I saw Michael Moore's latest documentary SiCKO today. It's a powerful, powerful film. I had no illusions about the U.S. health system is before seeing the movie but even so I left the theater disgusted and full of rage about how our country treats its sick and elderly (particularly the poor sick and elderly).
I'm not going to spoil the movie for you but if you've seen the trailer or heard anything about it you know it revolves around the U.S.'s desperate need for free health care. This is the only country in Western Civilization that charges its citizens enormous sums of money when they are ill. It makes no sense at all.
Here are some stories brought up in the movie (again, no huge spoilers here but if you don't one bit of the film revealed to you its best to skip the rest of the post):
-In this country insurance companies give employees bonuses for denying claims to patients. The recommended denial rate is 10%. In England doctors are given bonuses if they lower their patients heart rate and help them quite smoking.
-A baby girl in Los Angeles was denied care at a hospital after her mother had discovered the child's fever. They were told they had to go to a different hospital that their insurance company covered. The child died before getting to the other hospital.
-Volunteers from 911 are being denied health care for their various respiratory problems caused my inhaling the fumes at Ground Zero. They aren't employed by the city so therefore they get no care even though they are heroes in many people's eyes. The prisoners in Guantanamo Bay who are portrayed to us as 'evil-doers' are given round-the-clock health care including preventative care.
How is this defensible? On any level how can you say that denying a baby health care is okay? You like Bush and like the war, fine. You think guns are cool, okay. But health care affects everybody, it is too personal of a problem to make excuses for.
This is an important movie. Please see it. Things need to change.
SiCKO
About this entry
Youre currently reading SiCKO.
- Published:
- at 6:54 PM on Thursday, July 12, 2007
- Previous:
- Older Post
- Next:
- Newer Post
-
2:50 AM
Michael Moore?
Be patient, will will have universal care, it's only a matter of time. But keep in mind, it will be run by the same people who run the license branches, FEMA (remember Katrina), CIA, FBI and all those other fantastic government run operations.
While the idea may sound appealing the results aren't. According to an article I found on cbsnews.com
"A letter from the Moncton Hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient in need of an electrocardiogram said the appointment would be in three months. It added: "If the person named on this computer-generated letter is deceased, please accept our sincere apologies."
"Meanwhile, the average wait for surgical or specialist treatment is nearly 18 weeks, up from 9.3 weeks in 1993, according to the Fraser Institute, a right-wing public policy think tank in Vancouver. A Fraser study last year said the average wait for an orthopedic surgeon was more than nine months."
In Canada and in the system proposed by our next President, Hillary Clinton, it is illegal to take your own money to pay for medical treatment. Where do I sign up?
I agree we have problems, but socialized medicine is not the answer and when you see how FEMA handles Katrina how could you want the same people to take over your hospitals.
On a personal note, my Mother found out on Tuesday that she has breast cancer. Early next week she will have surgery. All of her treatment will be paid for by Medicare. She has no deductible, no co-pays, no waiting, at one of the best privately run hospitals in Indianapolis. For all of our problems, that to me sounds like a pretty good system. -
7:14 AM
"According to Statistics Canada, the official government statistical agency, "In 2005, the median waiting time was about 4 weeks for specialist visits, 4 weeks for non-emergency surgery, and 3 weeks for diagnostic tests. Nationally, median waiting times remained stable between 2003 and 2005 - but there were some differences at the provincial level for selected specialized services.… 70 to 80 percent of Canadians find their waiting times acceptable" "Access to health care services in Canada, Waiting times for specialized services (January to December 2005)," Statistics Canada," http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/82-575-XIE/82-575-
XIE2006002.htm
Add this to the fact that Canadians live longer than Americans and it doesn't seem like a bad idea.
I don't know why you say the people who run FEMA would run our Health Care system. I don't remember saying that and Moore never said that either. Socialized doesn't mean government-appointed. Why not run the health care system like we run our fire departments?
Our next president Hillary Clinton? Huh? Hillary has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from drug lobbyists and insurance companies. Any good liberal will tell you that.
And sorry to hear about your mother, best of luck with surgery.
It sounds like the system is working quite well for you. Its worked quite well for me so far as well. But I think we can both agree not everyone has our experiences, especially those who are too poor to afford decent health care. - 7:26 AM
-
7:47 AM
Thanks for your best wishes for my mother. She is a strong lady and will beat it.
I didn't mean it would be the exact same people running the health care and FEMA. The point is it will be the same incompetent, non-caring type individuals who work at FEMA. Those types seem to flock to government jobs. Most truly motivated people, work in private enterprise, not the government.
Does "4 weeks for specialist visits" and "4 weeks for non-emergency surgery, and 3 weeks for diagnostic tests", sound appealing to you? It doesn't me. Doesn't sound like an improvement either.
"Add this to the fact that Canadians live longer than Americans". Maybe that's because they get off of their lazy butts and exercise and nothing to do with their health care.
"people are dying because their insurance company refuses to pay for health treatment" Besides quoting from Michael Moore's "documentary" and a few isolated incidents, show me where in America this happens. We treat illegal aliens with no id, no paper, no insurance, nothing. We don't have people dying in the street because of lack of insurance. -
9:00 AM
According to the Institute of Medicine, "lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States. Although America leads the world in spending on health care, it is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage." Insuring America's Health: Principles and Recommendations, Institute of Medicine, January 2004.
http://www.iom.edu/?id=19175
18,000 good enough for you? Or does it take people "dying in the streets" for this to be a problem?
For me, one little girl dying because she was denied care is enough. Its easy to sit back and say "I don't care about other folk's health care problem because I'm covered." Until it happens to you or someone you love.
And we're just talking about death here, not the hundreds of thousands living in illness and pain because their insurance company won't cover medicine or treatments.
As far as waiting three weeks for health care you are absolutely correct, it does not sound appealing to me. TOO BAD THAT IS MY SITUATION RIGHT NOW! We have an HMO and for me to see a specialist I have to first visit my PCP then get a referral to see the specialist which typically takes 2 weeks, once I get the referral I have to schedule the appointment. And then the specialist has a full calendar so they can't see you for a week or so either. And that's just to see the specialist. I fear for non-emergency surgery I'd have to wait even longer than they do in Canada here in the good ol' US.
