I finally did it... I sat down and watched Sicko. And I have to admit it was an excellent film, and Moore made a lot of good points. He has a real way of tugging on the old heart strings (he has a lot of blue-collar appeal). I think it is appalling, the condition our health care system is in, and I am shocked by some of the practices uncovered.

The only part of the movie I am against is the idea of socialized health care. As a Free Market Libertarian, and a believer in the teachings of Adam Smith, I have to say that I believe the free market stirs innovation, and quality of service. Speaking of someone who is a part of a socialized health care system (Tricare), I can tell you it has lots of problems.

I think health insurance should be purchased like car insurance, with rates that are regulated, and perhaps supplemented (only for the impoverished) by the government.

This way, someone who is young and healthy, who is most concerned with saving money (such as myself) could purchase a "bare-bones" plan that covers emergencies, and pay a minimal amount, but those with more needs or concerns (like people with children, or who are worried more about their health) could pay a little more for more extensive coverage.

The government could set regulations saying that all people had to be insured, and that an insurance company could not turn anyone away. And we could set a regulation saying what is and is not "necessary" medical treatment. Basically, you could set-up something to the effect of three doctors from three different systems being required to determine if a procedure was not necessary or not...

My primary concern with a socialized system has nothing to do with the dramatic imagery of socialism, but rather with the inevitable poor quality of anything run by the government. And also the fact that it will raise taxes (unless we take the funds from somewhere else, like maybe the illegal war).

I think of it this way... China (Socialist) and Japan (Free Market) both manufacture many goods. One makes them at a high quality and a reasonable price, and one makes crap.

The Soviet Union (Socialist) and the United States (Capatalist), same scenario... I have seen many Soviet products... They were all crap. They all looked like chintzy knock-offs of American products...

While your observations are on the mark i would challenge your conclusion that government involvement will inevitably be incompetent.

In denmark the healthcare system is simply unbelievable. And it is state controlled. I understand that there is a major difference in scale as denmark is so tiny, but it seems that government involvement doesn't have to be incompetent.

I am 100% for universal healthcare. This is an investment that a government can make that can ONLY LEAD TO A HEALTHIER POPULATION. And i assure you that Denmark is at the forefront of medical research AND it keeps its doctors and nurses REAL happy.

Besides health insurance choices are basically a gamble that can AT BEST save you some money or at worst kill you cuz you hadn't thought of insuring yourself against cancer of the noodle.

Anyhow your comparisons of China vs Japan and US vs USSR is a bit of an apple/orange comparison. Both China and the USSR are/were developing economies, whereas the US and Japan are the 1st and 2nd strongest economies on the planet.

I understand what you are saying, but I also believe that what i right for one nation, may not be right for another... Denmark may have a more competent government than the U.S. (not hard to do). Plus they are a smaller more homogenous population. I am not completely against the idea, god knows I would benefit from it, my mom needs better healthcare. I just want to see a realistic, well thought out plan before I jump on any band wagon.

Well it's the free market that has given us what we have today. A free market libertarian wouldn't push for any government intervention, and that's what you're doing. A free market libertarian would be somewhat happy with what we have today, only they would like to see the abolishment of state-run facilities, and the further complete privatization of the health industry.

That is, an industry who's ends aren't health but profit margins. It might give us the fanciest looking hospitals and x-ray equipment, but people are left without care, and some with care but devastating their lives due to having to own up to the financial needs of such care. Just the other day, a hospital close by here in Newark, Ohio had a 'grand opening' type-deal when they finished a new wing. They had fancy columns and an a huge flat-screen television that covered the entire wall that played that stupid fish-tank screensaver. All the while people were upstairs sick and unable to pay for their care.

There's a difference between quality of facilities/doctors and quality of care. We probably rank first in the former, but we're seriously seriously lacking in the latter.

I don't understand this sentiment. The point of insurance is that you don't know when you come down with a serious injury or sickness. It doesn't matter how young and fit you are, you can still loose a limb or get cancer. In which case you'll be completely boned. This is essentially what we have already, is it not?

Your first suggestion is exactly what insurance companies want. If you even paid attention to the film, you would know that the problem isn't necessarily uninsured people, but people who are insured that constantly get screwed by the system. If your plan were to follow through, people who would otherwise be without insurance wouldn't be covered by government assistance, but would be left vulnerable to the elements of the insurance system.

And basically, your regulation plan is essentially what we have already. Such a regulation plan is completely subjective. Who is to determine what surgeries are necessary? By what standards are surgeries determined to be "necessary"? And if you wish to continue the privatization of health care, such standards will inevitably return back to the cost-benefit analysis model we have today.

