I Guess I'm Sicko
Patrick Carlock
July 25, 2007
I believe I’ve heard all the arguments for and against “socialized” medicine.
Yes, we can find many examples of the Canadian and French systems where there are problems. There is also no shortage of examples of problems inherent in the American system. I saw Moore's film, Sicko, and despite its shortcomings, overall, it has a meritworthy premise, and, in fact, it should be one of the most important issues high on the priority list of every politician and policy maker.
It would be reasonable to assert that they both systems, private and public, are not perfect. It’s a question of which system is the most moral system. There are trade offs — pluses and minuses in both. In America, those who want to send their children to a private school, may do so. I believe the same should apply to health care, as well. If a national health care system is the will of the American people, and I do hope that it is, I don't believe that the private health care sector should be shut down, either, though I would be against a voucher sytem.
Is it really a drift towards socialism? Funny thing, though, no one calls Medicare “socialized” medicine. If I were poor and I needed a lawyer, the judge wouldn’t ask me if I needed a court appointed socialist lawyer. No one refers to our system of fighting fires as socialism, and in those communities that have volunteer fire departments, no one is calling those departments as a bunch of pinko fire fighters. No one is saying that all of our public school teachers are members of a socialist system. Truthfully, it is a centrist approach, not a socialist approach. Socialism exist when the state owns all of the tools of production. That is not the case with America, nor would it be if we had a national health care system. I would call it a centrist approach. Centrism is a balance between two extremes.
So I have a bone to pick with right-wingers who are fond of calling Michael Moore's solution as "socialism". It’s the big scare tactic. They want you to think that if there is a public health care system, it’s all comrades-in-arms doing the hammer and sickle dance, singing propaganda songs of the beneficent and infallible state. Republicans love to scare you, apparently, since if they had to rely solely on the merits of their arguments, they would be in big trouble.
I think every Republican who uses the "socialism" characterization regarding a national health care solution should write an essay on what is the straw man argument, because if there ever was one, it is the text book example.
But, as Moore so correctly points out, health care is not a right versus left thing, since all of us need to be healthy, and all of us need access to health care when we are sick and injured.
I used to be a Republican, or, rather, a Libertarian who sympathized with Republicans. Over the years, I’ve changed. I now understand myself to be a centrist, and I think a lot of people are there, or are close to it, and probably don’t even know it, yet. I recall Jimmy Carter saying that there are no road apples in the middle of the road. I believe that a national health care system would reflect a centrist, and more moral approach.
One of the big issue raised is taxes, won’t taxes significantly increase as the result of a national health care system?
It’s not how much you pay in taxes, it’s how much you pay. If you add the cost of health care insurance, factoring in the stress of having to fight for coverage (make sure you dot all your I’s, cross your Ts, in those forms) after you are supposedly covered, in addition to your taxes, you are actually, if you look at the big picture, being “taxed” more. You are paying a stress tax, the tax of the added cost of health care insurance, and the actual taxes. So it’s a triple whammy. By the way, increased stress causes more health problems, remember. Moore says that, though the French pay more in taxes, they don't have to worry about health care coverage, and they don't have to pay for health care insurance, so, overall, they pay out less. I'll bet he is right. Subtract the health care policy, if you have a family of four, and add the tax increase to cover a national health care system, and I will bet you will be paying out less, overall, because you have removed the superflous cost of the middleman, the HMO. Moore points out a fact: HMOs are corporations, which, by law, have a fiduciary responsibility to make as much money for their stock holders as possible, which gives a tremendous incentive for them to deny health care in the search for more profits.
Without getting into the incredible, and very boring, I might add, tables and statistics regarding using these to support whatever your favorite argument is, let’s just set all of this aside, and look at it from a very simple level.
If you need a particular medical procedure, and the doctor excuses himself from the room, goes quietly to another section of the medical facility in order to call the HMO and ask their permission to do the medical procedure, is this right? This is one of the most fundamental points Moore is trying to raise our awareness on.
Regardless of arguments for and against a national health care system, Michael Moore is absolutely correct in his assertion that the most moral thing to do would be to remove the profit motive from health care decisions, and let doctors do the thing they do best, provide care.
One can argue about the inefficiency of a public system all he or she wants, but that is a managerial problem, it does not negate what is the most moral thing to do. If there are bad managers giving us inefficiency, then that is just something, like everything else in the world, which has room for improvement.
The order of priorities should be doing what is morally right, first, and then improving how we go about it, second.
It is immoral to deny health care to anyone, for any reason, period. Therefore, I support the idea of removing for-profit insurance from the medical care field; I support a national health care system, despite all of its draw backs. Today, if I purchase a health care insurance policy, I still have to worry about, when the day arrives that I need an expensive operation, whether or not, as Michael Moore's film, “Sicko”, so sadly points out, the HMO to which I subscribe will no doubt find some little silly excuse not to pay the bill.
And that is just plain wrong.
Go see Sicko, get your friends to see it, and then write to your congressman expressing your support of the Conyers/Kucinich HR 676 bill and demand action.
