Raoul Duke said:
Guess what? On a lot of matters and issues, there aren't two sides to the story. Well, ok, there are, but one is the correct and the other is the incorrect side. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it- health care should be something garaunteed to all citizens as a right, not something to make money off of and gouge as deep as possible. There's no objective way to look at that- that's just the way it is. And yes, that means socialized medicine. Oh fucking well. It's a far better and preferrable system than the kleptocracy that we have in America currently.
I
entirely disagree.
For my stance on health care, see
this thread (my posts start at post #64), and
this thread (post #18 onward). Normally I'd just type it out again, but it's a lot of writing. Some of my posts in the second linked thread also address some of the reasons for our exorbitant health care expenditures as a nation.
In addition to what I stated in those threads, socialized medicine (and even the prevalent "third party payor" system we have currently with private insurance companies) comes loaded with several ethical pitfalls. For an examination of some of these see these analyses:
#1
#2 (particularly the latter third of the article)
#3
#4
#5
Many of these ethical dilemmas are already playing themselves out around the country; I'm sure you know of people who have been denied treatment because their insurer (be it private or the gov't, through medicare/caid) wouldn't pay for it, even for something as drastic as cancer. Even for something as seemingly trivial as flu or pneumonia shots, do you realize that private practice physicians actually
lose money with each shot they give to patients, because the insurance companies reimburse
not even the actual cost of the shots to the physician? Consequently, some physicians (like my mother's) have started charging modest fees for each shot given in order to cover costs. You think that this year's "flu shot" shortage has nothing to do with the lack of profitability of producing them (some due to the fact that "insurance" and/or the gov't doesn't pay enough to cover costs of production, and some due to incessant lawsuits against manufacturers)? Think again. Those articles explain many of the other pitfalls of undermining the physician-patient relationship as well. I don't entirely agree with every conclusion in all of those articles (if you want my own opinion on how things should be handled, read my posts in the threads I linked to), but they do raise many valid points. If you do some digging around for analyses/citizen commentary regarding socialized medicine as practiced in various nations, you'll begin to see that, along with the very real ethical problems inherent in such systems, there are practical concerns that are increasingly coming to the fore as well-- most notably the issue of sustainability along with rationing of care and the implicit (and morally questionable) assumptions made in the delivery of managed care. It's not nearly as black-and-white as you're making it out to be is all I'm saying.
Further, there are several issues which neither my posts in the linked threads nor the commentaries I linked to address: most prominently, the issues of societal overconsumption of medical resources (some of which is provider-driven, e.g., defensive medicine; some of which is consumer driven, which is largely the result of being insulated from the costs of medical care), the very morality/practicability of collectivization of healthcare costs in an excessively self-indulgent society (the nature of which is unlikely to change anytime soon; why should I have to pay for another's iron lung that was necessary due to a lifetime of ignoring the risks and consequences of their own actions? Ditto for the
avoidably obese, the drug-addicted etc.; more emphasis needs to be placed on preventative care and social programs imo-- particularly in lower-class communities, where such vices are disproportionately represented among the populace), and the proper role and function of the government
in general in a healthy (read: functional) society.
I dunno about you, but personally, I was raised to not expect others to have to suffer the consequences, however, distant, of my actions. You know what? I used to drink a shitload of soda; if I ever got type 2 diabetes, however, I would
not expect the rest of society to subsidize my care for it. I'm not just saying that because it hasn't happened yet, either-- it's honestly my personal belief.
Are there cases where socially subsidized care of some sort is morally permissable/preferable? Of course-- unexpected/multifactorial illnesses and injuries for one. Cancer, say, or car accidents-- only if the person cannot afford to pay
within reason (see my linked threads for clarification), however. I'm far from "inhumane" for believing that people should be made to pay, within reason based upon their income, for their medical care, and I resent people implying that anyone who doesn't fully buy into the rhetoric of socialized medicine is some sort of demon, or hasn't considered the issues. News flash: I've examined
all of the issues
far more closely than most of the "WE NEED FREE HEALTH CARE DOODZ!!!1" crowd has, and those issues are much more far-reaching and subtle than the factors and issues that socialized medicine proponents usually examine or tout in their talking points.
Do we have a health care problem in this country? Obviously. Should we endeavor to fix it? Yes, clearly it's incumbent upon us as a society to do so. However, I feel that honest analyses of the entire situation are incredibly hard to come by, and instead we're treated to biased (and ill-informed) diatribes from lefists like Hillary Clinton about how health care is a "right" (which it is
not; see the linked threads) and how government intervention is the answer (medicare/caid
already accounts for over 40% of the health care dollars spent in the country, yet people want
more gov't intrusion-- excuse me, "help"), and equally biased diatribes from dumbfuck free market conservatives about how there "is no problem" of access to care and how certain aspects of the industry should not be reined in (read: insurance and pharmaceutical co's). For what it's worth, I feel that my stance is moderate in that regard, in that I believe in the efficacy of free market mechanisms
to a reasonable degree (thus my guiding principle is sensibility, not staunch devotion to laissez-faire economic principles), yet realize that there are circumstances where it must be circumvented if we are to remain a humane, compassionate society. My points in the other thread about subsidizing the care of those who
truly cannot afford to pay for their own care (and subsidizing the care for all people after a pre-set cash deductible is reached each year) is an expression of that personal ethic. I do not believe in a fully "sink or swim" medical environment (i.e., pay or get the hell out), but neither do I believe in a fully third-party subisidized one for the reasons stated herein, in the linked commentaries, and in my posts in the other threads.
