TCS Daily


Michael Moore and I Agree! (Sort Of)

By Michael Cannon - June 29, 2007 12:00 AM

First, Mike, I want to thank you for inviting me to the Washington, D.C., premiere of your new movie SiCKO. You invited me even though you knew I was likely to criticize the film's prescription for health care reform.

Of course, we both know that's exactly why you invited me. You knew that I'd criticize your proposal that the U.S. adopt a government-run health care system, and that would bring added media attention to SiCKO in advance of its nationwide release this weekend. You created the news hook, and we both got the opportunity to air our views on health care reform. It was a win-win.

I want you to know that I've held up my end of the bargain. I've criticized SiCKO in whatever medium I could: from blog posts and podcasts to The New York Times. And I haven't held back. In one review, I even wrote, "from a policy standpoint - and I say this more in sadness than in anger - SiCKO was so breathtaking a specimen of ignorant propaganda that it would make Pravda blush." You just can't buy that kind of press.

I have to say, by making such a one-sided movie, you certainly made my job easier. For example, you show American patients who were denied medical care by greedy for-profit insurance companies. But you ignore the fact that power-hungry politicians do the same thing in Canada, Great Britain, France, and Cuba. I suppose that's why the Canadian journalists at the Cannes Film Festival gave you such a grilling.

You laud socialized American institutions like public education and the post office. But you never mention that Americans criticize those same institutions for their high costs and poor quality.

You extol the virtues of France's economic system, which seems to have socialized everything right down to laundry service. But you never tell your audience that taxes in France are 50 percent higher than in the U.S., or that the French unemployment rate is double the U.S. rate. Instead, you just ask several bons vivants if they feel like they're doing well. (Mais bien sûr!)

For the record, Mike, I have also praised SiCKO for its sense of humor, for exposing the silliness of our ongoing embargo of Cuba, and for highlighting some of the more insane aspects of America's health care system. In the notes I took during the film - I know, I'm such a nerd - I actually wrote, "Thank God MM is telling these stories."

It is insane that insurance companies have so much say over what is "medically necessary." But why do you never mention - or don't you know? - that our own government hands that power to insurance companies by penalizing insurance that lets patients decide what's medically necessary?

It is insane that those 9-11 rescue workers had so much difficulty getting medical attention. At the D.C. premiere, I spoke with Reggie Cervantes, John Graham, and Bill Maher, as well as two other rescue workers who didn't go to Cuba. All five of them told me that they had health insurance on September 11, but that they lost their insurance when they lost their jobs.

Why don't you tell your audience that the U.S. government was partly responsible for Reggie, John, and Bill losing their insurance? After all, it is Congress that ties health insurance to employment. If Congress stopped meddling with health insurance, people like Reggie, John, and Bill could get coverage that sticks with them through the rough times.

You're also correct that the health care industry has way too much influence in Washington. But what do you expect? Congress directly controls almost half of our health care spending, and controls the rest indirectly. With so many of our health care decisions being made in Congress, is it any wonder that industry spends more than any other to influence Congress?

The way to reduce the industry's influence is to take those decisions away from Congress and return them to the people.

When we spoke before the D.C. premiere, you apologized for leaving a clip of me on the cutting room floor, and suggested that we get together sometime to discuss health care reform. I'll forgive you for the former if you'll make good on the latter. We may not agree on everything, but we share a sharp distaste for the status quo.

Michael F. Cannon is director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute and coauthor of Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.

Categories:

101 Comments

and about the other countries?
"But you ignore the fact that power-hungry politicians do the same thing in Canada, Great Britain, France, and Cuba."


When did a power hungry politician in the UK deny healthcare to a citizen out of greed, and is there anything to suggest this happens on anything like the scale it happens in the USA?

Gosh, Mr. Cannon! I never knew it was the government that created the "uninsurable" category
As you know, some people or their children have pre-existing conditions, and if they are in business for themselves - working as realtors, for example, or small businessmen - they can't buy insurance at any price on the open market. I never knew it was the government that prohibited insurance companies from insuring the people who most need insurance. Are you sure of this?