Yes, we can find many examples of the Canadian and French systems where there are problems. There is also no shortage of examples of problems inherent in the American system. I saw Moore's film, Sicko, and despite its shortcomings, overall, it has a meritworthy premise, and, in fact, it should be one of the most important issues high on the priority list of every politician and policy maker.
It would be reasonable to assert that they both systems, private and public, are not perfect. It’s a question of which system is the most moral system. There are trade offs — pluses and minuses in both. In America, those who want to send their children to a private school, may do so. I believe the same should apply to health care, as well. If a national health care system is the will of the American people, and I do hope that it is, I don't believe that the private health care sector should be shut down, either, though I would be against a voucher sytem.
Is it really a drift towards socialism? Funny thing, though, no one calls Medicare “socialized” medicine. If I were poor and I needed a lawyer, the judge wouldn’t ask me if I needed a court appointed socialist lawyer. No one refers to our system of fighting fires as socialism, and in those communities that have volunteer fire departments, no one is calling those departments as a bunch of pinko fire fighters. No one is saying that all of our public school teachers are members of a socialist system. Truthfully, it is a centrist approach, not a socialist approach. Socialism exist when the state owns all of the tools of production. That is not the case with America, nor would it be if we had a national health care system. I would call it a centrist approach. Centrism is a balance between two extremes.
So I have a bone to pick with right-wingers who are fond of calling Michael Moore's solution as "socialism". It’s the big scare tactic. They want you to think that if there is a public health care system, it’s all comrades-in-arms doing the hammer and sickle dance, singing propaganda songs of the beneficent and infallible state. Republicans love to scare you, apparently, since if they had to rely solely on the merits of their arguments, they would be in big trouble.
I think every Republican who uses the "socialism" characterization regarding a national health care solution should write an essay on what is the straw man argument, because if there ever was one, it is the text book example.
But, as Moore so correctly points out, health care is not a right versus left thing, since all of us need to be healthy, and all of us need access to health care when we are sick and injured.
I used to be a Republican, or, rather, a Libertarian who sympathized with Republicans. Over the years, I’ve changed. I now understand myself to be a centrist, and I think a lot of people are there, or are close to it, and probably don’t even know it, yet. I recall Jimmy Carter saying that there are no road apples in the middle of the road. I believe that a national health care system would reflect a centrist, and more moral approach.
One of the big issue raised is taxes, won’t taxes significantly increase as the result of a national health care system?
It’s not how much you pay in taxes, it’s how much you pay. If you add the cost of health care insurance, factoring in the stress of having to fight for coverage (make sure you dot all your I’s, cross your Ts, in those forms) after you are supposedly covered, in addition to your taxes, you are actually, if you look at the big picture, being “taxed” more. You are paying a stress tax, the tax of the added cost of health care insurance, and the actual taxes. So it’s a triple whammy. By the way, increased stress causes more health problems, remember. Moore says that, though the French pay more in taxes, they don't have to worry about health care coverage, and they don't have to pay for health care insurance, so, overall, they pay out less. I'll bet he is right. Subtract the health care policy, if you have a family of four, and add the tax increase to cover a national health care system, and I will bet you will be paying out less, overall, because you have removed the superflous cost of the middleman, the HMO. Moore points out a fact: HMOs are corporations, which, by law, have a fiduciary responsibility to make as much money for their stock holders as possible, which gives a tremendous incentive for them to deny health care in the search for more profits.
Without getting into the incredible, and very boring, I might add, tables and statistics regarding using these to support whatever your favorite argument is, let’s just set all of this aside, and look at it from a very simple level.
If you need a particular medical procedure, and the doctor excuses himself from the room, goes quietly to another section of the medical facility in order to call the HMO and ask their permission to do the medical procedure, is this right? This is one of the most fundamental points Moore is trying to raise our awareness on.
Regardless of arguments for and against a national health care system, Michael Moore is absolutely correct in his assertion that the most moral thing to do would be to remove the profit motive from health care decisions, and let doctors do the thing they do best, provide care.
One can argue about the inefficiency of a public system all he or she wants, but that is a managerial problem, it does not negate what is the most moral thing to do. If there are bad managers giving us inefficiency, then that is just something, like everything else in the world, which has room for improvement.
The order of priorities should be doing what is morally right, first, and then improving how we go about it, second.
It is immoral to deny health care to anyone, for any reason, period. Therefore, I support the idea of removing for-profit insurance from the medical care field; I support a national health care system, despite all of its draw backs. Today, if I purchase a health care insurance policy, I still have to worry about, when the day arrives that I need an expensive operation, whether or not, as Michael Moore's film, “Sicko”, so sadly points out, the HMO to which I subscribe will no doubt find some little silly excuse not to pay the bill.
And that is just plain wrong.
Go see Sicko, get your friends to see it, and then write to your congressman expressing your support of the Conyers/Kucinich HR 676 bill and demand action.
Print
Email