And my wife is a public school teacher, good benefits right?
So to be more succinct, if I'm going to have to wait anyway I'd much rather the care be free and available to everyone. -
9:29 AM
I'm really not going to add much because as we have seen in the past, I tend to fall more on the same side of the fence as my dad so I'll let him continue to argue our side (until he says something that I completely disagree with).
That being said...
I saw two things from your last comment Lyman. The first is the "For me, one little girl dying because she was denied care is enough." That seems nearly identical to something you had said during the gun control discussion. While I don't want to see anyone die unnecessarily either, yours is an emotional response to the situation and not necessarily a logical response. Having government run by emotion is a bad way to go about it. Would you agree that the war in Iraq was due to an emotional response from our government (and its people)? And you disagree with how that has turned out, correct? Unchecked emotion doesn't belong in government.
The second is the comment, "I'd much rather the care be free and available to everyone." Do you really think it would be free to everyone? A universal health care program that is going to cover everyone in the country is going to happen without someone having to pay? We will all pay. Our taxes will be increased to allow for the health care to be "free". And probably by a disproportional amount for the rich who can "afford it more" (by rich, I'm really talking about the middle to upper middle class and not necessarily the uber-rich who probably truly could afford it.)
I agree with my dad that it is a matter of time before it happens, but I don't everyone will be as happy with it once it is here as they hope it will. -
9:35 AM
All I am asking is for you to give me evidence, and not from Michael Moore, that proves health care provided "free" by the government, to every living person in the country, will make the system better. It may be "free" and it may be available (both I would argue are available today, my mother being an example) but it won't be better. You will also have long waiting periods, rationed care, and high taxes to pay for it. Are we not burdening your children and my grandchildren with enough "free" social services without adding another that won't improve the system.
Another example of the health care system you are asking for is health care provided to our military personnel. I seem to remember many stories recently about how bad veterns hospitals are.
"Behind the door of Army Spec. Jeremy Duncan's room, part of the wall is torn and hangs in the air, weighted down with black mold. When the wounded combat engineer stands in his shower and looks up, he can see the bathtub on the floor above through a rotted hole. The entire building, constructed between the world wars, often smells like greasy carry-out. Signs of neglect are everywhere: mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, cheap mattresses.
This is the world of Building 18, not the kind of place where Duncan expected to recover when he was evacuated to Walter Reed Army Medical Center from Iraq last February with a broken neck and a shredded left ear, nearly dead from blood loss. But the old lodge, just outside the gates of the hospital and five miles up the road from the White House, has housed hundreds of maimed soldiers recuperating from injuries suffered in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
If you are interested in the rest of the story see the Washington Post.
Doesn't sound like any private health care I am familiar with. If you want a system like that, at least give me the option to opt out. -
9:40 AM
Amen, Lyman.
There's no defense for the capitalization of medicine; none at all. Just because it hasn't been implemented to the standards we'd hold doesn't make it an impossible endeavor. For the record, I was raised using socialized medical services as a dependent of the United States Air Force. I'm just sayin... we have a reasonable working model in place right here...
Finally, not to drag out the sympathy vote with my poor dead sister but there is absolutely no doubt that she'd have had better, more timely care with insurance of any kind. The suffering she endured for her family's poverty is unthinkable. Were it not for a family of nurses, attorneys and epidemiologists her experience would have even been worse --- you should see the letter of appeal that Tracy wrote when Beth's second bone marrow transplant was denied. I can't imagine what might have happened to a patient whose sister were not an attorney with a lot of free time and also a sibling to a health professional to help interpret the medical literature around research procedures.
Full disclosure: my credentials are Master of PUBLIC HEALTH. Oh yeah, I feel strongly about this one... -
10:23 AM
Kathy and Lyman,
I would like one of you to give me facts and figures to dispute my contention that when you look at both sides, I don't see how waiting in line for inferior treatment is better than being able to pay and get treatment immediately. Address my concerns about the treatment of our military at Walter Reed, address how we are supposed to pay for the "free" health care you advocate. Address how you expect the government to do a better job of our health care than they do our license brances, FEMA, Corp of Engineers... Where have they shown they can do a better job that free enterprise? -
11:27 AM
Ahh Don, if I had all those answers I would be a very very wealthy woman but I will offer some reasonable food for thought:
1. We have to let the VA debacle go for the purposes of this discussion because it is not representative of VA care---VA facilities are overrun with patients from the current engagement. After years and years of outsourcing health care for veterans (another symptom of the problem, boys and girls) suddenly the VA had to care for far more patients than they had capacity for. That means they were putting patients into facilities that had gone to waste for years as funding for VA health care was diverted for other purposes. Its a horrible shame what has happened. But the current conflict has illuminated the problem for officials at the VA who haven't had adequate resources to do the kind of work being expected of them in this time of conflict.
2. Any meaningful and successful implementation of socialized medicine in this country will neccessarily be built on the existing resources in play today---I have stayed far away from Health Policy Administration in my career although its one of the five core disciplines of public health---to me its too much about how to succeed in spite of current practices rather than imagining and beginning to build the ideal public system. At any rate, if I were an administrative planner with a predeliction for banging my head against the wall, I would begin with consideraton of incorporating all existing health care entities in a sort of capitated approach for a core set of essential services while allowing the free market to play out in certain circumstances---ones that are basically elective, etc.
3. Ok, Libertarians and Republicans, take a big deep breath: of course this will be funded with tax revenues. What the impact will be against the comparison of current insurance premiums, etc is hard to ascertain especially when you consider the large subsidies already in place from the Feds to health care associations and agencies.
4. I'll pour some fuel on the fire by saing that I don't think the goal of providing the highest level of health care existing in the US today is neccessarily the best one to begin with. What I do think would be admirable and attainable is to guarantee every single citizen (and let us not now complicate this with alien questions)a level of care that would maintain good health, remedy acute conditions, manage long-term conditions. I'll be frank and say that I think some of what passes for required medical care is actually something of a luxury that the government shouldn't be responsible for. Those would represent opportunities for the free market to operate.
