<p>i believe the tagline is something along the lines of "a comedy about 45 million people with no healthcare on the richest country on earth"</p>
<p>I personally am not a fan of Moore, especially after reading about him splicing interviews, etc, but anyway, i think there could be an interesting discussion. Specifically it would be interesting to hear what people with experience in the field of healthcare such as bigred and bdm have to say.</p>
<p>Does my conscience tell me that we should have some sort of coverage for everyone? Absolutely - the data is out there in spades about just how bad it is to not have health insurance in this country. And my personal view point is that you judge a society based on the lowest person on the totem pole, not the highest. So in that case, I'm in favor of some sort of plan that would provide a basic level of care for all. Throw in my ethical feelings about access to care and such and I'm even more for it.</p>
<p>Does my future financial situation tell me that a fully socialized medicine program is the way to go? Certainly not. Even though I'm interested in pediatric subspecialties which are paid much lower than their corresponding adult specialties, I know that I need to earn enough money to do the things I want to do when I want to do them. Since I've been in med school, I've certainly written letters to my congressional representatives to stop cuts to physician payments for Medicare and Medicaid. </p>
<p>So where does that put me? Somewhere in the middle really. We need SOMETHING for those without coverage. But I'm a enough of a realist to know that any sort of massive overhaul to the US system of healthcare is going to be painful, and because of that, people on all sides are going to resist. What I think will happen is that the issue will be a big one in the 2008 campaign, but whoever wins, won't be able to get what they want done. We'll see a continued state by state "solution" to the problem as is beginning to be carried out in Massachusetts and some other state I can't think of right now. I know the State Medical Association in my current state is beginning preparations to have similar legislation proposed in the next couple of years. </p>
<p>As for Moore himself - Used to be a huge fan, but I've mellowed some. TV nation was a great show, that even though I was only in 6th grade at the time could tell was funny but also important. Moore's biggest strength is that he's willing to get under people's skin.</p>
<p>1.) We certainly need to cover all Americans. How to do this is a source of broad controversy, as it ought to be, because the ideas that most of my friends support are not very good.</p>
<p>2.) The MA plan seems to have broad bipartisan support, it seems to make sense financially, and other states are now experimenting with their own variations. We will see how they turn out, but I am tentatively excited.</p>
<p>3.) Moore has repeatedly shown himself to be an unreliable documentarian and a very talented filmmaker.</p>
<p>4.) Getting under people's skin is sometimes not a strength -- in particular when it makes them less, not more, likely to cooperate. Of course, sometimes it is a strength, but it seems to me that Moore more often falls into the former than the latter camp.</p>
<p>I'm not so much emphasizing that his strength is getting under people's skin, but more the fact that he so willingly and knowingly does so. In this age of political correctness taken to the extreme among many self-described liberals, Moore is willing to make his point regardless of who he upsets.</p>
<p>Hey, I just wondered that with 73 billion dollars every years going to the Iraqi war, I bet with that money most people would pay a dime to go to college and it is more than the necessary for a health care coverage for most americans!!</p>
<p>1.) $73B is less than other estimates I've heard.
2.) Even $100B, however, is about $300 per American. A lot of money? Sure. Enough for college tuition or health care coverage? Not hardly. Not even close.
3.) It's about $2200 per uninsured American. This is starting to come close to the ballpark range, although I think frankly it's still a little low. And in any case the Iraq war will be over within ten to fifteen years. Medical coverage would be permanent.</p>
<p>Yeah, but not everyone is in college. I think there is about 4-6M people in college now, as opposed to 300M americans.
And also, how does country like France (probably not as rich as the US) manages for health care coverage?</p>
<p>Bluntly, they do it by cannibalizing the rest of their economy. It's one of the reasons French unemployment is so astronomical.</p>
<p>America could certainly cover the uninsured. That's not the issue. The issue is that:
1.) You can't pay for it just by cancelling the Iraq war, although obviously that would help in the short run.
2.) Ideally you'd find a more efficient scheme than the one France uses.</p>
<p>I agree that there should be health insurance out for people who need it but it should be run by the states themselves not the federal government. We have one of the more wasteful governments ex. social security and war. Even if the states would run it there still will be some problems because of funding. In my state we have health insurance for children from when there from infants to 18 year olds. A few months ago the state did not have money to run the program and so the governor went to congress to get more funding but for how will that last? What I am trying to say is that it is best to leave the government out of certain areas</p>
<p>France, Canada and Australia finance healthcare through steep taxes (likely impractical in the US) and rationing of expensive health procedures (likely necessary, but unpopular).</p>
<p>From my time on Google:
The MA plan seems to be slotted to go into effect in two weeks. And the article linked to does not describe clearly that the system is on the verge of collapse -- only that there are some suggestions that it might do so (eventually) if costs are not curbed. $1.7B sounds, at a first approximation, to not be completely out-of-line with estimated (and therefore anticipated) costs.</p>
<p>I remain excited about the basic architecture of the plan -- but whether the price tag will be too steep or not does remain to be seen.</p>
<p>Of course, decoupling insurance from employers would be a nice step, as well -- and, in point of fact, President Bush does seem to be taking (admittedly small) steps on this path.</p>
<p>That's a pretty good point BDM about the employers...strange how decisions made over 60 years ago during WWII can have such profound effects. For those who don't know the wage fixing that occurred during the War effort meant that employers used health coverage as a recruiting tool...otherwise the US probably would have been moved to a universal coverage plan long ago...</p>
<p>Let me get back to the core argument here. America is getting increasingly obese. As a result, there is a rise in diabetes and other weight-related problems.</p>
<p>Should I, Joe Schmoe, making $100K a year have to pay to help other people's lifestyle choices? Likewise the same for people with STD's and people in rehab for drugs.</p>
<p>If the healthcare system discriminated against these cases, then this socialized form of healthcare would be great. It would be a sort of insurance against all things we can't prepare for (i.e. genetic diseases) which seems fair considering that anybody can get these no matter how hard they try not to become ill.</p>
<p>Another argument is that there have to be some systems were equality is not considered (i.e. American healthcare). If everybody had socialized healthcare, then where would people go to get complicated surgeries like heart transplants?</p>
<p>Not to mention that pharmaceutical companies (however greedy they may be) would have no incentive to research if they're not making much money off their current medication.</p>
<p>1.) Some schemes would still permit pharmaceutical companies to make profits.</p>
<p>2.) Cross-subsidization doesn't necessarily have to happen through insurance; it could also happen through a taxation scheme; it could happen through hospitals; it could also not happen at all, in which case sick/poor people just die in the streets. The latter, I think, is probably not the kind of society I'd want to live in. The current status quo uses insurance and hospitals; MA's proposal adds taxes to try to reduce the hospital's distributional role.</p>
<p>I can't imagine living in a country where I had to worry about having enough money to go to the doctor (for those who don't have coverage) much less actually receiving the claim (for those who do have coverage). I honestly don't understand why America doesn't have universal healthcare. Afterall it is the richest country in world!</p>
<p>shanqb - like I mentioned previously. It's a relic from WWII where the labor shortage meant sky high wages. However the US government placed limitations on wages in order to ensure that all sectors of the economy were sufficiently staffed to help the war effort. Employers were unable to gain an advantage in hiring people based on wages, so they added benefits like health care insurance to hiring packages. That practice became commonplace in the subsequent decades and prevented the "need" for universal coverage to a large extent.</p>