Government tied health insurance to employment.
During WWII, health insurance became a means of evading wage controls. Later on, it became an untaxed benefit.

The effect of all of this was to produce a system where the people do not bear more than marginal responsibility for the amount of health care they consume, and the health care providers are ensured payment. This results in a situation where unnecessary tests and treatments are routinely ordered, and where inefficiencies in health-care providers (like non-electronic medical records,) stack up. Fears of malpractice suits exacerbate all of the above problems, as well as restricting the supply of doctors in many areas.

How is this the fault of the insurance companies?

I happen to be self-employed and diabetic, and I cannot afford any insurance beyond catastrophic care. I get dirty looks from whatever doctors or nurses I visit when I ask how much something is going to cost. When I ask a doctor what tests are really necessary, he/she starts getting nervous about malpractice suits, and generally tries to get me out of the office as fast as possible. If they will treat me, they generally can't answer my questions without talking to the billing clerks.

If most people had to pay for their own health care, they might think before going to the doctor. When you have a baby with the sniffles, they are most likely to get over it in a day or two, but under the present regime, people will rush to the doctor for unnecessary tests and antibiotics. I don't do this, I wait a day or two and see if my son gets over it naturally. If my son gets worse, I will take him in. The same is true for myself and my wife. I broke a hand recently, and had to argue the doctor out of plastic surgery for the scar because it would cost too much. If I had insurance, I would not engage in any of these cost-saving measures, because it would not, in essence, cost me anything more than a small co-pay to get the medical care, necessary or not.

Government policies insulated people from paying for their own health care decisions, and the uninsured are paying the price for the government's idiocy. I am not about to hand those idiots the control of all of my health care.

What's the difference?
Who cares if the motivation for denying treatment is greed or policy? The result is the same. Furthermore, in the USA, you can still get treatment if you are willing to pay for it. In the UK and Canada, it is either illegal or prohibitively expensive to do so.

Socialism rations health care by waiting. While they may get everyone treatment eventually, the wait for treatment kills a lot of people who would not have died under the American system. The government may not mean to deny people health care, but they do so by virtue of being unable to cope with the volume of health care they have to provide.

to Publius
Good comments Pub, but you forgot to mention in your other message above re the countries where they have rationed heatlh care, that people die while they wait in line, and liberals ar OK with that. Also, the people who make the stilinist health care systems do not have to suffer under them, nor their families. They don't even use the public system but have their very own private(often secret) hospitals and doctors on call. We note that the billinaire commie dictator Castro recently had a Spanish specialist in the cure him; that is not available to the public.

Any excuse will do
So you're saying that government regulations mean that someone without a job with pre–existing conditions can't get insurance?

Please explain.

what excuse needed?
If you're talking about my comment, I mean that yes the guy with preexisting does get the rational, minimalist care, but that this system that the rulers say is so wonderful, don't actually use that system themselves. In the countries where they're free to leave, then anybody who needs prompt care, gets out to another country for it. Indeed, there is even a huge 'medical-tourism' industry, to the great embarassment of the stalinists med. systems. So some guy who needs hip replacement, say, and would have to wait a year in Canada, for example, instead will go to a place like even India, have the operation done, and quite cheaply, and have a holiday at the same time. But let's say a guy with a preexisting condition, in a free country where the governmt has nothing to do with health care. Say the guy is born, out of wedlock, is a foundling, is quadroplegic, is blind, deaf and dumb. In such instanaces there would be many voluntary charitable places to take care of him. If guys like Gates, and warren buffett already donate billions and billions, even to foreigners, why wouldn't they donate to guys like my example? In additon to them, guys like you could also contribute too, or are you saying you wouldn't do that, but just want to force guys like me to?

For a system that costs twice as much as any other and still doesn't deliver??
The views you are expressing are crank and myopic. You're focusing on glitches - and there are some - in say the Canadian system, and completely ignoring much bigger ones in the system in the US. Instead, you make jokes about people's misfortunes ("so the guy is born out of wedlock...") and mutter about "stalinism."