5. Its not possible to cite data that doesn't exist; we can't demonstrate to you that public custodianship of healthcare would be any better than our public handling of distaster management but what I can say is that we already know we have exceptional resources to be leveraged. -
11:54 AM
We don't make the most of what we have available to us. Most of that does depend on ability to pay. We need better management and control of our health care and insurance companies. We have the ability and money to make it happen for everyone we just need to be managed for the whole instead of the one. We can do it here with out socialized medicine but if we don't get the government to do something about it then at least we know socialized medicine can work and all will get treated. Something's got to happen positive soon but it's going to take a huge change in politics to do it.
Donna -
12:00 PM
Last questions/commments:
1. VA - It is my understanding that Walter Reed is the "show piece" of the VA, yet it was run-down and falling apart. Another example of government inefficiency.
2. Paying - Regardless of the reasons behind the cost, I have never seen then go down, especially after the government gets involved. In addition, nothing you or anyone else can say will ever convince me it is the governments responsibility to be the primary provider of my health care. There are those who obviously cannot provide themselves, but those who can, should.
3. I would mostly agree with your point 4 and say that part of the problem today is that my employer, if they provide me with insurance, must include maternity benefits. I am through having children and should be able to get a policy that doesn't cover maternity.
4. Your point 5 - I believe we do have examples to draw from, the rest of the world, in some cases their health care may be better by some measure, but they also have long delays and high taxes.
5. My last point, if you would, please answer how you can point out many examples of how poorly government functions, (Katrina, Social Security, etc.) but this will be much better. -
1:47 PM
Thank you Lyman for being emotional about this issue. Anyone who can be so rationally pragmatic is lacking empathy. All this dialogue brings me back to the gun control, or lack of control, banter. If you can say that the problem doesn't deserve change than it hasn't affected you. Thank God. Aren't we lucky that we have care. Aren't we lucky that we work for businesses that provide our health beneifts, or, if they don't, aren't you lucky that you can afford the high premiums. Maybe you don't think luck has anything to do with it. Maybe you attribute it to your hard work in attaining the job you have. I don't know who made the comment about strapping our kids with higher taxes, but think of the alternatives. Look, even if you don't go to a national health care model, then some legislation must be passed to make all business pay the health premiums of all their employees. We're lucky in our home, or I worked hard, however you want to look at it, and my job pays 100% of my health premiums, but as Lyman pointed out, it's not always the best situation. I honestly don't know how long it will last. In the past 7 years that I have worked for my school district, each contract negotiation comes down to health care and my district's desire to cut teachers off from what has been provided. Each time, we teachers have to do strike action to keep our benefits. I believe this is only effective becasue we are a union. Moore also said on The Daily Show that it is his SAG Union that provides his health care. He also pointed out that few Americans are in unions (I don't know the number) to protect them.
Here's my point. I can support an idea and possible candidates who may saddle Milo with higher taxes to provide him with health care or who knows. Here's what we all know-businesses are trying to pay less for their employees, because the premiums are outrageouly high and it cuts into their profits. Part time employees are usually screwed and in the same boat as the self-employeed who must pay their own outrageously high premiums. Where do our kids fit in? In a business that doesn't want to pay because they legally don't have to. Or will our kids work two part time jobs because companies don't want to hire full time people becasue they don't want to pay their health premiums? Or will they be self employeed and pay their own outrageously high premiums which go up year after year because there is nothing to stop them. We have to get emotional about this. -
4:45 PM
Drew-
You are assuming a decision to go with national health care would be a purely emotional one. Why is that? I never said that. I said one dead girl is enough for me but the fact is the stats say that 18,000 will die from lack of insurance. You can be as logical as a Vulcan without any emotion at all and realize that that is not an efficient health plan. And if a national plan ever did go in to effect you can rest assured it wouldn't be MY knee-jerk reaction making the decision.
And what's the difference between paying higher taxes and paying co-pays and deductibles? I don't see one.
Don
You're frustrating me and not addressing anything I'm saying.
I've given you statistics with links to sites not run by Michael Moore on how a vast majority of Canadians are happy with their health care and how many in this country will die because of their lack of insurance. Yet you continue to to ask me for statistics while saying that a national health care plan in this country "will" be inferior with long waits. How do you know? Don't ask me for statistics if you are going to make blanket statements like that cannot be proved.
I'll tell you again, I wait just as long as the average wait of a Canadian to see a specialist. How does that make their plan inferior? -
6:12 PM
Lyman,
I have reread the entire blog and the only stat I see that I didn't comment on was 18,000 dead. Some of the links you gave, didn't work. Point me to the stats and I will reply.
The difference between taxes and copays is that one I give willingly or necessarily, the other the government takes by force from one person and gives to another.
I have said repeatedly, socialized medicine is inferior because of lack of facilities that lead to long delays and higher taxes and gave stats except for the tax rates (see below).
http://en.wikipedia.rg/wiki/Image:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg
Making it illegal (as Canada's sytem does, and Hillary's proposed system did) for me to go outside the network and pay for my health care also makes it inferior. If the true issue is health care for those who don't have it available and not to punish those who can afford it, why make it illegal to purchase your own health care. I have also said repeatedly that the reason I think it will be inferior, is because I can't think of anything else the government does well. You have yet to name something you think shows that it does.
You proved my point in one of your responses, "In 2005, the median waiting time was about 4 weeks for specialist visits, 4 weeks for non-emergency surgery, and 3 weeks for diagnostic tests." I rarely wait more than a week for any test I need and that has more to due with my schedule than shortage in health care. I find 4 weeks unacceptable even if you and every Canadian does not. -
8:43 PM
Well you have blinders on.
I'm happy that you only have to wait a week for anything. I'm telling you for the third time that is not the case for me and it is not the case for hundreds of thousands of others. That is the reality in the US today. Tell me, what would you do if your insurance policy changed and you, like me, had to wait weeks at a time to see a specialist? And please answer the question directly.
Your link is broken but tell me this. If Canada has an inferior health system why do they live three years longer? In England every women gets at least nine months off when they have a baby and men three, is that inferior to you? And I don't care what link you point me to, you can't predict the future and saying a US public health care system WILL be inferior is just that.
Every thing you say revolves around your own situation. Here's your logic: MY health care plan is good; therefore, the entire country's health plan is good. I don't want taxes raised; therefore, a public health care plan would be inferior.
