Well worth a look for those following the Universal Health Care debate in the U.S.
Michael Moore and Oprah Ask Audience: Why Should US Health Care Be for Profit?
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/63935/
As one living in a country with Universal Health Care, I find some of the soul searching questions being asked about Americans' attitude to Government to be quite illuminating. It will be interesting to observe the fight unfolding between the good of corporate America v the public good. Democrat politicians accepting corporate Health Fund donations, who are also appealing for the votes of the masses, will be walking quite a tightrope. I think this could be the defining issue in the U.S. elections. And maybe a defining moment in U.S. values.
Comments
The issue with Americans and government is fairly simple. We all hate authority. No matter where one stands in the political spectrum as an American, one has a deep seated distrust of government.
The philosophy behind this is that anything outside of a private/market solution is inefficient. What we fail to see are a few things: (1) the problem with communism is that a 100% centrally planned and controlled economy does not adapt quickly (eg. USSR), (2) the problem with 100% deregulated markets is that they have no structure and are thus horribly inefficient (eg. joint stock market pre-SEC).
I don't think this Health Care debate will enlighten any American as to economic realities. Misunderstanding the "free market" is our unofficial state religion. So we will wallow in the broken status quo, and struggle on to make do with what we can.
What else can you do in a society so full of fear and distrust of itself?
"We the People..."? Right....
It does seem odd that health care can't be entrusted to governments but that national security can.
And in response to your appeal for a rational assessment by Americans of public health care in other countries, I think the answer is also simple. Americans are arrogant. This is I believe why there is a huge resentment of Europe within the United States - and the frequent outcry of "nanny state" whenever European policy is mentioned. No American is going to look at any system in another country and consider adopting it, especially not a system initiated or maintained by the government.
Again, the religion of the absolutely free market is a strong one in the states, and public health care within that mindset is a blasphemy.
I was rather surprised by Michael Moore's comment that half the bankruptcies in the U.S. are caused by Health Care debts. Given the publicity generated by "Sicko" and Saint Oprah taking up the cause, I do think there is fertile ground for some aspiring politician presenting an affordable health care plan. But maybe entrenched attitudes are as impossible to shift as you say.
I'll watch the unfolding story with interest. I have noticed some stirrings here on Vox.
The problem is that the conservatives will see any attempt to borrow from a foreign system as highly suspect of a communist plot, while the liberals will be so much in favor of anything vaguely resembling public health care that they will not assess the system critically as long as it superficially resembles what they want. Between these two main camps of American political ignorance, any compromise is highly unlikely to be anything better than the f**ked up system that we presently have.
I am nervous of these potential changes. Let me tell my story so that you have an idea what is going on. I am extremely conservative with money, and am thus far from the typical "buy it on credit" American. I am the sole provider for my family, and I make median income in the US, but within my region I make between 1/2 and 2/3 of median income. Most of my income goes to the basics. A small bit goes to entertainment/vacation etc... (less than 1% of my income). We cook food from scratch, don't eat out. I ride a bike or take transit instead of drive a car etc.... The rest of my income I save and invest in case of disaster. 10% of my income presently goes to healthcare at a fairly progressive HMO (Kaiser) and we are completely covered. Anything we need costs $20, period. This is actually a fairly good system. Unfortunately rates are increasing and on top of that we are about to have our first child. This means at my present level of coverage that the cost of health care will increase to 20% of my income. I can not afford that. So we have opted for a $1500 deductible as part of our coverage. This means that for each family member's medical coverage I pay $1500 of any incurred costs. So I need to set aside $4500 a year (for the three of us) in addition to the monthly payments for the insurance which will now come in at 5% of my income. Fortunately I have the savings to create an investment account to cover our deductible, and hopefully in the long run save money by maintaining good health. Fortunately because I have these savings we can effectively maintain full coverage without any major sacrifices (although I had other plans for that money). But this now means that we are in a brittle situation. If there are any major changes such as national health care reform, my savings and investments could be absorbed by some nationally mandated insurance that costs more than what I presently have.
I am far from alone in this worry. Families that make twice what I do are in a similar boat. Those families however are hoping to be home owners - or have likely recently committed to a difficult mortgage. What happens to them if health care costs increase due to reform?
