I cannot wait to see this new film from Moore. It was shown at the Cannes Festival. As a Frenchman who has lived and worked in the US since 1973, with 15 years at a pharmaceuticals company, I am now working as a college professor. I am deeply aware of the disparities in coverage, and premiums across different employers with this private insurance system used in the US.
Because of the US cultural traits of individualism, ethnocentricism, and a belief in the positive aspects of capitalism, americans think that they have the best health care sytem in the world because they have freedom of choice in terms of which doctors and which health care facilities to use. They also are very doubtful of their doctors' diagnostics and will not hesitate to obtain a second or third opinion if they are questioning the reputation or opinion of their doctors. This freedom of choice is great but it comes at a huge "cost" of inequal access to care, as well as inequal level of coverage. Two different individuals working for two different companies (one being a Fortune 100 company, the other a small to mid-size company, privately-owned) will receive totally different insurance coverage based on the size of the company, its mission of providing for its employees, the current number of medical claims, etc.) They could be working in the same state, using the same heath-care insurance provider but could have totally different premiums, specific coverages, and co-payments.
When you think that the US is perceived by americans as the best country in the world, a movie like Sicko, and the questions raised by Michael Moore, should make us think and consider whether we do have the best system in the world.
I would argue that this individualized system is highly discriminatory in nature: In other words, poor segments of the population, low-wage earners are at a disadvantage against more wealthy segments of the population. This is a crime of injustice when you take into account that between 35 to 40 millions of americans do not have even health insurance coverage, or are denied access because of pre-existing conditions.
I have personal experience (because my wife's illness who is on a long-term drug treatment for the last three years... and the next two) of the continuous dealings that we have with our insurance provider concerning the filling of her monthly prescription that is recurring and yet goes through the same monthly, one or two day-delay because it requires approval by the insurance company. It is mind-boggling, and our thoughts every month go to the elderly that need the perseverance to go through this careless system of approval denials, payment delays, and questioning of all and every treatment as if we were thieves taking advantage of the system.
I heard from the President of our college that the college, in view of the sharp increases last year in insurance premiums from its current provider, approached the other two companies doing business in the state of New Hampshire to negotiate what the premiums would be. These other two companies on the basis of the existing medical conditions of the college's employees refused simply to bid on the college's business.
The present system needs a complete overhaul and strong government oversight of this privately-funded system of insurance. I applaud the questions raised by Michael Moore and I wait to see how this very important issue will be addressed by the presidential candidates from both sides of the aisle.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
First,
let me offer my prayers for your wife's illness. I will pray that she makes a full recovery.
Second,
feel free to stop by my site and see what I have going on whenever you like. Nothing Important To.Us
Third,
I agree that the healthcare system is messed up. But I attribute much (though not all) of this to ambulance chasers and personal greed. A great deal of the money we give doctors goes to their legal fees and the lawsuit insurance. That needs to be halted and quickly.
Regarding the government's involvement in the insurance business, I can only say that the writers of our Constitution did not grant all US citizens health insurance. It simply is not a Constitutional right to have it. That being the case, the government should have nothing to do with it. (I feel the same about education, as well.)
I also do not believe the system is discriminatory. It is, however, "Cash based." But this is the land of opportunity, no? Therefore, those who make low wages should be able to find opportunity to increase those wages. Let me give you a real-life example: ME!!!
If you don't mind me sharing some personal things...
By all rights, I should not be who I am today. I was raised in a lower-class family. I had no ambition, no money, no leg up in life. I barely graduated high school and had no intentions of ever going to college. (no one in my family ever has before...)
I was the guy you would trip over on the sidewalk in front of a bar. I was the guy who had Hispanic gangs, police, and "friends" all chasing me down because of some of the things I did to them. I was a friendless drunk and a drug-addict. And that is the truth.
But by the grace of God and the opportunities offered me by this great country, I am who I am today.
Why do I say all of this? Because I refuse to believe that I am an anomaly. I have seen that scenario too many times to believe that. Those who are being told that they have no hope of earning a higher wage than slightly above minimum are being lied to. And with those higher wages just might come better insurance benefits.
One more thing (maybe). A company should not be forced to go broke trying to provide a "perk." A perk should be a lure to draw potential employees in. If a company offers a top-notch health insurance, that's awesome! (My company does not offer that great of health insurace, but other perks make up for that.) A company should have the freedom to opt out of offering that perk. True capitalism could not possibly force a company to fork over $$$ for something outside wages and taxes. All else are perks.
I fully agree with you that part of the problem is due to people abusing the system in particular with legal pursuits after doctors for malpractice.
I also agree that Americans have this can do attitude and self-relience that make this country such a beacon of liberty, personal freedom, and individual responsibility. However, we are not blaming Americans who can make it and make it big as you personally have wirnessed. It is to use compassion, and concern for the dispossed and the poor. A society is great by what it does to take care of its poor.
"A society is great by what it does to take care of its poor"
I think I can disagree with this without offending you, no?
I tend to look at an individual more closely than I look at a collection of individuals (society).
Compassion cannot be mandated, can it? Either a person is it and has it, or they don't. If some in a society have compassion, but most do not, is it fair to lump those who are compassionate in with those who do not, knowing that the result is a relatively uncompassionate society?
I consider myself a compassionate person. I adhere to the teachings of the Bible. (No shock there, right?) Because of that adherance, I do what I can to help the poor, needy, and those who need a couple of open ears and a closed mouth. Prior to my conversion, I had no compassion, and saw no need for it. I see otherwise now, thank God.
I believe that it is up to the individual to do what is right and help the poor locally, and around the world. Though I have surpassed where I should have been in life, much of the reason I am not "further along" is because for years I put my money and my time into those who were less fortunate than I. I don't regret it for a minute. I did what was right. But now with two children (a boy and a girl) sharing a bedroom, I find myself in a position of being unable to give to the same degree as I did in the past, though I still give in both time and money. And I call others to do the same and ask them to call me higher. We can all grow in this, eh?
Bringing this back to the healthcare system...
There are plenty of able-bodied people in this great country who choose not to work because they can sponge off of the system and get healthcare for free. This does not seem right to me because I struggle to make ends meet, yet I pay for the healthcare of able-bodied people who do not work.
Perhaps you think I am selfish for this? Perhaps you don't. I don't know. But one thing is for sure, I am very willing to help a person who is making the necessary changes to his character and doing what he can go beyond the hand he was dealt than I am to help the unemployed couch potato whose car is newer and better than mine, whose living situation is better than mine, but whose healthcare I am paying for.
Does that make sense?
Post a Comment