Where is the compassion for those who can't afford health care? (and if you insist that I'm making this up and since the links have broken enter 'poor denied health insurance' in Google and read what pops up). What about those who aren't as fortunate as you to have a job and a situation where they?
The right to health care is a human right deserved of everybody, not those who can afford it. -
3:52 AM
I will address each of your points one at a time. I ask you to do the same.
1. If I thought that waiting a week or 4 weeks was jeopardizing my health, I would, as long as it is legal, take my own money and go out of the network and pay for the service myself. If I didn't have the money to pay for it, I would get a second job. Now before you laugh, I have done this in the past. When my children were born, the insurance policy I had didn't cover maternity (gasp), so I took a second job cleaning airplanes at night to pay for the hospital bill.
2. Some of this I have already addressed. I don't know why they live longer, but I am not ready to concede that it is their health care system. Maybe it is due to their lifestyles, maybe the exercise more, I don't know, but you can't just make the jump for longer lifespan to having socialized medicine. Any woman can take 9 months off when she has a baby, my wife took several years. We just didn't expect someone else to pay her for it. If the Canadian system is much better than ours, please explain why many of their citizens go to NY for treatments that they can't get quickly in Canada.
3. My entire argument does not revolve around me. Show me where I said "I got mine, screw you". I believe we should take care of people who can't take care of them selves, but I don't think you and I fall into that category. It is not societies responsibility to take care of me, especially at this point in my life. I am still able to work, so I can pay for my own insurance or health care, even if that means a second job to be able to do so. I still have my mind (except for this conservative/libertarian thing I have in my brain), why do I need help taking care of myself? Taxes Rates from around the world (Based on percentage of GNP):
Sweden 52%
Denmark 50%
Finland 46%
Belgium 45%
Canada 37%
United Kingdom 37%
Germany 37%
United States 29%
Doesn't seem so "free" now does it?
4. I am compassionate, but my compassion comes from my heart and not because the government forces me to be through higher taxes. Other than isolated cases, I don't recall seeing stories of people laying outside hospitals dying in the streets. If you go into most hospitals they have signs saying you can't be refused treatment. I see stories on the internet and newspapers of people being treated that no money, no insurance. We have problems with our system that need addressed, so does Canada, but you don't scrap the entire system because of some problems.
5. Everyone in this country has access to free health care. It may not be the same as someone who has more money, but they have access. I believe I have the right to live in a house like Donald Trump, unfortunately I can't afford it. I didn't work as hard or as smart as him, so I have to "settle" for less.
Now your turn, please.
1. Constitutionally, where does the government get the right to take my money and give it to someone else? Or force my employer to give me 9 months off because my wife had a baby.
2. Other than it being free, how will universal health care be better. Taxes will be higher, and waits will be longer. Government agencies rarely do anything well.
3. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Why is it governments job to do everything for us. Provide me with health care, make sure I fasten my seat belt and buckle my grandchildren into car seats, provide me with a minimum wage because I was to lazy or stupid to go the job skills necessary to get a good paying job on my own...
I give up. I'm just glad I am 52 rather than a child growing up today. By the time my grandchildren and your children get to be my age, there will no personal freedom. -
8:14 AM
1. The government "takes" your money for roads even if you don't drive, libraries if even if you don't read, fire departments even if your house doesn't burn down. Do you want that money back? We don't live a bubble Don, we live in a community with other people who deserve basic human rights. If that means my tax money goes to a crack baby whose mother can't feed it so be it. And if I'm going to get taxed for the peace of mind of knowing I'll never have to pay a $5,000 deductible I would be thankful. I have no problem paying taxes for the greater good.
2. National Health Care would be better in so many ways I can only list a few but here's the most important one: with a NHC system my health and livelihood would not depend on a numbers cruncher at an insurance firm who have no medical experience and are only trying to save thei company money who yet get to tell me if I deserve treatment. Also, waits won't be any longer for me and millions of others who have a similar insurance plan. It might even be faster, neither of us can prove one way or the other.
3. What ever happened to responsibility to others? Looking out for number one your whole life doesn't provide for a stronger community. And if you think somebody is "too stupid" because they didn't have the learning skills or childhood environment to get in to college to get a job that will actually pay for their insurance then I don't know what to say. Not everyone has the same opportunity now matter how you might rationalize it and to say they do doesn't show much compassion.
Getting a second job may have been an option for you but I spend enough time away from my son and getting another full-time job with a better insurance plan would mean more schooling and a career change. Speaking of rights, I should have the right to not mold my career around my health are bills.
Everybody should have the right to health care.
I just have one more for you.
How many deaths due to lack of insurance is enough for you to acknowledge its a problem or is it really going to take dying in the streets? -
8:26 AM
by the way,
You answer to the question about an insurance plan that makes you wait so long really doesn't hold water. You said you'd get a second job to help pay for it, but that's not my problem. The co-pays and deductibles are manageable its the wait that I have a problem with. So like I mentioned before I would have to change careers and hope I make more money than I do now to get another insurance plan.
Would you do that as well? -
9:32 AM
From The American-Israel Cooperative Enterprise
"One of the great success stories of modern times begins in 1929, during the Depression, in Newark, New Jersey. A son was born to the Marcus family, recent Jewish immigrants from Russia. The Marcuses had little money and few possessions, but they were confident that the "golden land" that they had come to would provide the opportunities for themselves and their son, Bernard, to build a life for the family.
Growing up poor in the tenements, Bernie Marcus had every excuse not to achieve. Nevertheless, he was determined to push himself to work hard until he reached his goals. His real desire was to become a medical doctor, but his family's economic situation and the medical college's quota system afforded him little hope of achieving this. Pharmacy became his second choice and he put all of his energy into becoming the best pharmacist he could be.
Marcus graduated from pharmacy school and practiced for a short while. He parlayed this job into ownership of a drugstore. Ever the adventurer, he partnered with two gentlemen and ventured into discounting, learning on the way to operate a business and how to merchandise.
Marcus's hard work and motivation to succeed eventually began to pay off. He transitioned into a job at Vornado, which owned a company called Two Guys, where he became Executive Vice President. He then went to Handy Dan, a small chain of home improvement stores. The chain was planning to go public but it had lost its CEO. Marcus was chosen for the position and he took Handy Dan to new heights. Under his leadership the chain grew to 80 stores and, along the way, Marcus gained much knowledge about home improvement.