Deal with the issues instead of the cartoons. Tell us why it's perfectly ok that a self-employed 40-year old with diabetes or a sick kid won't be able to buy health insurance. Don't tell us why Gates should fund his care - tell us why if you have a multibillion dollar industry providing health insurance, he can't buy any. And tell us why that's good for the country.

Hello??? "illegal?"
Please back up this statement.

> Furthermore, in the USA, you can still get treatment if you are willing to pay for it. In the UK and Canada, it is either illegal or prohibitively expensive to do so.

The UK has a thriving private health system. So, last I looked, did Canada. If you have the money, go to the head of the line.

Quebec was Canada on Jun 08, 2005 also
Read the excerpts on the Quebec Case that follow. I have highlighted the text in these excerpts by putting them within >.

As for the good old US of A, show me where in the US Constitution it says that Federal GOVAGs can start and implement a scheme to provide for people's health care.

From

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/09/newscoc-health050609.html

"The Supreme Court of Canada ruled Thursday that the Quebec government cannot prevent people from paying for private insurance for health-care procedures covered under medicare.

In a 4-3 decision, the panel of seven justices said banning private insurance for a list of services ranging from MRI tests to cataract surgery was unconstitutional under the Quebec Charter of Rights, given that the public system >

As a result of delays in receiving tests and surgeries, patients have suffered and >, justices Beverley McLachlin, Jack Major, Michel Bastarache and Marie Deschamps found for the majority.

Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Benoit Pelletier said the province would > as an alternative to abiding by the court's decision.

In 1996, Montreal businessman George Zeliotis waited a year for hip replacement surgery. While waiting, he asked whether he could purchase insurance that would allow him to skip the public queue and pay directly for the surgery.

When he learned it was against the law, he took his case to court.

Senator Michael Kirby, who chaired a Senate committee studying health care, recommended the provinces >

Lawyers for the federal government argued the court should not interfere with the health-care system, considered "one of Canada's finest achievements and a powerful symbol of the national identity."

From

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/09/international/americas/09cnd-canada.html?ex=1275969600&en=2961143a9462abb5&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

"The system, providing Canadians with free doctor's services that are paid for by taxes, has generally been supported by the public, and is broadly identified with the Canadian national character.

But in recent years, >, while the wealthy and well connected either seek care in the United States or >

The court ruled that the waiting lists had become so long that they violated patients' "liberty, safety and security" under the Quebec charter, which covers about one-quarter of Canada's population.

The evidence in this case shows that > the Supreme Court ruled. "In sum, the prohibition on obtaining private health insurance is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services."

Dr. Chaoulli, who was born in France, has long called for Canada to adopt a two-tier, public-private health care system similar to those of France, Germany and Switzerland. >, which is already short of doctors, thus further lengthening waiting lists.

Dr. Chaoulli is a passionate >. In 1997, he went on a hunger strike for his cause in the streets of Montreal, after he was forced to abandon a private emergency house-call service.

Canada's prime minister, Paul Martin, responded to the court's decision by saying that >"

Looks like my highlighting method messed up the display
Let me try == this time.

From

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/09/newscoc-health050609.html

"The Supreme Court of Canada ruled Thursday that the Quebec government cannot prevent people from paying for private insurance for health-care procedures covered under medicare.

In a 4-3 decision, the panel of seven justices said banning private insurance for a list of services ranging from MRI tests to cataract surgery was unconstitutional under the Quebec Charter of Rights, given that the public system == has failed to guarantee patients access to those services in a timely way. ==

As a result of delays in receiving tests and surgeries, patients have suffered and == even died in some cases ==, justices Beverley McLachlin, Jack Major, Michel Bastarache and Marie Deschamps found for the majority.

Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Benoit Pelletier said the province would == consider using the notwithstanding clause in Quebec's constitution == as an alternative to abiding by the court's decision.

