Controversial Michael Moore Flick 'Sicko' Will Compare U.S. Health Care with Cuba's

Nurses Activism

Published

Health care advances in Cuba

According to the Associated Press as cited in the Post article, "Cuba has made recent advancements in biotechnology and exports its treatments to 40 countries around the world, raking in an estimated $100 million a year. ... In 2004, the U.S. government granted an exception to its economic embargo against Cuba and allowed a California drug company to test three cancer vaccines developed in Havana."

http://alternet.org/envirohealth/50911/?page=1

its hard to negotiate from a gurney.......

Specializes in ER/Trauma.
Increasingly, it seems that the biggest difference between conservatives and "liberals" is that the conservatives know government is force. But that doesn't stop them from using it.

Michael Moore may not have thought about it, but there are only two ways to get people to do things: force or persuasion. Government is all about force. Government has nothing it hasn't first expropriated from some productive person.

In contrast, the private sector-whether nonprofit or a greedy business-must work through persuasion and consent. No matter how rich Bill Gates gets, he cannot force us to buy his software. Outside government, actions are voluntary, and voluntary is better because it reflects the free judgment of creative, productive people. As I wrote in Give Me a Break, "If government would just back off, the private sector will provide many of the same services faster, better and cheaper." There are plenty of examples that should astound the socialists, like better private water works, ambulance services, roads, even air-traffic control.

Of course, I'm talking about a private sector that gets no privileges from the state. That doesn't describe our private sector now. For years, government has bestowed all kinds of favors on special interests, from trade restrictions on foreign competitors to cash subsidies and cheap loans to corporate tax deductions for health insurance. People in and out of government have conspired to pollute the voluntary private sector with force and regimentation. That's why we have a mixed rather than a free economy.

Thomas Jefferson said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." Was he ever right! Liberty yields as well-intentioned busybodies try to "fix" the world by stopping you from using gasoline or forcing you to finance antipoverty programs.

No behavior is too small or private to escape the schemers. When a New Zealand couple recently named their child "4real," the Washington Times said it was "unfortunate" that the government doesn't forbid that. The "conservative" newspaper named the couple "Knaves of the Week."

That prompted Donald Boudreaux, chairman of the economics department at George Mason University, to write the editor: "I choose you as my 'Knave of the Week' for asserting that the decision on naming a child should belong to politicians and bureaucrats rather than exclusively to that child's parents. True knaves are those who arrogantly impose their tastes and preferences upon others."

Exactly. "Live and let live" used to be a noble approach to life. Now you're considered compassionate if you demand that government impose your preferences on others.

I prefer "live and let live."

Read Full article

cheers,

Specializes in ER/Trauma.
Interviewing Moore for an upcoming health care special on "20/20," I said, "In America we kill each other more often. We shoot each other. We have more car accidents. Forgive me, more of us look like ... you."

He smiled at that, but still argued that that people live longer in Canada "because they never have to worry about paying to go see the doctor. That means at the first sign of being sick they go right away to the doctor cause they're not worrying about whether or not they can afford it."

Please.

Freedom brings anxiety, but its other rewards are so superior to passive care from a smothering government. America's medical system has problems, but profit is the least of it. Government mandates, overregulation and a tax code that pushes employer-paid health insurance prevent the free market from performing its efficient miracles. Six out of seven health-care dollars are spent by third parties. That kills the market. Patients rarely shop around, and doctors rarely compete on price or service.

Moore told me, "Government can do things right. ... My dad gets his Social Security check every month. Comes not only every month, it comes on the same day through the so-called 'dilapidated' U.S. mail. ... [A]sk your grandparents what they think of Medicare. Although it has its flaws, although it may be underfunded, it's a much better program than the HMO that somebody has."

Underfunded? Medicare has a 75-year $34 trillion unfunded liability! Its costs are growing faster than inflation. Social Security has a 75-year $5 trillion unfunded liability. These are Ponzi schemes that will be bankrupt before Moore reaches retirement age. The U.S. mail manages to deliver his dad's checks, but compare its performance to FedEx or UPS. The Post Office said it wasn't possible to deliver packages overnight.

I want FedEx health care: innovation, new cancer treatments, hip replacements and pain relief. We get that from private-sector competition, not government lethargy.

Moore said, "You don't introduce profit into your city water department."

He's wrong about that, too. As I wrote in "Give Me a Break," Jersey City, New Jersey's water tasted foul and failed safety tests. City workers said there wasn't much they could do. In fact, water prices would have to be raised ... just to maintain the lousy service they had.

So Jersey City turned its water system over to a for-profit company. Within months, it had fixed the pipes government workers said couldn't be fixed, and for the first time in years, Jersey City's water met the highest cleanliness standard. Taxpayers saved $35 million.

