Sicko Education
It’s nice to see that the Wisconsin Alliance of Cities is seeking to educate its members on the health care issue.
First, we need baseline information. The most entertaining place to get that is to see Sicko, the Michael Moore ("Roger and Me,” “Bowling for Columbine,” “Fahrenheit 9/11” etc.) film about the ailments of the health care system in this country. It manages to look at some very scary realities without losing its sense of humor. Folks with a scalpel to grind do sometimes say bad things about it. But it’s hard for anyone with an open mind to see why.
Nice to know that people who might say something bad about Moore’s movie just don’t have an “open mind.”
Oh my goodness, he said a weak joke like “a scalpel to grind”.
So you’re saying you’ve seen it? If not, competition and scrutiny have been good for Moore. He knows he’s going to be fact-checked to Hell and back by his opposition, so he’s much more careful about what he says than he might’ve been in the past. He’s making movie-theater documentaries, for heaven’s sake. Yes, he expresses his opinions. So where’s the entertaining yet insightful documentary from the “Let’s just shift the deck chairs on the Titanic” side of the health care debate? If it existed, I’d go see that, too.
That Alliance press release may tilt pro-Moore, but I think that any city manager involved in health care decisions should be open-minded enough to research all sides of the debate, especially if they come in the form of a popular documentary that many others will have seen before that conference.
Posted by John Foust on August 11, 2007 at 0903 hrs- Posted by scott on August 11, 2007 at 0927 hrs
And just to revive the June 26 thread, I noticed that the Brew City Brawler has a detailed refutation of Owen’s view of history of the evolution of employer-provided health care.
Brew City Brawler? Was he on All-Star Wrestling on channel 18?
Posted by John Foust on August 11, 2007 at 1003 hrs"Refutation?” Hardly. Here’s a sample:
Unfortunately Owen has to engage in historic revisionism of the most extreme sort—i.e. making shit up—to make this point.
Even a casual whiff suggests argument reeks of mendacity. Why? Because in neither telling does Owen explicitly say what event drove FDR to “tinker with the private market” by capping wages. What was that event? Oh yes: World War II, the most economically stimulating event in U.S. history. The logic behind wage caps was to prevent runaway inflation from crippling the home front.
The fact that Owen would deliberately leave out this piece of context—and omitting this piece of context can’t be anything but deliberate for a for a self proclaimed student of military history like Ol Lady Owen—suggests that there’s something deeper amiss in the argument.
And there is. Namely, far from “[coming] about” in 1942, employer provided health insurance had been on the rise and evolving for decades and its growth was accelerating.
You see, it’s not a refutation but is merely providing further context. Silly me, but I thought that my readers were smart enough to remember that WWII was going on in 1942 without having to remind them.
The BCB is one of those pathetic bloggers who tries to make a living out of attacking other bloggers and media folk in an effort to illicit a reaction and draw traffic to his site. That’s why he has entire categories dedicated to attacking people he doesn’t like and a healthy reservoir of pet names for people that he hopes will catch on.
But he also makes the same mistake that you make on occasion, JF. This is a blog - not a book. I am not always going to take the time to lay out a 10,000 word thesis with links and citations for every point that I want to make. I assume a level of knowledge among our readers and that readers generally know where I’m coming from on an issue. That’s why you only get one word or sentence sometimes. I have better things to do than spend a week arguing a single point. This is my hobby, not my job. When folks like the BCB start paying my bills, then they can make demands on me. Until then, if you don’t like it, move on. It’s a free country. Or, hit the forums or comment if you want to add texture to a particular post. All are welcome - just don’t go thinking that you own the place.