Again I do not trust the Democrats to propose a truly progressive health care policy. They almost assuredly will not. Dennis Kucinich explains that quite simply. And of course the Republicans are unlikely to ever do anything in the best interests of the public. So what do we do as Americans?
Apart from push local political change (which is quite successful actually) and hoping that eventually corruption in US politics is eroded by this process - I just hang on to what I have and do the best I can. That is truly all Americans can do.
I can see why Americans would prefer the devil they know to the devil they don't know, but those Health care premiums you quote are astronomical by comparison to what is paid via taxation here. (1 1/2%) Again this expat makes a comparison here and here.
From what I saw in "Sicko" even those who have full health insurance cover were not immune to bankruptcy if an insurance company decides to ditch them for whatever reason. If this is true then that must be a source of concern for even those who do have health cover. I also have to wonder if the lack of health cover has any influence on the crime rate. People do desperate things when their survival is threatened.
I do not think ill considered change is anyone's interest. I think for any change to be seriously considered, a political party has to present a fully costed policy. I have no illusions as to the resistance by vested interests to this, or the dangers of politicians offering quick fix solutions.
I think American voters need to educate themselves on alternative systems around the world, and then decide if they are prepared to accept the present system, or whether they want change. If so, then work for it. A big ask, I know.
So anyway, Snowy, all I wanted to do here was explain to you the American mindset, and what the pitfalls are with the health system proposed by the leading Democrats. I am very much behind the idea of public health care, but no one with political clout is proposing that as a solution. Some city governments however are, and I suspect that these will be better systems than anything our pathetic federal gov't brings to the table.
Given how oblivious to real issues the two major parties are, I don't believe there is anything the public can do to enact positive change through them. The two parties are just too corrupt. Until there is serious voter reform in this country, a plurality of parties, and reforms which severely limit the power of lobbyists - we are better off with a status quo gov't than we are with an activist one.
Look at it this way, the rising dark horse Republican candidate is a former lobbyist. A lobbyist running for president because he is seen as an outsider, and a no nonsense kind of guy that will shake up Washington. If that does not illustrate the crisis of our federal political system to you, I don't think anything will. This guy will cause much more damage than Bush or Clinton had - by far. Corruption runs deep here in the states. It is so pathological that supposedly hard nosed conservatives don't see it.
I know this seems all over the map, but I just want to impress upon you given the state of American politics how hopeless it is to try to publicize healthcare.
I hear what you're saying about entrenched vested interests calling the shots in the U.S. and the massive obstacles to be overcome if a Universal Health Care system is to be introduced. All I can do is wish you luck.
Thanks for your comment, Henesua. It was most illuminating.
I feel that we should take in more refugees in this country, but it does irritate me when people seeking refuge turn out to be doctors, teachers, and young men.
I feel that these are the sort of people that have the education, skills, and 'strength of arm' to make a real difference in their home countries.
I really appreciate the time you've taken to write down your point of view.
I find it hard to believe that increased public moneys would hurt medical research. If anything it would drastically improve it. Sure we might see less effort put into luxury medicine like plastic surgery and erection medication in exchange for improved medicines for the masses, but isn't that a bonus? The problem with Private medical research is that its aims are more for profit than for public health. Public research institutions on the other hand typically allow more freedom of scientific inquiry than the Private sector.
One danger does remain however with public strings attached to money. Religious groups often try to interfere with science and lately they have become very bold in their attempts to blur the line of church and state. As long as religious values are never codified as law, I don't think we will have any problem.
Henesua, I understand where your coming from also, but i disagree. If that were true then why are so many countries with a national health care system trailing behind the US on medical research and discovery?
Also, look at our governments past legislation history on medical issues, seldom are they for the benefit of Americans, more often then not they have been for the benefit of cost cutting on the government level. Also look at our current government run systems, they are a mess. If anything our current government run health care programs should show us a purely public system will not work. We will have the same problems within a nation wide public system that we have now with medicaid and medicare.