The quirky bit of misfortune arrived when the board of directors chose to fire Marcus from his job at Handy Dan. That same day, also fired was a then-unknown company employee named Arthur Blank. Marcus and Blank decided to join forces and in a short while a new concept appeared on the horizon: Orange aprons were the fashion and tools were the gear. Marcus had given birth to what was to become one of the great stories in retail history: The Home Depot.
The Home Depot phenomenon personifies the true Cinderella story. It is the story of the indisputable enigmatic man who led a string of retail home improvement stores into a $50 billion giant in a mere 22 years. In the history of the world, no other retailer has ever even come close to this level of success and accomplishment in such a short period of time"
You're wrong Lyman. Everyone has the same opportunities, but not everyone takes advantage of those opportunities, including myself. I have heard that Bernie Marcus says that in today's environment, Home Depot could never happen. -
10:39 AM
Do you have the same opportunities as a baby born with a horrible drug addiction because of their mother's problems? Do you have the same opportunities as a child born with learning disabilities because of their parent's alcoholism? Do you have the same opportunities as a child by brought to this country illegally?
And since it seems hard for you to relate to the impoverished and less fortunate, please answer me this question directly. Me and my wife's current insurance policy makes us wait weeks at a time to see a specialist, what should we do? -
3:16 PM
"And since it seems hard for you to relate to the impoverished and less fortunate".
You are also wrong about this. My Mother never finished high school. My Dad worked as a dry cleaner all of my life making very little money. Until my junior year in high school, I lived in a house that had a coal furnace. I used to have to come home from school and put coal into it to warm up the house. My children were the first in my family to attend college. I have worked since I was 16. So don't tell me I can't relate. I just refuse to believe that the only way to get what I want or need is to have the government take it from someone else and give it to me.
Now to answer your question; if it were me and I had to wait weeks for a consultation or test, and I thought it would have a long-term negative effect on me or my family, and all I was waiting for was my insurance to cover the expenses, I would pay for it myself by whatever means was necessary. Borrow it, take a second job, make payments to the provider, whatever. You may not believe me, but that is what I would do. I have already said I cleaned planes at night to pay for my childrens birth. I would do it again if I thought it were necessary. -
6:39 PM
I really wasn't going to get too involved in this discussion, but since Carrie seems to have implied that I might be cold hearted and incapable of empathy and Lyman addressed me directly too so I suppose I should try to respond.
The single mom with a couple kids struggling to make ends meet, or the kid born to an alcoholic mother, I feel for their situation. I really do. It’s not necessarily them that I have a problem “helping”. I can understand their situation. My family has been there. There is a guy, however, that I used to work with, meaning he was probably financially stable (or should have been) who had no savings, no plan for retirement, and lived beyond his means. Why should I have to subsidize his retirement, and with a national health care system, his medical expenses? Or look at it this way. I feel like I’m financial stable due to the fact that I worked hard, found a good job, and more importantly, live well within my means. I have a house payment that is half of what I could probably “afford”. So why should that same single mom with a couple of kids have to subsidize my health expenses. Say she is making $10 an hour as a secretary at some job, with insurance, but still can’t make it like she needs so she goes and gets a part-time job. With a national health care system, she would now have two checks taking taxes out for the same thing. Would she get better coverage because she was feeding into the system twice? No. You may think I have a skewed view because I’m not eager to give part of my income to those less fortunate, but what I don’t want to do is give my money to those who are unwilling to help themselves or are financially capable of helping themselves, not the ones who are unable to help themselves.
You state that we can’t truly know if our wait would be shorter or longer with a NHC system. That’s probably true, but I would also say that if it takes three weeks for you to get into a specialist now, why would the addition of thousands or hundreds of thousands of additional people into your medical pool make your wait shorter? The line at the DMV should give you an indication of what your medical wait will be like.
Your 18,000 deaths stat is exactly the problem with stats. You have no idea the circumstances around those deaths. What if someone came into a rural hospital emergency room that was unable to treat him because of lack of facilities? While they were attempting to stabilize the patient to move to another hospital (which Julie informs me they would try to do), he dies. Now someone looks and finds out that he didn’t have insurance. One more tally in the death without insurance column. The remaining circumstances are forgotten. Just because you and I live in locations where access to state-of-the art hospitals is available doesn’t mean that is the cause throughout the entire country. You read that a baby girl dies, didn’t have insurance, and 18,000 others die too. That makes it an emotional statistic for you. I’m, apparently cold-hearted, and I see 18,000 deaths that I have no idea of the circumstances, out of the hundreds of millions of emergency room visits each year. That makes it not emotional for me.
Finally, “I spend enough time away from my son...” This has nothing to do with health care or your career selection. This has everything to do with a change in our society’s culture and its expectations of men’s (and women’s) roles in their children’s lives. Everyone wants to believe that we should have everything and be able to do everything. We believe that men and women can both work and both have time with their kids, we deserve government provided health care and retirement funds and …. Our grandparents felt it was the woman’s job to stay home while the man’s job was to do whatever they could to provide for their family. Which is right, I don’t know. It’s probably different for every couple. My dad and mom felt that it was better for him to work a second job to help pay our expenses than have her work. I, not surprisingly, tend to agree with my parent’s logic. I would be more than willing to work a second job if that was what the situation required. And yes, your career takes you away from Milo for extended periods, but aren’t there also extended periods when you are home too where you may have time with him beyond what someone like me may have with my kids? Without knowing numbers, you might actually get to spend more time with your son than I get to spend with my daughter on an extended timeframe. I see Layla roughly two hours a night and then decent chunks on the weekend. So on a weekly basis, I may get 20 – 25 hours with her. On average, what do you think you get with Milo? I would also say that your career affords you the ability to work a second job and not necessarily reduce the time spent with your kids as my job does. -
8:07 PM
Wow, wow, wow. Last night I prepared a long, thoughtful comment on how people come to be very attached to certain ways of thinking. It perished when I logged in and I didn't have the energy to replicate. Everything that has transpired here in the meantime might have had a different tone if I had. I'll try to reprise:
I've noticed that American men of a certain age, particularly those who grew up poor children of the Great Depression, have a very different work ethic (stronger, in fact) and attachment to their money than is common among the younger generation. Don's remarks about his growing up confirm his thinking may have been formed by the same kinds of circumstances. I know my father better so I'll reflect on his experience: his father worked every single minute he didn't HAVE to be sleeping or eating. As a railroader, he was considered critical to US wellbeing during the war and I think always worked even harder than most because he felt he hadn't given all he could for his country. Still, his family wasn't well off; my grandmother worked as well to support the family (the Sunshine cookie factory) and she also sewed for hire: beautiful wedding clothes for families much more fortunate than hers.
