For what it's worth, I live near the Canadian border. I was listening to Canadian talk radio when the movie came out there. The overwhelming consensus amongst Canadians was that this movie was a joke. They universally agreed that, while they had decent health coverage, they were jealous of the American system. Moore could have made a decent argument if he talked about how coverage isn't universal. He lost all credibility when he suggested that American health insurance is inferior.
What he doesn't take into account is our civil tort law. Like it or not, (and it's a can of worms), civil lawsuits force U.S. health care to be top notch.
If you decide not to move to the USA because of this movie... well... your loss.
Right, I have had a quick look through this topic and, although I haven't seen the film, I have read/listened to the reviews of it. First off, I will point out that I'm from the UK, and know little about the American health care system apart from what E.R. and Diagnosis Murder have taught me, so thatwhich would be not a lot.
So, I will not be commenting on any of the American aspects, only the NHS sections of the film. I get the impression that he makes out the the NHS to be awesome, and that everybody gets the treatment that they need in a quick service that also includes lengthy appointments with doctors. This just isn't the case: appointments, especially with GPs, are not lengthy; they are too short in some cases, and doctors are often overworked. We also have a problem with staffing. We have shortages in nurses and midwives despite having lots of people trained up. My mate is a qualified midwife, but cannot find a job anywhere despite these shortages unless she is willing to move to London or somewhere else in the south.
This is the next major problem with the NHS at the moment: funding. I would hate to be the people who have the job of deciding which area gets which drug (yes that does happen, different parts of the UK get different stuff, mainly in the form of trials to see if it is cost effective to roll that drug out even if it does save lives).
And then Finally, there is the big one that Moore missed out, the one that has made his representation of the NHS abit of a joke over here. He never mentions once the problem of MRSA in our hospitals that is killing people. That all said though, I wouldn't want to see the U.K. without the NHS. If I have an accident, I'm taken to the hospital, treated, and given some sort of aftercare, without having to fill in one form apart from medical history. If I'm sick, I can get an appointment at my G.P. without charge. Nobody goes without. Hell, you can even go private if you're rich enough, but the NHS has never let me down.
Mr. Period: I did what I could. Do not post this lazily again.
if i have an accident, i'm taken to the hospital, treated and given some sort of aftercare, without having to fill in one form apart from medical history. If i'm sick, i can get an appointment at my G.P. without charge. Nobody goes without,
Nobody goes without in the USA. The question is whether or not you will pay the bill.
For what it's worth, I live near the Canadian border. I was listening to Canadian talk radio when the movie came out there. The overwhelming consensus amongst Canadians was that this movie was a joke.
It's talk radio. It's not respresentative of most Canadians' views.
Nobody goes without in the USA. The question is whether or not you will pay the bill.
That's quite a question. Especially since around a quarter to a half of the bankruptcies in the United States are due to health-related costs.
If you think that healthcare is better anywhere else in the world than in the USA - you're crazy. (You can thank tort lawyers for that.) It's the payment system that ought to be argued.
If the federal government runs health care, how long do you think it will take for "tort reform"? Once that happens, the door is wide open for a reduction in the quality of care.
Too bad the poll actually says a significant portion of Canadians support private clincs as a supplement to the current system not a replacement. Only 6% of them blame the actual healthcare providers. In fact, the reason cited by these respondents is increased accessibility and availability of care, only 10% stated they had some need or demand unfulfilled by the current system. Whoops. To top it off, that poll is from 2001. That puts us squarely in the era of the Cretein/Martian Liberal government where cuts to services and downloading costs to the provinces was the measure of the day. That's why the article states "The predictions that hospital managers and trustees made years ago about consumer opinion, once the impact of reductions in funding worked their way into the system, are coming true." This has changed since 2001. How strange, it looks like you've ended up proving my point instead. All those Canadians that overwhelmingly agree that they're jealous of the American system seem to have vanished in a puff of smoke.
If you think that healthcare is better anywhere else in the world than in the USA - you're crazy. (You can thank tort lawyers for that.)
Considering the costs you pay per capita, the disparity in coverage and great barriers to access, I'm not questioning my sanity.
It's the payment system that ought to be argued.
There's not much to argue. The market just doesn't work in health care.
Who else has been amazed that this thread has not turned into a flamewar between HMTKSteve and HungryJoe?
There haven't been any flamewars at all recently, have there? When the thread started I hadn't seen the movie, so I didn't want to talk too much it. I agree with your comment about the tort lawyers though.
I've seen it since, but I just don't have the heart to get inflamed about much right now since I'm still using just about all my emotional energy adjusting to a new job, new apartment, and new city.
I will say this - and I've been saying it for years: I think it's suboptimal to pay into an insurance system that has a tremendous incentive to find ways to refuse to pay out. I can't stand to think that at least part of my premium pays for people to think of ways to avoid paying me when the time comes.
Comments
What he doesn't take into account is our civil tort law. Like it or not, (and it's a can of worms), civil lawsuits force U.S. health care to be top notch.
If you decide not to move to the USA because of this movie... well... your loss.
First off, I will point out that I'm from the UK, and know little about the American health care system apart from what E.R. and Diagnosis Murder have taught me, so that which would be not a lot.
So, I will not be commenting on any of the American aspects, only the NHS sections of the film.
I get the impression that he makes out the the NHS to be awesome, and that everybody gets the treatment that they need in a quick service that also includes lengthy appointments with doctors. This just isn't the case: appointments, especially with GPs, are not lengthy; they are too short in some cases, and doctors are often overworked. We also have a problem with staffing. We have shortages in nurses and midwives despite having lots of people trained up. My mate is a qualified midwife, but cannot find a job anywhere despite these shortages unless she is willing to move to London or somewhere else in the south.
This is the next major problem with the NHS at the moment: funding. I would hate to be the people who have the job of deciding which area gets which drug (yes that does happen, different parts of the UK get different stuff, mainly in the form of trials to see if it is cost effective to roll that drug out even if it does save lives).
And then Finally, there is the big one that Moore missed out, the one that has made his representation of the NHS abit of a joke over here. He never mentions once the problem of MRSA in our hospitals that is killing people.
That all said though, I wouldn't want to see the U.K. without the NHS. If I have an accident, I'm taken to the hospital, treated, and given some sort of aftercare, without having to fill in one form apart from medical history. If I'm sick, I can get an appointment at my G.P. without charge. Nobody goes without. Hell, you can even go private if you're rich enough, but the NHS has never let me down.
Mr. Period: I did what I could. Do not post this lazily again.
If you think that healthcare is better anywhere else in the world than in the USA - you're crazy. (You can thank tort lawyers for that.) It's the payment system that ought to be argued.
If the federal government runs health care, how long do you think it will take for "tort reform"? Once that happens, the door is wide open for a reduction in the quality of care.
I've seen it since, but I just don't have the heart to get inflamed about much right now since I'm still using just about all my emotional energy adjusting to a new job, new apartment, and new city.
I will say this - and I've been saying it for years: I think it's suboptimal to pay into an insurance system that has a tremendous incentive to find ways to refuse to pay out. I can't stand to think that at least part of my premium pays for people to think of ways to avoid paying me when the time comes.