In 1996, Montreal businessman George Zeliotis waited a year for hip replacement surgery. While waiting, he asked whether he could purchase insurance that would allow him to skip the public queue and pay directly for the surgery.

When he learned it was against the law, he took his case to court.

Senator Michael Kirby, who chaired a Senate committee studying health care, recommended the provinces == pay for private treatment if the patient isn't treated within a certain timeframe. ==

Lawyers for the federal government argued the court should not interfere with the health-care system, considered "one of Canada's finest achievements and a powerful symbol of the national identity."

From

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/09/international/americas/09cnd-canada.html?ex=1275969600&en=2961143a9462abb5&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

"The system, providing Canadians with free doctor's services that are paid for by taxes, has generally been supported by the public, and is broadly identified with the Canadian national character.

But in recent years, == patients have been forced to wait longer for diagnostic tests and elective surgery ==, while the wealthy and well connected either seek care in the United States or == use influence to jump ahead on waiting lists. ==

The court ruled that the waiting lists had become so long that they violated patients' "liberty, safety and security" under the Quebec charter, which covers about one-quarter of Canada's population.

The evidence in this case shows that == delays in the public health care system are widespread and that in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care," == the Supreme Court ruled. "In sum, the prohibition on obtaining private health insurance is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services."

Dr. Chaoulli, who was born in France, has long called for Canada to adopt a two-tier, public-private health care system similar to those of France, Germany and Switzerland. == Supporters of the current system, however, have argued that a two-tier plan will draw physicians away from the public system ==, which is already short of doctors, thus further lengthening waiting lists.

Dr. Chaoulli is a passionate == if idiosyncratic advocate who has long been viewed as a lonely character on the political scene ==. In 1997, he went on a hunger strike for his cause in the streets of Montreal, after he was forced to abandon a private emergency house-call service.

Canada's prime minister, Paul Martin, responded to the court's decision by saying that == his government would commit to lessening waiting times for medical services while preserving the system.

'We are not going to have a two-tier health care system in this country,' Mr. Martin told reporters. 'Nobody wants that. What we want to do is to strengthen the public health care system.' =="

Pointing out problems with the Canadian system doesn't mean ours works well, or is better
You can find any number of American anecdotes much scarier than someone not being able to move up surgery - cases in which people died. Some are in the movie.

As usual, evading the issue
You said that it is NOT illegal to procure private care in the Canadian GOVAGs enforced Health Care system.

And I showed you evidence to the contrary.

And as usual, you ignore it to evade the issue.

I don't argue from anecdotal evidence. I didn't say anything about US Health Care System not having problems or it being better than others.

Don't change the subject.

Here's what the Canada health care site says about your issues
maybe it's not black and white::

"There are five main principles in the Canada Health Act:
• Public Administration: All administration of provincial health insurance must be carried out by a public authority on a non-profit basis. They also must be accountable to the province or territory, and their records and accounts are subject to audits.


• Comprehensiveness: All necessary health services, including hospitals, physicians and surgical dentists, must be insured.


• Universality: All insured residents are entitled to the same level of health care.


• Portability: A resident that moves to a different province or territory is still entitled to coverage from their home province during a minimum waiting period. This also applies to residents which leave the country.


• Accessibility: All insured persons have reasonable access to health care facilities. In addition, all physicians, hospitals, etc, must be provided reasonable compensation for the services they provide.

In addition to public health care providers such as primary care doctors and hospitals, many private clinics offering specialized services also operate in Canada.
Under federal law, private clinics are not legally allowed to provide services covered by the Canada Health Act. Regardless of this legal issue, many do offer such services.
The advantage of private clinics is that they typically offer services with reduced wait times compared to the public health care system. For example, obtaining an MRI scan in a hospital could require a waiting period of months, whereas it could be obtained much faster in a private clinic.
Private clinics are a subject of controversy, as some feel that their existence unbalances the health care system and favors treatments to those with higher incomes.
Costs in private clinics are usually covered by private insurance policies, which will typically pay around 80% of the costs."