The private company could do it better and cheaper because their skills were honed by constant competition.

Private competitors innovate or die. Government workers do what they did last year. That's why I want the private sector to provide my health care. Pursuit of profit will give us our best medicines and medical devices.

I'll pay you $1,000 if you can name one thing government does more efficiently than the private sector.

Moore laughed at me, saying, "You are, like, so Thirteenth Century," but he conceded that America's founding Libertarian philosophy has made us a rich and innovative country. "Look at everything we've invented," he told me. "I say to my British friends, can you tell me something you invented in the last 50 years. I mean, what have you given us?"

"Can they come up with anything?" I asked.

"No, they have a hard time. That can-do spirit served us well in building this country."

Served? It still does. And will-if government would just get out of the way.

Read full article

cheers,

Specializes in UR/PA, Hematology/Oncology, Med Surg, Psych.

Will someone explain to me how Guilani's plan will work. Tax cuts? Tax cuts aren't going to supply the uninsured with healthcare. Many don't have an income high enough that a tax cut would give them enough money to improve their healthcare situation. On the surface his plan sounds like a way to let the wealthy pay less taxes (garner their votes perhaps) while doing little to nothing regarding healthcare reform. I am very disappointed.

Specializes in ER/Trauma.
You know, I have a hard time taking Rudy seriously on this, when he and mayor Bloomberg have failed the 911 workers so miserably.
"Attack the messenger. Forget about the message..." ?

Ok, if that's your stake - would you take Dr. Ron Paul seriously?

The problems with our health care system are not the result of too little government intervention, but rather too much. Contrary to the claims of many advocates of increased government regulation of health care, rising costs and red tape do not represent market failure. Rather, they represent the failure of government policies that have destroyed the health care market.

It's time to rethink the whole system of HMOs and managed care. This entire unnecessary level of corporatism rakes off profits and worsens the quality of care. But HMOs did not arise in the free market; they are creatures of government interference in health care dating to the 1970s. These non-market institutions have gained control over medical care through collusion between organized medicine, politicians, and drug companies, in an effort to move America toward "free" universal health care.One big problem arises from the 1974 ERISA law, which grants tax benefits to employers for providing health care, while not allowing similar incentives for individuals. This results in the illogical coupling between employment and health insurance. As such, government removed the market incentive for health insurance companies to cater to the actual health-care consumer. As a greater amount of government and corporate money has been used to pay medical bills, costs have risen artificially out of the range of most individuals.

Only true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at the best price possible by putting pressure on the providers. Patients are better served by having options and choices, not new federal bureaucracies and limitations on legal remedies. Such choices and options will arrive only when we unravel the HMO web rooted in old laws, and change the tax code to allow individual Americans to fully deduct all healthcare costs from their taxes, as employers can.

As government bureaucracy continues to give preferences and protections to HMOs and trial lawyers, it will be the patients who lose, despite the glowing rhetoric from the special interests in Washington. Patients will pay ever rising prices and receive declining care while doctors continue to leave the profession in droves.

Link

cheers,

Specializes in Trauma,ER,CCU/OHU/Nsg Ed/Nsg Research.

Actually, I like Ron Paul. I think he's a smart guy that votes his conscience. And I'm not even a Republican. ;)

"Attack the messenger. Forget about the message..." ?

Ok, if that's your stake - would you take Dr. Ron Paul seriously?

Link

cheers,

Yes I wouldnt take a mobster like Juliani serious at all. Ron paul on the other hand is THE ONLY ONE who is a true STATESMAN and has done his constitutional homework, his economic policy homework, and THE ONLY candidate that is a doctor as well I believe. Of course the media owned by the Banking Cartel will not give him much time to educate the people about how to represent their best interests rather than the interests of the elite in the guise of helping the citizens.

I watched Johnny Q. Last night it was an emotional show but had a propaganda agenda of promoting failure formulas that are claimed in our interest. We are becoming Prisoners without Bars. The middle class is being elimanted, but not because of rising health care, because of lack of knowledge and education the foundiong fathers warned against. Because we have accepted "cradle to grave" mentality. Because we believe the government is the solution to all problems, when in fact the Government and its media mouthpiece are largely controlled and influenced by a BANKING CARTEL. It is even a Rockefellar that largely benifits from BIG PHARMA.

"Such choices and options will arrive only when we unravel the HMO web rooted in old laws, and change the tax code to allow individual Americans to fully deduct all healthcare costs from their taxes, as employers can."

Which is why Arron Russo has shared what will benifit more than Mr moores propaganda.