So, according to you, the fire department, post office, and library systems are horrible quality systems crippled by the evils of socialism?

According to your theory, we should privatize the fire department for 'higher quality'. I don't think we want fire stations to start making cost-benefit analysis's before they decide to go put out a fire. "Oh, we're sorry, you live too far," or "Oh, we're sorry, only electrical fires are covered in your plan." I mean it's simply outrageous!

Some things the free market is good at, like generating capital. But what free market libertarians have to understand, is that they're not good at everything. Especially when it comes down to people's lives and people's health. We see the free market's devastating effects constantly being played out in the direct harm and death of many people in the health industry, and now even in the military. The Bush administration follows the same doctrine; that privatization is the holy grail. What happens? War profiteering. Direct harm and negligence onto the health of our soldiers. Walter Reed.

The evidence shows directly opposite to what you are saying. When it comes to health, lives, and the military, privatization has a very negative effect on the quality of care. In fact, US health insurance companies pay as much as 30% on overhead and redtape. While on the other hand, the scary "socialized medicine" of Canada pays 1.7% on overhead, redtape, on bureaucracy. But wait, I thought government care was supposed to be filled with crippling red-tape that makes care go down the shitter along next to the rotting, smelly, Satanic facilities of Soviet Russia.

We find that it's the other way around.

Also I would like to point out that neither China nor the Soviet Union were socialist. China actually has a freer market than both Japan and the United States. It's how they're able to rise so quickly, but at the expense of the health, living conditions, and lives of the average Chinese worker. The effects of such are devastating. The gap there between the rich and the poor is growing faster than ever before. The rather lasseiz-faire free market has devastated the average Chinese, just like it devastated America during the gilded age. Which is ironic because lesseiz-faire is exactly what so-called free market libertarians advocate.

The Soviet Union wasn't socialist but strict authoritarian. Socialism and communism was only a propaganda means to control the people. Every authoritarian state has their propaganda means and usually it isn't exactly what it says it is. As a strict authoritarian state, they tried to control too much at once. However, even as the Soviet system, it provided Russia with a lot more quality than the free market. Comparing it with the United States is unfair. The United States had generations of development and competition among different powers before it could be considered among the greatest. Russia pulled itself out of some of the worst poverty in Czarist Russia to become one of the world's leading superpower in just under 30 years using the Soviet system.

So your comparison wasn't fair. You don't judge the entire capitalist system on the conditions of some developing countries in Africa or Latin America which have some of the worst conditions on the face of the planet (worse than even the dreaded "communist" states). Cuba, for example, although third world and crappy in quality in that regard, has one of the best health systems in all of Latin America; especially when compared to free market systems of countries of relatively the same size.

Kat, I am going to respond to you later. I don't really have much time now, and I want to give you my full attention when I respond. You make some good points that I would like to address and open for discussion.

I know you are passionate on this subject, and I have to admit I was a bit shocked at the uncharacteristic aggression I saw in your response. Perhaps I read it wrong, perhaps you were just a bit worked up.

I am not holding it against you, I simply think it's not conducive to a positive open discussion.

I will write a proper response later, I have class tonight so it my not be till tomorrow.

Sorry, tad. I guess I do get excited about issues like this, and any aggression that may be implicated in my posts are usually aggression toward ideas and not toward other people; especially not toward anyone specific. Plus it's hard to convey tone over the internet, so please bare with me and know that anything that looks like aggression in my posts certainly isn't directed to you!

Hear hear, Gary. Though I disagree with you that the UK is 'heavily socialist'.

Couldn't we have some sort of universal health care PLUS open-market, private health care for those who can afford it and wish to "shop around"?

Why does it have to be all one way or the other.


I say that because I think many people who argue "don't you want to have a choice?" just don't get how broke many of us are.

Saying, "our system allows you to shop for health care" is like taking somebody who lives at or below the poverty line to the street where the Lexus, Mecredes and Cadillac dealers are all next to each other and saying, "look, you have a CHOICE.. pick the one you want!"

Ummmm....


I've lived without health insurance for over three years now. It's just this simple: With all my other bills I CAN'T AFFORD the premiums for private insurance or the deductions from my payroll for company insurance. Not if I want to keep a roof over my head and eat.

Many of us are in the same boat.

At this point, I don't care if "goverment health care" would be the crappiest on earth. Just knowing SOMETHING was there in case I need it would really ease my mind.

We need a change.