Still evading the issue
Did you not say that Canadian GOVAGs do NOT prohibit private individuals from paying for Health Care Services?

Did I not show you proof that they did (and still do) as of Jun 08, 2005?

So, let us acknowledge and get it out of the way that what you said about Canadian GOVAGs imposed Health Care System was wrong.

health system
You make it sound like I approve of the US system. I don't because I would like to see a really free system, instead of the semi-stalinist lite system they have now. But if your your sick kid can't get insurance, do you mean you wont' take care of him yourself? Do you really want to force me to take care of him? But I do really thinks it's good for the country if wealthy, and kind hearted people like you volunteer your own time and money to help the less fortunate. And I really feel bad about it that the US government didn't like all the competition from the 'community chests', mutual aid societies', and all the other volunteer outfits that made the government look bad. And the govnmt saw another area where it could muscle in controlling people more. And then in the war when they had wage and prices controls, the bad effect of their stupid policy meant that employers started offering medical care in lieu of more wages.

re Canadian health system
You are only reading the government propaganda about how it should work. That would be like reading the Soviet constitution and seeing how good it too was in theory. But in reality it's different and you should hear what the long suffering canadians say about their system. My relatives there say that it's better for their dogs and horses, because they can go out and get a MRI or anything at all. but the people have to die while waiting in line.

OK
and mispoke. Does that make the American system good?

who cares what you thnk??
>But if your your sick kid can't get insurance, do you mean you wont' take care of him yourself? Do you really want to force me to take care of him?

If a poor kid, not necesarilyh mine, needs $100K worth of care his parents may not have the money. If he's insured, that means other people share the expense. This isn't about Stalin, it's about how insurance works.

>But if your your sick kid can't get insurance, do you mean you wont' take care of him yourself? Do you really want to force me to take care of him?

You're not in the mix, Stûrmer. YOu're not an American. But yes, it would be good if middle income people with pre-existing conditions could purcase insurance, rather than waiting for Warren Buffet to donate.

>d then in the war when they had wage and prices controls, the bad effect of their stupid policy meant that employers started offering medical care in lieu of more wages.

The war was aginst Hitler, who you supported. But, sure, it was wrong.

Is this right then?
You are the one that wants to force me to do something, or get the government to use the power of the state, to force me to do something against my will, and you call me the naazi? Let's try another kind of though excercise. Let's say a guy when young used to drive a gas guzzler. So what if in present time he advocated for gas saving cars. Would you disqualifiy him from commenting? If you answer yes, then you make a fool of yourself. If you answer no, then you will have to admit you are doing it with regard to me. BTW, what is your background anyway? My guess is, by the way you defend statism and coersion, that you are somehow eating at the public trough. Perhaps a clerk at the county office, maybe in the drivers licence bureau, maybe even as high as a teacher in a public school.

We're talking about your complicity in genocide, not in driving a gas guzzler
So, yes, that is relevant, particularly when the only argument you make is "I don't want to pay taxes that will help anyone but me." Your speculations about what I do are as inane as they are inaccurate.

Taxes are meant for the benefit of ALL, equally.
Each and every 'benefit' of government should be applied equally (more or less) to all.

The cops and courts should apply the law, equally to all. The military defends the country for ALL.

The job of the government is not to reditrubute income. "From each...to each." ?

If I pay the same tax that everyone else pays for the same collective benefit like defense, then that is fair. If I am force to pay a disproportianate share of taxes in order to pay for someone who refuses to work, that is not fair.

I will support taxes that benefit ALL because they do help ME as well. I don't support taxes that only benefit a few and NOT me.



" If I am forced to pay a disproportianate share of taxes in order to pay for someone who refuses to
This kind of formulation has nothing to do with the reality we are addressing. The people who are not insured are not uninsured because they 'refuse to work.' The huge majority are working The idea is to arrange the insurance so everyone is able to obtain it, and everyone pays a fair share.

Right now, you're paying for people who 'refuse to work' and others when they show up at the emergency room of the county hospital. If you want to say 'let 'em die,' you'll at least be consistent.