Specializes in Critical Care.
Will someone explain to me how Guilani's plan will work. Tax cuts? Tax cuts aren't going to supply the uninsured with healthcare. Many don't have an income high enough that a tax cut would give them enough money to improve their healthcare situation. On the surface his plan sounds like a way to let the wealthy pay less taxes (garner their votes perhaps) while doing little to nothing regarding healthcare reform. I am very disappointed.

I would be happy to explain it to you. It is a false perspective to suggest that the current situation is a choice between a current "free market" system and between socialized medicine. There IS NO current free market system. Rudy suggests returning TO a free market system.

Look up the term 'neomercantilism'. It is the root of the problem. The free market ALWAYS, ALWAYS, EVERYTIME, works better than gov't. Always. The only exceptions to that, as our founding fathers knew, were a few key functions, such as the military, foreign policy, and printing money. THAT is why the Constitution gives the federal gov't the power to perform those functions, and ONLY those functions. (In case you didn't know, our Constitution limits the Fed gov't to a few key enumerated powers and FORBIDS the gov't to act outside those powers. Gov't restricted socialized care is beyond the scope of those powers; it is UnConstitutional.)

Neomercantilism is, in effect, the gov't's position that is can be an arbiter between businesses, that it can 'regulate' business relationships so that things will be fair. The problem: the gov't is not a fair arbitrator. It's rules and regulations are sold to the highest lobbying bidder. The reason WHY there are lobbyists is because of the neo-mercantile view that the gov't should 'regulate' the free market. In effect, competition cannot create the best environment for free trade because of gov't interference. In the name of making things better and fair, we have made them much worse. That is gov't for you. Gov't is rarely your friend; it's friendship has been sold to the highest bidder, and most likely, that's not you.

Gov't intereference in healthcare is legion. It is the creation of many of the problems with today's healthcare care. More gov't, ala restricted socialized care, will only make the problem WORSE. Rudy suggests the obvious: less gov't is best. The gov't does NOT have YOUR best interest at heart, and never will. It holds its friendly neighborhood lobbyist's interest out as best. Those that believe it's an issue of gov't vs corporate interests should understand THIS: corporate interests are in bed with gov't. And vice-versa. Only by getting the GOV'T out of the process can you get the corporations to play fair. The corporations get their supposed power BECAUSE the gov't allows them to sidestep directly competing for your favor. The same will be true, and much worse when the gov't grants those same corporations total control of YOUR healthcare. Gov't restricted, socialized care will be YOUR HEALTHCARE and all the decisions related to it: for sale to the highest corporate bidder (via lobbying). It's that simple. Corporations vs Gov't? Who's kidding whom? They are two sides of the same coin. The solution is to be against that coin, altogether: throw that baby out with the bathwater.

Next post, I'll explain how Rudy's plan is better.

~faith,

Timothy.

"less gov't is best"

Yes I agree, and I havnt heard all of the rudy message, but that one is factual, however RUDY himself (yes another topic) does not have the historical credibility or record of supporting constitutional principles and free market principles. So it sounds like part of his message may be true but he is not the vessel of reliability on which it should be delivered.

Specializes in Critical Care.

Most people get their healthcare through work. That's because of gov't intereference. In WWII, salaries were frozen and fringe benefits were the only way to attract new employees. So, such benefits exploded into use. Healthcare coverage was one of them. Congress liked it so, after the war, offered tax breaks to corporations to provide you your healthcare (I'm sure a lobbyist or two was involved with that decision).

The result: your healthcare became big business to your employer because of the millions of dollars in tax breaks they could get to provide it. However, the result was also that it took the choice for who provides your insurance AWAY from you and put it into the hands of your employer and the gov't. Once the gov't started giving out money, it put its own hand on the scale, with lobbyist supported 'regulations' in what kind of policy you could get through your employer. And your employer: instead of working for what's best for YOU, it works to find the plan best for the tax breaks it can receive.

It's a double whammy with Gov't and Corporations all looking to find what they want best in a healthcare plan for YOU, but you are never part of the equation as to what is best. Like most gov't/corporation games, this game is vested in the tax code and the breaks the gov't can dole out for playing the game.

In the meantime, because tax breaks support the system, the insurance system is prohibitively too expensive for individuals and small businesses to play the game. After all, it was designed to be played by gov't and only those corporations with big enough infrastructures to send their lobbyists to Capital Hill.

Giving individuals and small business the same advantage as gov't vis a vi tax breaks will allow more to compete for insurance. You don't get your car insurance through your employers, do you? Why should you get your health insurance that way? Doing so creates a system where you are a third party player and payor in your own healthcare. Because you don't dole out the dollars or make the choices, who really cares what YOU think about it? huh?