And now.... back to two-nosed dogs
Posted by Owen on August 11, 2007 at 1025 hrs
Yes, this is your pub, and you and Jed can run it as you see fit. It’s my personal opinion that a “What an idiot"-plus-quote blog is less interesting, but that’s my opinion and only that - not a directive. I’ve seen far worse. There are Wisconsin-based blogs that consist of nothing but posts of insulting one-liners - sometimes just one word - plus a quote. I think even a paragraph of original thought or commentary is more interesting than a quote. A few salient links, even better. Many readers want insight. Of course it could be argued that there are plenty of readers who just want the reinforcement that their spoon-fed talking points du jour are valid. But insight - that’s what propels someone out of the corner bar and onto a newspaper page or in front of a camera. BCB puts detail and research behind his posts. I think I like Recess Supervisor for the same reason. I think the one-liner tends to reinforce the notion that a blog is just an echo chamber for thoughts that originated elsewhere. It’s not an echo of the quoted material - it’s usually just the use of code words and assumptions like “readers generally know where I’m coming from on an issue.” You’re smarter than that, and your opinions may sometimes diverge, no?
Posted by John Foust on August 11, 2007 at 1051 hrsI think the one-liner tends to reinforce the notion that a blog is just an echo chamber for thoughts that originated elsewhere. It’s not an echo of the quoted material - it’s usually just the use of code words and assumptions like “readers generally know where I’m coming from on an issue.” You’re smarter than that, and your opinions may sometimes diverge, no?
Sometimes. Sometimes not. We tend to post a mixture of short and long posts. That way the content can stay fresh while still allowing me a forum for more thoughtful posts when I have time. It’s a matter of style and preference.
Posted by Owen on August 11, 2007 at 1203 hrsA story in today’s Las Vegas Review Journal: In London, a judge said it was ok for the government to withhold medicine for early stage Alzheimer’s because they were not cost effecient.
Posted by on August 11, 2007 at 1517 hrs
“A judge upheld an arguement by the government medicines monitor that the drugs are only cost effective for patients in later stages of the illness, defeating an attempt to force authorities to prescribe the medications in early state Alzheimer’s.
So, doctors and experts want to prescribe the medicine to their patients, but a bureaucrat and judge says no, it is not cost effective.
This what these socialized medicines want. Scotts always says"look at England” as an example. This is what they want- judges and bureaucrats determing our health care. If they deny it, they are just plain old liars.
And who the hell wants a government medicine monitor?And with private health insurance companies, they never limit treatment or deny claims? What mechanism do we have to determine how private insurance companies limit care because of the expense or the medical advice that a particular drug isn’t effective enough in the early stages of a chronic disease? Link to full wire story.
Posted by John Foust on August 11, 2007 at 1535 hrsSo, you would rather have the government tell you how to be treated. With private insurance, at least there safeguards and if you don’t like the outcome, you can change insurance, pay yourself, sue, complain to a government agency etc.
Posted by on August 11, 2007 at 1541 hrs
Sorry, but you and your brethern sicken me with this. Beside the socialist rantings and utopian views, you and your brethern have not given us 1 good reason to switch. You guys cannot answer simple questions and just use the same old tired lines.I’m not “you guys.” I 100% understand the coercion vs. private choice argument. Beyond it, though, I think you need to recognize you aren’t living in a vacuum, that the government is already heavily involved in innumerable aspects of your “private” health care experience, as well as in providing care for the poor. If you want to stay in the reality-based community instead of Galt’s Gulch, you need to recognize that. You need to recognize the realities of insurance: they’re all going to limit what you get and make decisions about what they’ll cover. If they didn’t, they couldn’t make money.
A government-run plan or a private, non-profit charitable plan needs to stay within budget. (Yeah, government goes over budget and raises taxes; yeah, your local hospitals build new Cadillac care centers in the suburbs and raise prices when they don’t really “need” to, either.) Private insurers make decisions exactly like this UK court challenge, except they’ll do it behind closed doors. The only ones who’ll hear about it are the insured who are affected. Who’s the high one here - the people admitting the simple fact that insurers proscribe treatment plans, or the ones complaining “But the government’s not going to give me everything I want, like I think I get now”. Really, go ask your insurer what they don’t cover. Yes, for parts of Healthy Wisconsin you’ll have the Gummint watching over treatment plans in BadgerCare, just like they’ve been doing for years. It’s not clear to me, though, how far they’ll prod into care for the non-destitute.
Posted by John Foust on August 11, 2007 at 1625 hrsDan types: “With private insurance, at least there safeguards and if you don’t like the outcome, you can change insurance, pay yourself, sue, complain to a government agency etc.”