Neither of my grandfathers were educated beyond the third grade. My one living grandmother was the only one of her generation to graduate from high school (Arsenal Technical) in 1963, atttending night classes.
Long story, important lesson: my Dad learned to work like a sonofabitch to support his family. My Mom and Dad both graduated high school with their cohort and my Mom was the first in our collective families to attend college---doing so the year I graduated from High School. Graduating from High School from that particular social strata at that time was regarded as real success---a kid was able to stay in school becuase the family could do well enough financially without a capable family member entering the work force.
What has happened in the meantime is that our economy and our society has changed dramatically. We've become much less industrial, much more educated and much more wealthy in a really really short period of time. Thinkers like Dad, Don and many others simply understand how much is possible with hard work and sticking to it.
What is perhaps not appreciated well enough by Dad and his peers is the magnitude of the societal change that SHOULD care better for its citizens, and should have been evolving at the same rate as the increase in affluence and education. The fact that we could all work ourselves into our graves doesn't mean we should or that its the best way to run a country or care for our brothers and sisters.
I have a lot of respect for the hard work of men like my grandfather, my father and Don. They worked hard with every bit of physical skill they had to offer to provide for their families; often enjoying only the most simple pleasures of family and that has been worth all the effort. They find it somehow dismissive of their hard work that we should ask for more from our government. I understand that.
But I don't agree. Its time to accept we've moved beyond the industrial age and we have societal problems that will not be resolved without major policy shifts in our government.
My sister and I, along with Lyman's Uncle John, were the first in our families to achieve education at the graduate level. I can't speak for Uncle John's financial situation but I can clearly say that neither Tracy nor I could have gone to college without grant programs for low-income families, and certainly our own academic achievements. This would be probably the last of the "you-work-hard-and-you'll-get-the-help-you-need" generation. We were raised to believe that there were programs that would elevate the worthy. So in ONE generation, our culture has gone from one where high school graduation was considered success to one where college education is the standard of achievement. Despite the generations of men and women working hard in my family I would NOT have achieved in the way I have without the support of governmental programs.
Here's the rub: There are too many people that the government, and many of our citizens, find not worthy of the assistance and who have grown up without the assurance of assistance for those who need and have earned it. That my friends, is unacceptable.
The divide between the haves and have nots is too wide and is creating really deplorable social conditions. And I'm sorry, but if you can watch what is happening and not feel the need to change, then I do indeed wonder about your heart. -
3:48 AM
I'm glad to see Drew and Kathy's comments. I thought for awhile that it only go to be Lyman and me.
I'm not saying I object to helping people out. I have lived in Section 8 HUD housing, Drew received government backed student loans, my mother's impending surgery, will be paid for by Medicare. What I object to are those, such as the guy Drew talked about, who has the ability to at least put back some for when he gets old but who spends every dime he makes, then expect you and I to support him when he gets old. What I also object to is any type of entitlement mentality. No one is entitled to what someone else earns or has. I should be willing to help others out, they shouldn't expect me to, and they certainly shouldn't ask the government to take it from me.
My concern is that we will take a system that absolutely has some problems, and throw it out in favor of some government run program that will be worse. I fail to see how just having everyone insured for free will make it better.
My fear is that we are turning over every aspects of our lives to the government. The same freedom you so rightfully fear GW is taking away from us, we willingly give up to be protected and taken care of. I don't get it. - 4:16 AM
-
7:33 AM
"I would pay for it myself by whatever means was necessary. Borrow it, take a second job, make payments to the provider, whatever. You may not believe me, but that is what I would do."
I was hoping you'd say this.
You keep harping on how many of your freedoms are being taken away, how about the freedom to have the career and job you want? Is working 60 hrs. a week just so you can be sure you have adequate health care freedom to you? Its the opposite of freedom to me.
"Your 18,000 deaths stat is exactly the problem with stats. You have no idea the circumstances around those deaths."
Drew, you do this a lot and I must say it seems like a weak argument. How would political decisions, financial reports, census, etc. ever be made without statistics? As soon as you see a statistic you don't like you immediately bring up an extenuating circumstance and call the statistic false. If you believe that for the stats you don't like you have to believe it for the stats you like as well. Therefore I can say that Canadian Health Care provides wait times better than the US.
"On average, what do you think you get with Milo? I would also say that your career affords you the ability to work a second job and not necessarily reduce the time spent with your kids as my job does."
Point me in the direction of another job that will let me take anywhere form 2 weeks-2 months off at a time and let me request nights off at less than a week's notice for gigs here in LA. As I said before this is not freedom, this is being a slave to our health care system.
Kathy summed it up nicely:
"The fact that we could all work ourselves into our graves doesn't mean we should or that its the best way to run a country or care for our brothers and sisters." -
8:03 AM
"Say she is making $10 an hour as a secretary at some job, with insurance, but still can’t make it like she needs so she goes and gets a part-time job. With a national health care system, she would now have two checks taking taxes out for the same thing. Would she get better coverage because she was feeding into the system twice? No."
Are her roads any better because of her second job? Is her police department more present in her bad neighborhood because of her second job? Are there more fire trucks at her local department because of her second job?
No. But strangely roads and safety are important things to pay taxes for but health is not. -
8:08 AM
Freedom to me means being able to choose for yourself whether you work 60 hours/week or 60 hours/month. However, with that freedom comes consequences such as being able to provide health care, housing, etc. to yourself and your family. If you don't want to work 60 hours/week, don't, but don't expect someone who does to provide for you.