If you really misspoke, as opposed to
trying to evade the issue, it would not have taken you 3 posts from me to realize it.

You would have realized it atleast when you posted that excerpt from the Canadian GOVAGs Health Care Web site which contains this gem

“Under federal law, private clinics are not legally allowed to provide services covered by the Canada Health Act.”

As far as the problems of US Health Care System are concerned, you are yet to point to that text in the US Constitution which says that Federal GOVAGs have the responsibility of solving the Health Care problems of US citizens.

genocide? I thought it was health care
Our topic was health systems, which I really do know a lot about because I have travelled so much in the world, certainly more than you. But you fulfilled my hidden agenda re the question I asked you. Had you answered either way, you would have made even more a fool of yourself; so you didn't answer it. It was meant to point out how 'ad-hominem'arguments,like you often use, are stupid. It's also a valid presumption to suppose that you are one of the many who have a vested interest in advancing statism, and socialist policies like having me pay for your brats healthcare.

"more than you"
you don't know how much I've traveled, Stürmer, you don't know what my health care provisions are, or who is paying for them. I do know you're a former Hitler puppet soldier, and I don't need direction in morality from youl.

tired rhetoric
is this the best you can do??

>As far as the problems of US Health Care System are concerned, you are yet to point to that text in the US Constitution which says that Federal GOVAGs have the responsibility of solving the Health Care problems of US citizens.

And you've yet to point to prohibitions against doing so. YOu'd be surpised how many of your fellow citizens disagree with you on this.






eric vs. reality
eric's been shown dozens of times why the propaganda he spreads is just that, propaganda. He doesn't care.

If Castro says that no babies die in Cuba. That's good enough for him.

We're ahead of Slovenia!
Here's the World Health Organization's top fifty countries for health care:

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei
41 New Zealand
42 Bahrain
43 Croatia
44 Qatar
45 Kuwait
46 Barbados
47 Thailand
48 Czech Republic
49 Malaysia
50 Poland

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

So you were...
wrong? Is it so very hard to admit?

Not to mention that you completely wrote off Canadian and British healthcare the last time we argued this topic. Are those systems good ones now?

If would help your talking points if you could remember, since so many others here do, what your arguments were before and, perhaps, adapting it to the facts that are presented you.

Instead you just parade out the same lines and somehow expect them to be considered gospel all over again. It is the height of stupidity to believe that when people get tired and stop providing the same evidence and sources over and over again that you somehow gain validity. Quite infantile.

This would indeed be...
damning evidence if not for the fact that each of these countries figures out its healthcare stats differently. I proved that to LeMule before. But these would only count if the measures used in this ranking system were based solely on healthcare outcomes.

Just take a look at the actual measures to see how subjective these rankings are. I don't think you could classify this as a statistical or mildly scientific view of healthcare rankings.

Another drive-by, evidence empty burst of noise from Mr.Ozone himself
Stop wasting everyone's time.

As someone else once asked you,
there is no prohibition (in the US Constitution) for providing "comfort women". Should they? One of the European countries - whose Health Care System you want the US of A to emulate - does (provide for "comfort women"), if I remember correct.

As for fellow citzens agreeing on GOVAGs funded Health Care, do you, personally, agree, if enough number of your fellow citizens agree for the restoration of Jim Crow laws?

no they aren't
taxes are paid by the evil rich, and are intended for the benefit of the righteous.
IE, those who don't work.

What's your point?
Nobody is arguing that the British or Canadian systems are perfect. The point is that despite their flaws they are in many respects better than ours for many kinds of problems. the French and German systems are much better.

If you want to present evidence to the contrary, do so. Namecalling doesn't cut it.

Do you have a point?
Nobody is talking about establishing a government funded prostiituion system. If someone does, argue against that. Until someone does. why not stick to what's proposed.

>As for fellow citzens agreeing on GOVAGs funded Health Care, do you, personally, agree, if enough number of your fellow citizens agree for the restoration of Jim Crow laws?