This is laughable, Danny. Take your case where “the judge said it was ok for the government to withhold medicine for early stage Alzheimer’s because they were not cost effecient.” Let’s say a private insurance company makes the same determination—the drug or treatment isn’t covered for whatever reason. Do you really think the family can “change insurance” when the patient is now uninsurable?!?
That’s one of the problems with the present system which you folks won’t acknowledge! What’s the private sector solution for this very real problem, oh Danny boy?
Posted by on August 11, 2007 at 1746 hrs"A government run plan...neds to stay within budget.” No they don’t. They will simply borrow money. “Private insurers make decisions exactly like the UK court challenge.” No, not exactly. Private insurers have actual stated limits to what they will pay. Further, if at least one study is to be believed, those limits are significantly higher than the unofficial limit of $53,000 in the UK:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/23/3/10
Posted by on August 11, 2007 at 1812 hrsWally Boy, first read the contract. If it is in there and they deny it, you have all sorts of options including appealing their decesion, going to arbritration or suing.
Posted by on August 11, 2007 at 1833 hrs
2nd get a 2nd opinion
3rd, if it is not in the contract, you can still appeal, usually to a panel of experts.
4th. If it is not in a contract and you get your insurance through your employer, have your employer put pressure on the insurance company or have your employer change their policy.
5th Pay for it yourself like you would if you had the government insurance plan. But, with the government plan, you may not even have this option.
How are these people better off with the government health care? Do you want some government beaurcrat to decide whether you get medicine or not? No one has answered that. All the wishy washy answers to that is to complain about the insurance companies.
So come you socialized medicine believers: Answer this with a yes or no answer: Do you want a government bureaucrat to decide what medicines you can have and what kind of health care you can get. Just answer yes or no and then explain.BV, private insurers invest money to help make money and pay future benefits. I can’t wave my magic wand and make politicians stop spending any more than I can wave that wand and keep a private business from making stupid spending decisions, stupid investment decisions or going out of business. I don’t think your magic wand works any better, and I’ll leave it for another thread as to whether one person’s vote has any more effect than one person’s premium. My reference about “making decisions” was about which treatment plans they’ll endorse, not pay-out caps. If a team of doctors says drug X doesn’t really do much for early Alzheimer patients, what do you think a private company does? Give a $5/day drug to anyone who thinks they need it? What if I said I needed to golf every day?
And Dan, government bureaucrats do that already, no? FDA? Regulation of the insurance and health industry, subsidies to one, favors to another? Do I want what? If I want insurance, it means I’m agreeing to let someone else judge my situation and pay out benefits accordingly. You think they’ll give you a room with an ocean view if you want? If it’s not a government bureaucrat bogeyman, it’s a private bureaucrat bogeyman, no? Or as you said, a “panel of experts.” Insurers make tough decisions about what to cover and what to deny. If you want the company to be really profitable, they’ll have to give you less.
Posted by John Foust on August 11, 2007 at 1902 hrsCome on John, stop being wishy washy, just answer yes or no. It’s really not that hard, it’s actually quite easy. You only have press the keyboard 2 or 3 times and it only takes a second or 2.
Posted by on August 11, 2007 at 1908 hrsI’d like a pony and an ice cream cone.
Posted by John Foust on August 11, 2007 at 2002 hrsState fair still going on?
Posted by on August 11, 2007 at 2045 hrsYes! I’m on the midway, playing a game where the carnie keeps saying “When did you stop hitting your wife?” Good times!
Posted by John Foust on August 11, 2007 at 2114 hrsMy magic wand works infinitely better. It is a market that enforces discipline and demands performance.
Posted by on August 11, 2007 at 2223 hrsJust wait till some crazy conservative comes into office and says that the govt. will not pay for birth control, abortions, fertility treatments, and aids treatments. The libs will be apoplectic. Right now private insurers may or may not pay for these things and if they don’t you can go elsewhere. If the govt. refuses to cover these things then you would be stuck.