Re-word your comment to fringe religious groups and i might agree, but the reality is over 78% of this country believes in Christianity, while only 10% believe in no religion at all. Only a very few of the religious majority are like the ones you speak of or there wouldnt be any issues of seperation of church and state, because whether we like it or not the majority rules, and since the majority is christian, if we all believed the same, church and state would be a long gone forgotten thing of the past. I am curious though, what specifically are you talking about when you speak of blurring lines? (if snowy doesnt mind the conversation going slightly off topic)
Not at all, Robin. I'm enjoying the discussion.
I think a public v private health care discussion is always going to be counter productive as both sides retreat into pre-conceived notions of the evils of either system. A mixed public/private system can and does deliver the best of both worlds. A discussion on the positives of both systems would be more productive I think, with a view towards moving towards a mixed system. The fact remains that a mixed public/private system of Universal Health Care is available in many countries, and any government that attempted to move to a privatised U.S. type Health Care system would be defeated in a landslide at the next poll. The suggestion that 20% of one's income should go to a private Health Fund would just be completely unacceptable. As would the thought that a Health Fund has to be consulted before a doctor can prescribe treatment.
What a great discussion, and everyone is being so polite :-)
I don’t know if I agree with the statement about the U.S. being ‘far in advance of other countries’ as far as medical advancement goes.
The Brits are ‘far in advance’ in the field of genetic engineering (and they have an amazing public health system.)
German companies own most of the drug patents. Interestingly, if the religious motivated lobbing succeeds in retarding genetic research, I feel that the U.S. will fall far behind other countries. And strangely enough, Oz is leading in the field of bionic hearing and an ‘almost useful’ flu cure.
The biggest particle accelerator in the world is being built in Europe, and the Russians have developed better rocket motors (whoops I’ve found myself off topic.)
As for huge advances, the U.S. is leaping ahead in the field of mechanical limb replacement, but you can guess what is driving that particular field of endeavour to new heights (and most of that funding is government money.)
I love the comment about research money being directed towards cosmetic surgery and Viagra. I’m totally on board with this comment. Throw in behaviour modifying drugs, and we have some pretty poor excuses for medical research.
Eighteen of the last 25 winners of the Nobel Prize in Medicine are U.S. citizens or work here. U.S. companies have developed half of all the major new medicines introduced worldwide during the past 20 years. Americans played a key role in 80 percent of the most important medical advances of the past 30 years. We also outperform many other countries when it comes to the outcome of diseases like cancer and heart disease. We also provide more support networks for people facing life threatening and altering health issues then any other country.
Nearly every single country that is considered tops in healthcare has a private/public system with the exception of the US. France has the highest over-all rating and its system is also a mix of public and private. You mention Germany (which if the US mimicked a system, Germanys would be my pick) it also has a mixed public and private system.
I stand behind my first assessment that a purely public system will hurt medical advancement in the US, not just the US but also in every single country that benefits from the advancements made here.
I still disagree that a purely public system would hurt research, but I think both of us are really just going on belief. Neither have stated conclusive evidence that support either an all public or all private stance. Due to this, I also lean most favorably to a public-private system that follows successful models abroad.
With regards to blurring the lines between church and state:
I disagree that any religious morality should ever be codified as law unless it is common to all religions. And yet religious morality heavily influences our law to the point where laws are even created or repealed to appease religious groups. I believe that the federal system should have strict controls on this happening at any level of any public institution.
some examples:
Non-science should never be taught as science in any public school. (Creationism is not science by any stretch of the definition)
That there need to be abortion laws for a woman's right to choose is again due to religious agenda. This is a basic freedom that one would think is covered by our constitution, but there is obviously disagreement that I see as wholly tenuous and specious arguments originating from a religious viewpoint.
Federal always on marriage between men and women. Again pushed by religious agenda. Why is this even a federal issue?
There are a long list of these things. I've hit the three big ones often discussed today in the blogosphere.
I do not care what religion is practiced by the majority of Americans. We do not live in a theocracy. Religious law should never be part of our secular system. And the moment arguments are raised on Religious grounds the gov't should only be concerned with one thing - whether the gov't is impinging upon religious freedom. If it is something should be looked at. If not, the conversation is over.
Religion is private in this country and should stay so indefinitely. There is no problem with expressing religion in public spaces, but to press your religious beliefs on others or demand changes in society to meet your religious values are and always should be unacceptable.
And Amen to that, Henesua.