No, and except in your big book of really stupid ideas, there's no reason why support for one majority approved law means that this supporter has to think that any and all laws at any time in the past are justified or supportable or right or anything else except that they were once law.

Mark's listening to the easter bunny again
the bunny tells him he's really funny.

A knee jerk response
This is typical of the kind of spin you put on everything. It is irrelevant whether each country devises their own format in reporting their health care stats. The point is to take a close look at the WHO's methodology. Every ranking in the chart is, of course, determined by the WHO's own parameters, not the apples and oranges of each individual nation's reporting methods.

If you had a sincere interest in learning more, you could go back to the web site and look into the WHO's methodology. But of course, your only point here is to somehow disparage it whether it's accurate or not.

The point is...
that you lack the ability to declare a mistake even when your face is rubbed in it.

>"If you want to present evidence to the contrary, do so."

Been there and done that. Your goal is glorify socialized medicine and nothing, not even reality, can't deter you from that goal.

>"Namecalling doesn't cut it."

Neither do facts with you. I would say that I don't call you names. I just provide the proper label.

Now you go and get the last word so you can declare victory.

What are you talking about??
All you're doing is saying I'm wrong about something I acknowledged I was wrong about. That doesn't change the truth of what I said: that sure, health systems in Canada and Britian have problems. That doesn't make problems in the US go away, particularly since nobody's suggesting copying either the Canadian or British systems.

>Been there and done that. Your goal is glorify socialized medicine and nothing, not even reality, can't deter you from that goal.

And your only goal is namecalling. You have no interest in any of he details or any of the facts.

>Neither do facts with you. I would say that I don't call you names. I just provide the proper label.

Except I have provided facts. All you provide is a false statement that you've rebutted them.

Gee...
I guess it pays to never look under the hood when it comes to statistics and methodology. I find it funny that you call it spin to do so and then demand it be done in the next sentence.

>"It is irrelevant whether each country devises their own format in reporting their health care stats."

Really? The monumental... simplicity... of this statement boggles the mind. I suppose it makes no difference when comparing medical stats to know how those medical stats are defined? Amazing. Such spin!

So I suppose when someone talks about our infant mortality rates being higher than several European countries it makes no difference if those countries discount infant deaths within the first 90 days (when most mortalities occur) and that we include them? Spin! Spin I say!

>"The point is to take a close look at the WHO's methodology. Every ranking in the chart is, of course, determined by the WHO's own parameters, not the apples and oranges of each individual nation's reporting methods."

Let's look at the components of the measurement:

Responsiveness: Although they say the US measured highest in this category let us hold off on this one until my final point.

Fairness of Financial Contribution: (Income - Food expenditure)/Amount Spent on Healthcare (includes tax payments, social insurance, private insurance and out of pocket payments). Please tell me how this becomes "fairness". Does it take into account the staggering amount of taxes paid for by the top 50% of wage earners in the US (96%+)? By this definition the redistribution of wealth that passes for "fair" would definitely favor those with socialized medicine.

Overall Level of Health: Using life expectancy stats has never been proven to be an indicator of how well a healthcare plan is run. There is no linkage.

Distribution of Health in the Populations: This is even more subjective than "fairness". Do they look at the different lifestyles of different populations? It seems to me that they look for conditions prevalent in a minority and attribute it, without much scientific validity, to bias in the system.

Responsiveness: Again but with a measure on the patient. Once again I leave this to the end point.

Distribution of Financing: Right from their own definition: "The level of funding to allocate to the health system is a social choice – with no correct answer" Now that is just good statistical methodology. No good or bad choices but you use it to measure quality of healthcare. Yep, it was hard to spin this one.

The End Point: One of the major flaws with this whole survey is that they never once ask the opinions, and this is a highly subjective ranking to begin with, of the actual patients within the system! Perhaps I am just old fashioned in having something be judged by those who actually use the system and not by the ones who design the systems.