Posted by fishaddict on August 11, 2007 at 2243 hrsYou mean like Nardelli at Home Depot who walks away with $120 MM after getting canned?
Yeah BigBro. marshmellow mountains and cottan candy clouds.
Posted by on August 11, 2007 at 2247 hrsAh, we hear the intelligence from the liberal crowd. Maybe for an encore, they can tell us why Jimmy Carter was a great predident.
Posted by on August 12, 2007 at 0015 hrsBV, I guess that’s why “the market” always seems eager to get another favor from government, right? More tax breaks, another “assist” with improving the pool of employees, another loan that starts out as a loan but gets forgiven, the ease at which a company might promise it’ll create 900 jobs in exchange for more favors but only “create” 300 not be held accountable? Why do you put your blinders on when it comes to those injustices?
Posted by John Foust on August 12, 2007 at 1234 hrsDan - Do you recognize that if you have health insurance, somewhere, someplace, someone will make decisions about what sort of health care you’ll get?
If I answer “yes, bring on the Gov decider” what does it mean? Does it mean you’ve scored a point? If I answer “no, bring on the private decider” what does it mean? In either case, my point is that there’s a decider - probably not a single bureaucrat in either case, so your question is far too simplistic. You might be denied surgery late in life by a computer model. You’ll need to struggle to find someone responsible within the black-box process of a private insurer. In either case, we can both certainly imagine nightmare scenarios. We can both certainly find real-world stories to show the tough decisions that were made by both public and private deciders. These decisions are a fact of life when it comes to insurance, public or private.
Fishaddict is more on-target than you are, and makes a point far more relevant to the Healthy Wisconsin debate. I’d hate to see health care decisions become politicized. Because the government is already elbow-deep in the health business, these decisions have already become politicized. Is there a way around that? How is it handled in the private market?
Because some folks love an eight-cell blastocyst more than they love an Iraqi civilian, they’ll prohibit playing with the cells and encourage the killing of the latter.
And Dan, when they get to the Pearly Gates, who will have a tougher time - Carter or either Bush? Can you name a President since Carter who’s been more of a failure than our current President?
Posted by John Foust on August 12, 2007 at 1559 hrsJohn, I am not playing gotcha. I just wanted to see if you and the others who want the socialized health care trust the government more or the private sector. This is just one of so many questions I have put forth that the believers refuse to answer.
Posted by on August 12, 2007 at 1741 hrs
As far as presidents, Bush SR. is a far worst president than his son.I don’t put my blinders on to those “injustices”, John and I challenge you to find where I have.
And Bush Sr. by a wide margin. The worst president of my lifetime, and probably of the last 75 years..
Posted by on August 12, 2007 at 2256 hrsThe big difference that no one seems to be actually talking about between private and gov’t is this: As the case in England demonstrated in a gov’t run system the thrid party (i.e gov’t) can actually stop you from getting healthcare - as in “Hey Doc if you give him that pill we’ll suspend your license.” But in the private ins. model the insurance company may say, “Hey Doc we ain’t paying for that pill” but the patient can still get the pill if they can pay for it or if the doctor has a bunch of samples or if they qualify for a charity care program or if their kids buy if for them etc.
That is the difference and it is a huge difference.
Posted by on August 13, 2007 at 1347 hrsWhat case are you referring to, Joe, that an English doctor was prevented from giving care to someone?
in my estimation the private system is much more frightening. The cases of bogus denials, abuse and wrongdoing in our system are a lot more prevalent here than elsewhere.
I spoke at length this past weekend with a British EMT. I asked him about health care in the UK and about NHS in particular. He positively glowed about it. “There IS a downside,” he confided. I wanted to know what it was. “Sometimes people have to wait for things.” Really? “Yeah. Like some folks might have to wait three months for a hip replacement.” Heh. I told him that such examples made me chuckle considering the millions of Americans who simply don’t get them at all.
I’ve invited him and his wife to come see Sicko with me next week. He’d never heard of it.
Posted by scott on August 13, 2007 at 1354 hrsIs there a country where it’s illegal to pay for extra health care, beyond what the government extends to everyone? Where private doctors are illegal? I don’t think Healthy Wisconsin includes that.