Now, if YOU had the same tax breaks as Big Joe Corporation, you could go shopping for your very OWN insurance, using your own set of values and circumstances to make your very OWN choices about which insurance is best for you. What a thought! That means that all those nice, decades old lobbying rules for corporate insurance don't apply to you.

Don't want prenatal coverage because you're a single male? Don't buy it. Only want hospital coverage? Your CHOICE. Believe me, YOUR CHOICE is a powerful tool. It is why the market has been so structured as to remove that choice. Only when your choice is safely out of the process can corporations and gov'ts behave such as they do. Your choice is a burden to them because, let's face it: you're a much harder taskmaster when you have a vested interest in the outcome of those choices. Much easier to just deal with the gov't than you. After all, we've got lobbyists for the gov't and the gov't has enough greed for our lobbyists to grease the system in our favor. Your choice is SO powerful, that we will stop at nothing to prevent you from making those choices freely. Gov't restricted, socialized medicine is simply the evolution of a system that doesn't care about YOUR choices in the process.

You choosing your own healthcare also means that the insurance company is more accountable to you. They can deny routine stuff ONLY at the fear of you going to a competitor. You hold all the cards when you make your own choices. That is why neo-mercantilist corporations depend upon gov't to restrict those choices away from you.

The tax breaks Rudy talks about levels the playing field so that YOU can afford to compete for your own choice in healthcare. Health insurance is expensive and rightly so: the gov't and lobbyists have worked for years to make it expensive by removing your say in the process. It's expensive because the current system is DESIGNED to keep YOU out of the negotiation process for your own coverage. It's too expensive, especially since I can just get coverage through work. Right? Of course. It was designed that way, and tax breaks was its engineer. So, Rudy recommends leveling that playing field by offering the same tax breaks to ANYONE that wants to ante into the health insurance game, even you as an individual. The result is that you will be armed with those same monetary advantages (tax breaks to you means more dollars in your pocket) to play the game by your own set of rules. It's a chip into the game, and the game is a high stakes game of choice.

The solution is to take back control of your choices, not to give more of them away. That concept is breathtaking in its scope.

You better believe that Micky D's spends a great deal of its time imagining what YOU want as a consumer, and trying to provide it to you. If not, you can go to BK. And THEY KNOW IT. What do you think will happen when ABC Health Insurance knows that you can go to XYZ Insurance company if YOU are not satisfied. Or, imagine this: how many car insurance commercials do you see on TV? Now, think think: when was the last time you say YOUR healthcare plan advertised on TV? Why advertise; you are a captive audience. Exactly. And gov't restricted, socialize care only takes that to the next level.

Gov't doesn't want you to have that right, to choose your own healthcare. It's backers and lobbyists have an interest in you not having such rights, so, by extention, the gov't itself has the same interest. If healthcare is a right, for the gov't to exercise it on your behalf is tantamount to the gov't taking away your rights. Period.

The free market works, and works well. It single-handedly created this great Nation. But, and this is key: for it to work well, the gov't needs to be on a well-healed leash. Our founding fathers provided that leash in the structure of limited, enumerated powers for gov't, and ONLY those powers. It seems like we are determined, year after year, to give the gov't more slack on that leash. The problem: the dog of gov't is a menace. It SHOULD be on a tight leash.

If healthcare is a basic human right, then for the gov't to take that right away from me is a casus belli for overthrowing such a gov't. We've done it before, for much the same reasons: the gov't thinking that it taking your rights away from you somehow had the effect of safeguarding those rights.

In the end, the gov't 'safeguarding' your healthcare rights is the gov't depriving you of said rights. When it comes right down to it, that is the essence of restricted, socialized healthcare: not the ensuring of universal coverage, but rather, ensuring that you have no right to exercise care by any other avenue, either by direct coercion or, just as powerful, by soaking up and controlling every resource available.

Yes, the King always thinks he knows what is best for you and that he is acting paternally on your behalf. That doesn't make him any less a tyrant. And this King, our gov't: its Courtisans are the corporations that feed at its feet. They are not some stark choice of an opposing tyranny; they are part and parcel to the gov't.

~faith,

Timothy.

Specializes in Critical Care.
"less gov't is best"

Yes I agree, and I havnt heard all of the rudy message, but that one is factual, however RUDY himself (yes another topic) does not have the historical credibility or record of supporting constitutional principles and free market principles. So it sounds like part of his message may be true but he is not the vessel of reliability on which it should be delivered.

I mentioned in my original quote on Rudy's article that I liked the message but not the messenger.

Rudy can counter that in socialist NYC, his policies, by comparison, were right wing conservatism to the point of verging into outright free market libertarianism.

In the real world, however, those policies don't measure up as even being on the right side of "mainstream".

~faith,

Timothy.

+ Add a Comment