Lastly (for this post at least), ask yourself whether the United States government-- an entity that has gone over-budget and been ineffective in controlling costs
in every other sector and for
every other venture (e.g., welfare, soc sec, medicare/caid, to say nothing of the federal budget in general)-- is
really the one you want running a nationalized health care system. They are
the most bungling, incompetent, wasteful bureaucrats in existence. People always talk about "controlling health care costs", and-- to say nothing of the fact that few of them examine precisely
why costs are so high-- they inexplicably point to gov't control as the answer (as do you); yet
when in history has our government
ever "controlled costs" or run things more efficiently than private enterprises have? The answer is, "never". Does that mean that I favor the abolishment of welare programs or SS? Obviously not-- all I'm saying is that we should be content with the current extent of government involvement in our lives and not seek to irrationally enlarge its sphere, particularly into realms where it would be entirely ineffectual. Health care is too important (in terms of people's lives) to be taking those chances with. The entire third-party payor system is broken imo for various reasons; what you have to realize is that a third party (be it gov't or a private insurance co.) is just another mouth to feed with dollars, and, further, they impose ludicrous costs on the system (as noted in my linked threads, the largest driver of healthcare costs over the past 10-12 years has been the 500%+ increase in administrative costs-- what do you think those "administrators" and bureaucrats do, hmm?). I just don't think that it's a tenable stance to hold, really...
For what it's worth, my views on "big pharma" (since I view them as entirely distinct from doctors, nurses, and hospitals) can be seen
here,
here, and
here. Personally, my thinking regarding pharmaceutical companies lately (speaking just of the financial aspects-- there are numerous other shady issues such as the patent renewal/granting process, DTC advertising etc.) is that their books should be made entirely transparent to some government entity (I only say "government" because I doubt they'd concede to opening their books to some public agency if that information could then get out to their competitors), and the costs should be borne by various nations based on their consumption patterns (which is not the case presently, where countries w/socialized systems impose strict price controls on their drug purchases; the US citizen then ends up subsidizing other nations' drug costs, believe it or not, which is one of the reasons for our extraordinarily high drug prices in the US). So if, say, Canada consumes 10% of the world's quantity of "drug A" each year, they should be made to pay 10% of the operating costs, which would include all the costs associated with developing, marketing (again, ignoring the issue of DTC marketing, which must be curtailed imo), and distributing their products, including a yearly profit margin in line with other top Fortune 500 companies (perhaps a bit higher, but not the "17% vs. 4%" margin difference we have now). There simply is no other equitable way to do things imo. If paying a bit more for drugs than they currently do means that some of these socialized "utopias" will have to start developing their own, more cost-effective, drugs, then great-- more competition is good for everyone, and would ultimately lower prices across the board. I just can't see the current system, where the US citizen subsidizes the drug costs of the rest of the world, continuing.
Yes, many of the business practices of big pharm are evil and corrupt, but I feel that you have to ensure at least a certain profitability (again, in line with the other top F500 co's, but not thrice as much, like we have now) in order to perpetuate the business and pay the employees a competitive wage as well. Just like I can't see physicians making $80K per year like they do in Canada, I can't see Ph.D educated biochemists, physicians, research scientists and pharmacists employed by pharm companies doing what is, quite possibly, some of the most difficult and important work in the world, making $45K per year all in the name of "keeping costs down". That's not justice either, the same way that our current 500% markup for drugs over their cost in other nations is not justice. Like so many of my views on the health care field (and on life in general), I feel that there is a moderate middle-ground to be reached that will be of benefit to all involved parties-- perhaps not AS great a benefit as the current system is to some of those parties now (read: pharmaceutical co's), but it will still certainly be lucrative for them, and better for buyers in ALL nations, not just the ones who impose artificial (unreasonable) price controls. If a drug costs $160 in the US for a month's supply, but $25 in Canada or Sweden for that same amount made by that same US company, then I feel that the price should either be ~$60 across the board, or it should be based proportionally on consumption patterns-- either way, these other nations will end up having to pay more than they currently do, and that's only sensible. I haven't given this particular issue (re: pricing and how drug costs should be borne) as much thought as I'd like, however.
My $.02
My problem with Moore is the selectiveness that he has and how 'fair and balanced' his movies are.