If anything, I’m sure any government-offered universal plan would be far more accepted by conservatives if it has provisions for people and companies to pay for higher levels of service. You want that $5/day pill our panel of doctors determined to be superfluous for your condition? You want the ocean-view room? Upgrade to the silver plan. If companies really want to save money on health care for their employees, let them downgrade.
Joe, where does the UK story quoted here suggest that a doctor will lose their license if they hand out a certain pill? They were only debating about what would be covered under their plan.
Posted by John Foust on August 13, 2007 at 1529 hrsScott and John—re-reading the post (#7) that mentioned the English case I am not sure what “it is okay for the gov’t to withhold medicine” means other than that the gov’t prevented the patient from being treated.
I also posted a few weeks ago, the last time we talk about universal healthcare around here about the guy in Spain who was sent home to die from the gov’t hsopital because he was too old and it was a waiste of resources to treat him. He came to Florida and paid for his treatments and lived. Another example of the gov’t preventing care. I heard this man tell his story on the radio - a month ago or so.
As for the license beign suspended I don’t know if that is happening or my text was meant as an example - not as a quote from a historical event.
In Canada it is illegal to pay for anything if it is on the gov’t menu, i.e. if the gov’t covers a hip replacement you cannot pay for one out of pocket. You have to take the gov’t provided care. There has been some litigation on this in the last few years but nothing has been total resolved at a national level. (I beleive the Quabec’s provincial court said the ban was violative of the province’s Charter but not the national Charter so I guess you can buy a hip in Quabec but not Onterio).
Posted by on August 13, 2007 at 1655 hrsTwo things have been bothering me about the national health care puzzle.
1) We’re the only industrialized country in the world that doesn’t have it (unless we get technical and note that Canada’s is provincial rather than national—I lived happily under Ontario’s, if not Quebec’s, plan for 8 years).
And
2) GM and WalMart now want a national health care program.
Hmmm, he said.
Posted by Mpeterson on August 13, 2007 at 2136 hrsWe’re also one of the most capitalistic countries in the world. We perfected the free market economy, so much so that it is an integral part of our government.
We also have a more litigious society than any other industrialized country in the world.
Its apples to oranges. American’s aren’t Europeans, and to work, vacation, or medicate us the same way is pretty far off the mark.
Now I don’t know the answer to the healthcare debate, but I can point out some problems:
Hospitals lack the ability to collect on medical expenses in many states. If you declare bankruptcy (at least in Texas) you’re free and clear after 7 years. $120,000 in medical bills? Just do the 7-year-free plan, and you’re good. Its easier than paying it off after all. No liens, no garnished wages, no repo man...no problem!
People sue doctors and hospitals like gangbusters. Any lawsuit prone industry costs more money. The Big Lie of the trial lawyer is that the money comes from rich people and doesn’t affect you. Businesses sigh and pass the buck along to their consumers.
Federal programs that mandate healthcare coverage hurt workers and employers. Benefits packages should be negotiable, and mandating them reduces the bargaining power on both ends.
These turned our healthcare system into a huge snare. How can we fix it? I don’t know—tossing the whole thing out and starting over doesn’t seem to be a viable option. I suspect a national healthcare system ain’t the answer, either.
Posted by k2aggie07 on August 13, 2007 at 2228 hrsGM and Wal-Mart want socialized medicine becuase companies like gov’t handouts the same as anyone else. GM’s single largest expense is its cost to provide healthcare to current employees and retirees. Their labor agreements allow for a modification of the plan in their is future “surgical or medical legislation.” In otherwords if we get national healthcare, GM no longer has to pay for the healthcare it agreed to provide to its employees and retirees.
I have not looked at why Wal-Mart likes the idea, but since several states have passed or tried to pass laws forcing Wal-Mart to increase wages enough to get its employees off state level medicaid type programs a national healthcare system would make that argument against them moot. Additionally, since healthcare is usually one of the main drivers behind efforts to unionize Wal-Mart may think that national healthcare is its ally against the service unions.
Posted by on August 14, 2007 at 0851 hrs
Ol' Army