Here is a good source that I have used before when this particular WHO ranking is used in ignorance:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/20/3/10

This is by no means a glowing report but it is a thorough debunking of the methods used in the WHO report.

May I also add that just because people believe the medical field needs improvement does not mean that people want socialized medicine. That improvement is not made by more government but less government. I challenge you to identify a problem with health care in America that is not caused or aggravated by federal, state and local government interference.

>"If you had a sincere interest in learning more, you could go back to the web site and look into the WHO's methodology. But of course, your only point here is to somehow disparage it whether it's accurate or not."

I am very familiar with this report since I actually work in the healthcare industry and have provided data on healthcare for over 15 years. I have worked with other purveyors of data from Britain and Canada and can tell you many an anecdote, like Michael Moore does, but I prefer to rise above the left/right view of healthcare and merely concentrate on the facts. The fact being that if you want health resource rationing, government interference with you treatment, poor availability, lack of recourse when things go wrong, and absolutely no innovation in medical technology then you need to keep arguing for socialized medicine.

I doubt you looked farther than Slovenia before you eagerly posted this ranking as proof of some ideology that you already favor. Please read before you leap.

RE: french v. US healthcare and Princess Di
If the Frence system is so good, why is it said that had Princess Di's car crash been in the Holland Tunnel instead of the one in Paris, she'd probably still be alive today?
Also, in the final analysis whether a guy thinks one system is better than some other one mostly depends on your point of view re economics and politics. If a guy is left wing then then love the system in Cuba and Canada; if you're more free market, you like better Switzerland, Singapore, etc. Any country could put in place a 'showpiece' system, especially re certain aspects of medicine, but it doesn't mean it is viable, or makes any sense.

YES. And the point is, Lemuel gives carte blanche to GOVAGs
For Lemuel, the US Constitution is NOT a limit on what the (federal) GOVAGs can or can not do, as;

He has no unambiguous interpretation of the “provide for the General Welfare” clause (exhibit: He approves of (federal) GOVAGs role in funding the Retirement needs of US citizens because the SCOTUS “interpreted” the “provide for the General Welfare” clause while upholding the SS Act. But Lemuel does would not have approved of the SCOTUS decision in “Kelo Vs. New London” EVEN if it (the SCOTUS) had “interpreted” the “provide for the General Welfare” clause instead of “interpreting” the “public use” clause (of the Fifth Amendment), as it did now).

He has no consistent policy that GOVAGs can do anything that was NOT expressly prohibited by the Constitution (exhibit: He approves of (federal) GOVAGs role in funding the Health Care needs of US citizens because such a role was not expressly prohibited for the GOVAGs. But Lemuel does not approve of funding the “comfort women” needs of US citizens even though such a role was also not expressly prohibited for the GOVAGs).

So, essentially Lemuel gives carte blanche to GOVAGs.

direction in morals from me"
But it doesn look like you need some lessons in morality from me, because I have the moral high ground over you, as everyone can repeatedly see around here. You keep advocating using force to make people conform to what you want them to do; whereas I always recommend that people be free to make their own decisions in life.

NeaRNoaD says he's the ultimate authority about the US constitution
I don't. But we should alert the media so they can stop covering the Supreme Court and just ask NeaRNoaD if they have a question about what laws are valid.

anyone can say anything
>whereas I always recommend that people be free to make their own decisions in life.

Sure. That's the rule you lived by when you were wearing Hitler's uniform. Heroically.

So, tell me which PRINCIPLE,
according to you, limits the role of GOVAGs in the economic activities of US Citizens?

You tell us, chimp
You think you have the ultimate infallible solution, the one the Supreme Court and the american people don't get. Share it.

But you don't approve of all decisions of the SCOTUS.
Or do you? How about Kelo Vs. New London?

And you don't approve of all the solutions that the "American people" may "get".

Or do you? How about the Jim Crow laws that were once "got" by the "Americn people"?

No, I don't.
And that's not a contradiction. I knoqw this is hard for you to understand. Ask a grown-up to explain it to you.

TCS Daily Archives