-
8:56 AM
Just a few days ago, I was wondering where the outrage about SickO was. Ah, on the Backbeat, naturally. There are a lot of statistics floating around this comments section, but I'm most impressed by our statistician expert's post on her blog about numbers. I used to work for a big corporation and I also know that you can make stats say just about anything you want. As has been eloquently been said here by my family (and extended family: Kathy) this emotional matter really comes down to human decency, but it's also should be a right: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
-
9:23 AM
"Freedom to me means being able to choose for yourself whether you work 60 hours/week or 60 hours/month. However, with that freedom comes consequences such as being able to provide health care, housing, etc. to yourself and your family. If you don't want to work 60 hours/week, don't, but don't expect someone who does to provide for you."
So what if we needed to work 90 hours a week for decent health care?
Its obvious you think good health and wellness is not a basic human right and should, like cars and DVD players, be purchased.
Our conversation is at a definite stand-still. -
10:46 AM
Y'know whose government healthcare is better than Canada's, the UK's, and Frances? Ours.
And "1. VA - It is my understanding that Walter Reed is the "show piece" of the VA, yet it was run-down and falling apart. Another example of government inefficiency.""
The failure at Walter Reed isn't an example of why government programs don't work, it's an example of why privatization of government programs doesn't work. In 2004 the government said that IAP (the group running Walter Reed) wasn't doing well enough, and that they (the Army) could do a better job than IAP, cheaper. Political pressure forced them to privatize despite what commanders wanted. Here, have a read. -
11:55 AM
As we appear to be at a standstill and I'm becoming increasingly frustrated at the number of comments that question my (and my father's) heart, empathy, and human decency, this will be my last response.
Lyman, go back and look and see if I quoted a statistic anywhere in this discussion or even in previous ones. I don't believe I have for the exact same reasons why I gave you about your statistics. I don't trust any statistic that I don't know its source and how it was obtained. I have given you my opinions without cluttering it with statistics. You gave a statistic, I told you why I didn't trust it.
We have the ability in this country to have whatever kind of career that we set our hearts and minds to obtaining. You wanted to be a musician, knowing full well the difficulties financially that come with that profession and that goes beyond health care. There are a lot of starving musicians out there. You have been fortunate and talented enough to make a good salary from your abilities. However, there are consequences to every decision that we make and health care and insurance is one that comes with our job decisions. Why should others have to help you with your health care because you willingly chose a profession that has minimal health care? How does that seem fair?
"And I'm sorry, but if you can watch what is happening and not feel the need to change, then I do indeed wonder about your heart." Change, yes. Total abandoning and instituting a system that may or may not work any better, no. -
11:58 AM
I had vowed to back out of this because like Special K whose flattery is delightful and spot-on, I feel like it comes down to a matter of human decency.
Choice, Don. Choice about what jobs you work and how much you earn. Do you really think we all have the same choices? So let's talk about the African-American girls who have babies-without-daddies for whatever misguided and compelling social forces, the ones who work two or three jobs that pay less than 10 bucks an hour, the one whose earnings are all absorbed by her Section 8 rent, childcare (substandard, by the way) and food. What kind of choice does she have? She probably doesn't have a HS education, she probably can't afford to dress professionally and she damn sure doesn't have time to attend one of those "help-yourself-out" professional development seminars on top of everything she already does. Her family structure probably doesn't even exist...no help there.
I think we have responsibility more there for more than the solution; we have responsibility for the creation of a society with those kinds of divides. -
12:11 PM
"I don't believe I have for the exact same reasons why I gave you about your statistics."
Okay, but its funny you chose to dismiss the stats I've quoted instead of the ones your father quoted.
"Why should others have to help you with your health care because you willingly chose a profession that has minimal health care? How does that seem fair?"
While I could directly address this by saying it sounds to me like you think artists, small business owners, and other self-employed folks don't deserve health coverage because of their career choice, I won't. I don't have to bring it up because I don't have my own insurance. I'm under my wife's policy.
She's a PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER. Is it her fault that she chose that profession since the health care plan is in-adequate? Should we tell all public school teachers to re-think their careers because of health care?
I hope you'll respond to this even though you said it was your last post.
And before you bring up private schooling, trust me the benefits aren't as good as public school teachers. Carrie knows this first-hand. -
12:14 PM
"it's an example of why privatization of government programs doesn't work"
Thanks for your post Jeff you bring up a great point. There's are some really nice libraries around my neighborhood. When I had a flat-tire in Vegas a really nice guy stopped and helped me get going, he worked for a state-run organization that helps those stranded on the highway. Even though the roads in LA are gridlocked they are still in good condition. Gov't programs work. -
12:14 PM
Everytime Don and I go head to head I say this: I value the opportunity to look into the thinking of people whose ideals are different than mine. This is in fact a broadly diverse country and to build systems that have any hope of working, we have to understand each other and our respective needs. The fact that the debates become a little hot proves only that we each care a good bit about our positions which is better than complacency in my book.
I do worry about friends offending one another. I surely don't want to do that. But ya'll know I'm right so just give it up...ok, kidding and inappropriate.
Drew said, "We have the ability in this country to have whatever kind of career that we set our hearts and minds to obtaining." -- sadly Drew that is just not the case for everyone. Its not even the case for hard-working white people anymore---the Reagan Administration dealt a near-death blow to government sponsored grants for low income families. Case in point: my oldest sister enrolled at Georgia Tech in 1979, the last of the Carter Administration. Her Financial Aid Form reported my Dad's Air Force salary at 13,000 per year (!!!!!). Tracy's government aid package was substantial. In 1981, the beginning of Darth Reagan's admin, my FAF put our household income at about 15K with TWO fulltime college students and my Mom's part-time college work. I qualified for practically zilch government support. Good thing I had a bunch of music scholarships.
I can't imagine what things must be like for college-eligible-but-not-stellar low income kids of color who can't pay tuition. I bet they don't go. How 'bout you? -
2:12 PM
Found this great report on supplemental insurance in the European Union.
All of these country have national health care while at the same time letting their citizens decide if they would like more coverage. In Holland those making over a certain amount of money can choose to opt out of the public plan. -
2:17 PM
One last comment, first Kathy, if we agree on nothing else, we both agree that you should be able say whatever you believe without anyone getting their feelings hurt. That is what I dislike the most about PC. If you can't be honest and speak openly for fear of offending someone, then we can never resolve our problems and differences.