What laws specifically are you talking about?
Once again you are talking about fringe groups. I dont believe in creationism being taught as a science, and most other religious people i know dont either. Its a fringe part of the science community pushing that ideal not regular every day religious people. If you want to lay the blame for that issue on someone then lay it on the scientific communities shoulders for years they still persist in calling evolution a theory which science has proven that the majority of the evolution theory is a fact, i believe the only thing questionable about the theory if i remember right is where or when evolution began and that part is the only part thats actually controversial. If the science community would call evolution itself a fact and then label the beginnings a theory it would stop a lot of the misunderstandings about evolution that are causing so many people to not really understand whats at stake in the evolution vs. creationism argument.
On a side note, most religious people I know believe in both evolution and creationism, but most of them also believe in a firm line in science so if its not science by todays scientific standards then it doesnt belong in the classroom.
No its not, its a basic belief in where life begins. You can be completely non-religious and still not believe in abortion. The issue of abortion is because people view where life begins differently, and taking a life to any decent person, is wrong no matter what your religion is or isnt.
For instance my husband is an atheist, he believes there isnt life until after the 3rd month of pregnancy. My own belief is life begins 72 hours after conception, so anything terminating a pregnancy after that time to me is taking a life.
Woman have the complete freedom to choose to have sex, they have the complete freedom to take preventative measures to keep from getting pregnant. Our constitution does not guarantee them the right to terminate life. Once again the issue goes back to where life begins and since that isnt in our bill of rights, it will always be a controversial issue with our without religion involved. Also if the abortion issue just ended with adult woman some of the pro-lifers would compromise, but it doesnt, there are already laws regarding abortion and our children in certain states. If an adult woman wants an abortion, she has to live with it, but when the state makes a law where my minor daughter can secretly get an abortion without my knowledge, they are crossing lines in more ways then one.
Once again, i disagree, I agree most religious groups do not believe in homosexual marriage and want laws past to prevent it, the problem is its not just religious groups its also people who have no religious affiliation. To some people homosexuality is unnatural period and its got nothing to do with religion and everything to do with their sense of whats normal and abnormal. There are many religious people out there who have no problems with homosexual marriage but our media today doesnt think that is newsworthy. There are churches run by homosexual priests, ministers, preachers, ect.. but you dont hear the media talk about them either.
You shouldnt care, but that wasnt my point, my point was if the majority of the religious were like you viewed them this country would be a theocracy and those that were non-religious wouldnt be able to do a thing about it because of the sheer numbers. There are many different views in the religious realm, what you see in the blogosphere is only a very narrow percentage of the religious community.
I and most religious people i know do not believe there should be laws in favor of or against any religion. In other words, dont deny my child the right to pray in school, and i wont try to force your child to participate in prayer. Many of us believe in a very firm line between church and state. We also see anything blurring those lines as a threat not only to our country, but also to our own beliefs.
Just like there are some religious groups who would force their beliefs on others, there are also non-religious who would force their beliefs on the religious. Its a two way street. I know that most of the non-religious people i know are not trying to deny me the right to practice my beliefs no matter what the tv says and what ive seen on the net, why cant you be willing to at least consider that most religious people are not trying to deny you your rights or force their beliefs on you?
Also liberals often demand change in the government to suit their agenda, conservatives do the same, so why is it so wrong when the religious do the same thing? Not saying that any of them are right in doing so, but it happens, so what is the difference?
I think that the main reason people have a prob with religion dictating laws, is that on the whole I think that these days we expect laws to be made to protect us. Or to make things a bit fairer, or to make society run a little smoother.
I find racist, or religious, or fascist government’s quite offensive as they make rules to suit how they ‘feel’ about life.
My only concern is when a religious group attempts to reform government. I otherwise have no problem with religion at all. Perhaps because I take such a strong stand on separation of church and state (as I believe most on the left do), you took me to be anti-religion?
I dunno. But again like I said before, I don't care about any religion one way or another until groups within the religion (usually fringe folks these days, i agree) practice religious politics.
We can discuss the abortion issue another time. I obviously strongly disagree with you, but I'd rather have that discussion in a thread dedicated to the topic.
Sorry I've been away.. this is a good discussion... but I'm swamped.