing about Massachusetts I guess. We are having our national health system eroded too by private health companies doing deals with the government so that the norm now is for private hospitals to be sharing the same grounds with the original public hospitals. So we are having a privatisation by stealth.

Don't get me wrong, the possibility of bankruptcy or huge debt are not really a threat or a discussion topic, but the principal of user pays is becoming more pervasive every day.

And although my opinion is worth squat, the only way I could see the US changing tack in any serious way on health care funding is to first limit or outlaw lobbying and/or political donations by health/pharma. Change that and then you only have to overcome right wing fearmongering of 'socialised medicine' and 'soviet system'. Then you'll be home free. *cough*
posted by peacay at 12:29 AM on June 18, 2007

Bravo! I'm still wiping tears from my eyes.

It is unconscionable that "America" cannot provide universal health-care to all citizens. Get with the program, USA!
posted by trip and a half at 12:33 AM on June 18, 2007

Peacay is right that the current conservative government in Australia is dismantling Australia's health system in favour of a for profit private system.
The tax slug he mentions is applied to individuals earning over average income ($50k-ish) or couples/familes earning over $100k. This slug is an additional 1% income tax, not collected if you had private insurance for the previous year.
While it is disgraceful, it is so many million miles away from the magnitude of the problem non-wealthy US citizens face, AU comparitively does not have a problem.
There are still problems with the AU system, but it offers a model that does not exclude private enterprise, but still offers full coverage, that could work in America.
Well, if the public ever stops listening to the vested interests in the HMOs and big pharma.
posted by bystander at 1:24 AM on June 18, 2007

who doesn't think a good doctor shouldn't be rich?

*raises hand*

I don't think a good doctor should be richer than a good teacher.
posted by chuckdarwin at 1:37 AM on June 18, 2007 [3 favorites]

I don't think a good doctor should be richer than a good teacher.

Amen. But my point is that back in the 70's and 80's, people bitched about incompetent doctors being paid too much. Now we've got a whole tier of brokers in the middle, many of whom make more than good doctors (the ones who don't go into rhinoplasty, for example).

The irony is that privatizing the American health-care system was supposed to make the whole enterprise more affordable on the consumer end and give more choices. And this is where I heartily laugh out loud.

If you live in Cuba and can't get good chemo because they don't have the supplies, that sucks. If you live in America and can't get it because some branch manager is trying to save money for his shareholders, that's immoral, plain and simple.
posted by bardic at 1:45 AM on June 18, 2007 [3 favorites]

Laura Dern starred in a disturbing drama about the whistle-blowing Dr Linda Peeno, the woman who gave testimony before Congress about the managed care industry early in Moore's film. ("I am here primarily today to make a public confession. In the spring of 1987, as a physician, I denied a man a necessary operation that would have saved his life and thus caused his death.") If you can find it it's really worth a look.
posted by maryh at 1:53 AM on June 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

This is part of a speech made by Aneurin ('Nye') Bevan, who was the Minister of Health responsible for the creation of the UK's National Health Service. The speech was made not long before he died in 1960.

"I'm proud about the National Health Service. It's a piece of real socialism. It's a piece of real Christianity too.” (Huge audience applause)

"We had to wait a long time for it.

"What I had in mind when we organised the National Health Service in 1946 to 1958, and remember when we did it, you younger ones, this was immediately after the end of the Second World War, when we were as Sir Winston Churchill then said, "a bankrupt nation". But nevertheless we did these things. And there is nowhere in any nation in the world, communist or capitalist, any health service to compare with it.

"Now the National Health Service had two main principles underlining it. One, that the medical arts of science and of healing should be made available to people when they needed them, irrespective of whether they could afford to pay for them or not. That was the first principle. The second was that this should be done not at the expense of the poorer members of the community, but of the well-to-do. In short, I refused to accept the insurance principle. I refused to accept the principle that the National Health Service should be paid by contributions. I refused to accept that. I refused to accept it because I thought it was nonsense. If you hadn’t fully paid up you couldn’t have a second-class operation because your card wasn’t full of stamps, could you?"

Take away what conclusions you will.

You can find the speech on the British Library CD "The Century in Sound" (2000), which I recommend wholeheartedly.
posted by Hogshead at 1:58 AM on June 18, 2007 [5 favorites]

Will there or will there not be universal health care in the US within the next 10 years?

I can't see it ever happening in the US. If the current political machinery stays in place (lobbyists, big pharma, etc) things will just stay like they are (read: completely fucked up).

I have a little story I like to tell my British friends:

When I worked for a big corporation, I was paying about $200 a month for a family health plan (plus copay, plus $1000 deductible). After I stopped working there, the insurance company called up and offered to keep me on their rolls for $750 a month (for the same semi-rubbish plan).

No one believes me.
posted by chuckdarwin at 2:15 AM on June 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

If you live in Cuba and can't get good chemo because they don't have the supplies, that sucks. If you live in America and can't get it because some branch manager is trying to save money for his shareholders, that's immoral, plain and simple.

I wholeheartedly agree. The system, as it stands, is completely unethical. UnHippocratic, even (to coin a word).
posted by chuckdarwin at 2:19 AM on June 18, 2007

Ah, Nye Bevan. A truly great man whose memory and achievements this current government in the UK are slowly grinding into the dirt. And now they've started, there's no turning back. Give it ten years and the UK will be like the US is now.
posted by ninthart at 2:25 AM on June 18, 2007

As someone who is faced with that 1% income tax increase, I think anyone earning $50k+ should be paying for health insurance. Our system is not limitlessly funded, and will provide better care with for people who can't afford health insurance if a few more people who can afford it buy it.

My biggest concerns with the Australian system is what the long term effects of the changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and PBS in general over the last few years will be. It stuns me that a government that has to fund the PBS would weaken the bargaining power of the PBAC as they have.

This Four Corners story on the changes to the PBAC in 2001 angered me like few stories before or since, even though I haven't purchased PBS listed medications in years. Every time I hear of blowouts in the cost of the PBS I think about it and wonder.
posted by markr at 2:29 AM on June 18, 2007

Thanks for that Hogshead. The NHS, for all its problems, is still much, much better than the American "alternative". (your-favourite-first-world-country-actually-kinda-sucks-filter)

Living here in the UK means that you can live my life in ways that you can't in America... because of the NHS.

Hear me out:

In an American couple/family unit, one of the parents will usually take one for the team and get some job they dislike because it has a health care plan. That's a life altering decision (read: soul-destroying) to make, believe me. Ex: "I really want to be a woodcarver, but I'm going to take job in middle management so my family will be covered"

If I get pissed off and quit my job here in Britain, I might have trouble paying the bills until I get a new gig... but I wouldn't have to worry what would happen if someone in my family fell ill.

I think this paradigm also explains why customer services in Britain is so astoundingly awful, but that's best left for another thread.
posted by chuckdarwin at 2:32 AM on June 18, 2007 [2 favorites]