To all, I assume that you would all agree that you are emotional about the issue. Drew and I believe we are logical about the issue. That doesn't make us any less caring than you being emotional, makes you stupid. We care, we have empathy, we just disagree.
I guess the main difference between me and most of the others who have weighed in on the subject, is that I still believe in the goodness of America. I believe that if you work hard enough, if you really want something, NOTHING can stop you, even without the goverments help. In fact, I belive most of the time the government is an obstacle not a help. Kathy I will pick on you since you seem to be able to take it, using your example of the student loan, I would have worked a second job if necessary to get my kids through college. I have worked all my career with engineers and been told if I only had a college degree, this or that job would have been available to me. I never wanted my kids to hear that and would have done whatever it took to make sure they didn't. Believe me or not, it doesn't matter to me, it is the truth.
Still internet friends. -
3:22 PM
Oh Don--emotional does not equal illogical. I'm very logical and so is Lyman (now, Carrie, she's a whack job; kidding of course!)
Don, my Dad worked three jobs while I was in high school: his full time Air Force job, a busy transmission-overhaul business on our driveway and ownership/management of a fleet of about 15 rental cars that most people wouldn't think of driving but at 11 bucks a day and Dad doing all the maintenance...he made some cash. Know what? It still wasn't enough.
What else? Dad actually thought that we bore a significant responsibility for funding our own collegiate education. Total cost to my Dad for my BS degree? About 1,000 bucks plus a couple of plane tickets. In one semester, I personally worked three jobs to accomodate scheduling needs and provide some modest pocket money for much needed laundry, shampoo and beer. Cost for my MPH? Nada. I earned tuition waiver by working fulltime in the college of medicine where I studied.
So there's been no free ride and I've promised my children only this: 4 years tuition, books and reasonable living expenses for an in-state school. Anything beyond that they'lll have to earn by scholarship, hard work or borrow on their own signature.
I believe in America, too, Don. I just think it needs some adjustment in favor of the people who haven't had the modest successes we have. Believe me, allowing our citizenry to become impoverished can complicate our society in all kinds of ways that we don't want to consider and the solutions of which will be far less palatable than Universal Health Care.
And Lyman, I like the European plans you cite. -
3:26 PM
That's a very nice sentiment Don, and through rosy-colored glasses you are correct. But I've seen my wife's students who are born in to terrible poverty-stricken situations, who legal residency is in question, who are surrounded by violence and drugs and I've realized that that is just not the case.
You can say everyone in this country could be a pro basketball player if they work hard enough. But is that really true?
I believe in the goodness of America as well. I'm glad to hear you do as well, it didn't sound like it with all of the talk of you losing your freedoms.
Viva America! - 5:07 PM
- 5:35 PM
- 6:35 PM
- 8:24 PM
-
11:44 PM
Hi Lyman, you're shrewd little blogger to have turned off comments on your next post. That post made me realize that I hadn't told you what our health insurance sitation is:
1. The health insurance I had through County government way back when was FABULOUS. Non-HMO driven and Open-Network meaning I could see any participating physician (their network included all my existing physicians) and I never needed a referral for specialists--I almost never waited more than a day or two for urgent visits with a specialist; routine care with my internist could take a week depending on my schedule and I could see my OB/GYN just about any ol' time I wanted to. Our co-pays were low and our contribution to the premiums for the family weren't outrageous.
2. We're now insured through Rob's employer, a not-for-profit professional association. The premiums are higher as are the co-pays; our network of providers is very broad but some cost more than others. No referrals for specialists and with my recent back issue I saw an orthopedist same day. Our prescription drug co-pays in this plan are ridiculously high---something like 40 bucks for 30 day supply of brand, 20 bucks for 30 day supply generics at retail. The mail order 90 day stuff isn't much better.
So yes, it appears that even our suck-ass insurance from Rob's employer in the private sector operates more efficiently than Carrie's. Still, I have to say that we've had billing nightmare after billing nightmare over Rob's big hospitalization in Jan 05; the insurance company was clearly trying to avoid paying anything they could. - 12:24 AM
-
8:24 AM
Kathy, that sucks. Although Carrie and I have to wait a long time for referrals we haven't had that hard of a time. I did get denied physical therapy when I was dealing with back issues and Carrie's OB had to fudge some things so she could get the tests she wanted and we couldn't meet with a Pediatrician before Milo was born because every office said they needed a patient before scheduling a visit (is that the most absurd thing you've ever heard or what?). But the wait times to see a specialist can be a bit long, that's my only main gripe.
Too bad the insurance company is trying to get out paying for treatment. Typical.
And Jeff, no worries. This comment thread has been more than just family. Thanks for commenting. - 9:14 AM
-
10:37 AM
Did you read the post or did you just jump on a chance to get snarky? You know Don, you never stop by my blog unless it is to argue with me but I have to say your selective commenting is getting a little old.
She said it "seems" like her insurance operates more efficiently (timely) than ours but "still" she's had billing nightmare after billing nightmare. She is obviously presenting the negatives of both.
Which do you think is more fair Don? Having to wait for weeks to see a specialist or having an insurance company tell you they won't pay for treatment for your husband's near-death experience?
But better yet why don't you finally address something I brought up a while ago which is socialized medicine with an option for privatized insurance similar to programs in Holland and Germany? That way you wouldn't have to worry about which one is better, there would be a choice while guaranteeing health care to all. It seems like an option everyone can agree on yet hasn't been acknowledged for some reason. - 11:14 AM
-
12:02 PM
It doesn't matter if you agree with me or not, what does matter is that questions and points that are brought up are answered and acknowledged so the discourse can move forward.
So far you haven't addressed the combined socialized/privatized insurance plan we've talked about, refused to look at any successful gov't organization as a comparative point instead only focusing on FEMA, and neglected to tell me if you think a 90-hour work-week to provide adequate health care is just or fair. Sorry if I didn't get the joke in a thread that has been pretty devoid of them. I've addressed the things you've asked me from constitutionality to personal responsibility to communism.
We are certainly done here.
52 comments: