• long running

Sicko - A Film by Michael Moore (2007) - Free Streaming with No Ads @ YouTube

2010
Sicko - A Film by Michael Moore (2007) - Free Streaming with No Ads @ YouTube
Go to Deal
gccmelb on 18/12/2024 - 06:44 youtube.com (2365 clicks)
Last edited 18/12/2024 - 10:31 by 1 other user

With the recent with the alleged shooting death of that Healthcare CEO in the USA by Luigi Mangione, Film maker Michael Moore has decided to release his 2007 Oscar-nominated film SICKO.

Sicko is a 2007 American political documentary film by filmmaker Michael Moore. Investigating health care in the United States, the film focuses on the country's health insurance and the pharmaceutical industry. Moore compares the for-profit non-universal U.S. system with the non-profit universal health care systems of Canada, the United Kingdom, France and Cuba.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicko

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386032/

Entertainment Documentary Video on Demand

Related Stores

Michael Moore
Michael Moore
YouTube
YouTube

Comments

                • 1st-Amendment on 19/12/2024 - 15:20

                  @try2bhelpful:

                  But the GOP in America wants to take everyone back to the 1950s

                  Is that what they told you on CNN and you automatically believed? You really should get out of the echo chamber some time.
                  GOP boogeyman… Orange mad bad… It must be tiring shaking your fists at the TV all day…

    • kiriakoz on 18/12/2024 - 08:16
      +19

      The things he’s ultimately advocating for are considered a given in Australia. I’m not going to microanalyse every scene, I agree with the message.

      Too many debate bros on here nowadays who miss the big picture.

      • beltdrive on 18/12/2024 - 08:55
        +6

        it's honestly amazing how reliably the full-time comment section debaters fail to see the forest for the trees

      • skidexa on 18/12/2024 - 09:10
        +11

        I remember speaking to an ex work colleague who said that they preferred US system since he didn't want tax money going to others for healthcare. When i rebutted about the high cost of healthcare in US, he just said he'd have health insurance. Crazy how some would rather pay corporations instead of having affordable healthcare for all

        • murdercluck on 18/12/2024 - 12:27
          +4

          US per capita tax (government) costs for healthcare are about the same as Australia's.

          So Americans pay the same amount through taxes that we do for a public system, and on top of that have to fork out AUD $40000/year on average for a family on private insurance.

          I think that the reason for the high US public costs is that the government has to pick up all the desperate cases who couldn't afford health-care or doctors and end up in hospitals. Unless as a society you're willing to let people die on the streets when they can't afford or are ineligible for basic healthcare, your government healthcare costs are always going to be high even with a large private sector.

          • rumblytangara on 18/12/2024 - 20:53
            +2

            @murdercluck:

            and on top of that have to fork out AUD $40000/year on average for a family on private insurance.

            Where do you get that 40K figure from?

            This does not sound plausible given a median household income of 80K.

          • Russ on 19/12/2024 - 03:21

            @murdercluck:

            on top of that have to fork out AUD $40000/year on average for a family on private insurance.

            That's not how it works for a huge slice of Americans.

            From what I've heard, Americans in white collar jobs usually have health insurance included as part of their salary package, and their employer goes to the health insurers and bargains for a good rate. They get a much better rate as they're buying insurance for hundreds of people.

            I believe some professional associations and unions (for blue-collar workers) do the same for their members, and with their larger numbers comes even greater bargaining power.

            So a large number of Americans probably have no idea what their health insurance costs, as they don't pay for it themselves.

          • 1st-Amendment on 19/12/2024 - 11:33
            +1

            @murdercluck:

            and on top of that have to fork out AUD $40000/year on average for a family on private insurance.

            Bro you need to stop getting your 'facts' from Tiktok. I have a few American friends, every single one of them has ALL their medical insurance paid for by their employer.

            • murdercluck on 19/12/2024 - 13:46

              @1st-Amendment: @1st-Amendment Dude, thier employer is still paying that $40000 for them, it still comes out of their wages, they just have no choice who their insurer is, they are locked into who their employer chooses.

              I guess according to you, we don't pay for our super, its free money since our employer just magically pays for it?

              The average amount that Americans pay (indirectly) for a family is $40000 AUD - Many pay more than this.

              https://truthout.org/articles/top-5-us-health-insurers-annua…

              • 1st-Amendment on 19/12/2024 - 15:53
                -2

                @murdercluck:

                it still comes out of their wages

                It doesn't come from wages because not a wage or salary component, it's a benefit like getting a corner office. If your employer offers you $100k + medical (or corner office), then you get $100k. You don't care what the medical (or corner office) is because whether it's $1 or $100,000 you've got it in your contract and it is a cost to the business, not you.

                What's interesting from your link is the title: 'Top 5 US Health Insurers’ Annual Profits Jumped 230 Percent Since ACA’s Passage'.

                Just curious, do you see a problem with ACA here? I mean some people said this would happen back in 2010, but they were written of as far-right conspiracy theorists. Funny how these things work out…

                • murdercluck on 19/12/2024 - 21:04
                  +1

                  @1st-Amendment: @1st-Amendment - I guess that you're very pro-big government then? Our super, unemployment benefits, healthcare, pension system are all free because we don't pay for it directly. Nice way of thinking, but very shallow. If you worked in the US and your emplyer didn't have to pay $40000 for your healthcare, your wages would be $40k higher.

                  When our super payments went up by 1% last year, almost all employers reduced everyone's salary increment by 1% to compensate. Some employers even directly reduced employee salaries directly by1%.

                  The reason why the US healthcare system sucks so much is that it incentivises profit and waste.

                  A US doctor and a US hospital will always send a patient for a million tests, scans and prescribe loads of medication that they don't need because they make more money that way.

                  That's why when you go to the doctor or hospital in the US it always ends up costing hunderds or thousands of dollars if you don't have healthcare, they send you off for random tests and prescribe all this garbage that you don't need.

                  When I went to the doctor in the US it cost me over $1000 for a basic ear infection (which would cost $30 here and $10 in anti-biotics), because the doctor was incentivised to perscribe all this garbage, and sent me off for insulin tests, and a million different blood tests. All tests that I would never receive because I left the country the next day.

                  But the doctor didn't care because $$$ profit $$$. The doctor didn't care if I never received the results, and didn't even ask where to send the results. He just wanted to run the tests to bill for it.

                  That's what US healthcare is - All waste and profit, that's why their system is around three times more expensive than Australia's.

                  • 1st-Amendment on 20/12/2024 - 07:18
                    +1

                    @murdercluck:

                    I guess that you're very pro-big government then?

                    That's a terrible guess.

                    are all free because we don't pay for it directly

                    Nowhere did I say it was free, I said it is not coming out of your wage/salary. Just like the cost off your office space isn't. But someone somewhere is always paying for things. This is what Socialists always fail to grasp.

                    When our super payments went up by 1% last year, almost all employers reduced everyone's salary increment by 1% to compensate

                    Citation required. I don't know a single person this happened to, the cost was worn by the employers, but I'm happy to see your evidence…

                    And I see you didn't answer my question. Do you accept that ACA made things worse, not better?

                    • murdercluck on 20/12/2024 - 09:50
                      +1

                      @1st-Amendment:

                      Citation required. I don't know a single person this happened to, the cost was worn by the employers, but I'm happy to see your evidence…

                      Its regularly happening whenever there's a super bump, many have posted about it if you google: https://www.reddit.com/r/AusFinance/comments/149zzxt/employe…

                      And I see you didn't answer my question. Do you accept that ACA made things worse, not better?

                      I've got no idea if the ACA made things worse or better in the US - It doesn't matter the US system is fundamentally broken.

                      Do you accept that the US system is fundamentally broken/wasteful because its for profit, and that for profit will never work because it incentivises doctors and hospitals to price gouge and perscribe un-needed drugs, scans and treatments to increase their billable amounts?

                      • 1st-Amendment on 20/12/2024 - 10:18

                        @murdercluck:

                        Its regularly happening

                        Reddit lol..

                        I've got no idea if the ACA made things worse or better in the US

                        You might want to read YOUR Link the YOU posted about it then…

                        Do you accept that the US system is fundamentally broken/wasteful

                        I don't think that complex things can be reduced to cartoon headlines. As with anything there is nuance, some good things, some bad things. Next time you get some medicine or need a procedure Google where it came from. There's a good chance it was a US innovation since that is where the lion's share of all innovation comes from. Are you ready to live in a world without that?

                        and that for profit will never work

                        For profit is the only thing that works. There is a reason that the greatest advances in human progress occurred at the same time as Capitalism emerged.
                        Even if you are pro-socialised services you have to accept that it's only through a strong free market economy that you can pay for all of these socialised things. If you need counter-examples, look at every socialist economy ever created. Spoiler: they all failed miserably.

                        • murdercluck on 20/12/2024 - 18:27
                          +2

                          @1st-Amendment: @1st-Amendment Private free-market competition works only in cases where there are 1. Competition (no local or country-wide monopolies), and 2. Informed choice from the consumer.

                          Healthcare doesn't have either. There's usually only one choice for a hospital for most people and there's patents blocking other manfacturers from making their own drugs. And we rely complely on professionals like our GPs and surgeons to make medical decisions for us. You are never going to be able to choose your hospital, ambulance company, medication provider, scan provider, etc… which you are having a heart-attack - You are just going to pay for whatever help is provided at the time.

                          The free-market / libertarian solution would be to abandon the patent system on any pharmacuticals and allow anyone to manufacture any drug and sell them for any price.

                          I'd like some level of quality control, but I'm 100% with you on opening up the pharma space to the free market, and removing the anti-free-market patent system. I think some libertarian / free-market solutions would 100% help break up monopolies here.

                          • 1st-Amendment on 23/12/2024 - 11:50

                            @murdercluck:

                            Private free-market competition works only in cases where there are 1. Competition (no local or country-wide monopolies)

                            Agree. Which is why the government should focus more on ensuring a genuinely competitive free market ie deregulation, and less on trying to monopolise services (like universal free stuff for all, paid for by someone else). A government monopoly is still a monopoly, and is worse outcome for everyone.

                            1. Informed choice from the consumer.

                            Well, buyer beware. Any individual should be free to make their own decisions.

                            Healthcare doesn't have either.

                            That's right. Because as soon as government interferes in a market, it then has to start telling everyone what to do more and more until it controls all of it, ie a monopoly.. ie With healthcare, if the government provided all of it, they can then force you to not smoke, or not eat some foods or drinks, not own guns, not drive a certain cars, or other control measures. And the more they get involved, then the more they need to get even more involved. It's a doom loop.

                            and there's patents blocking other manufacturers from making their own drugs.

                            IP regulations are a whole other can of worms, but who created those? If you don't like IP then you shouldn't like greater government control of things, they are the ones creating this mess.

                            The free-market / libertarian solution would be to

                            Ok firstly, don't conflate free market with libertarianism. A 'Free Market' does not mean anarchy, this is a common mistake made by sociliast/antifa/anti-capitalist typess who simply don't understand it. I suggest reading the work of Milton Friedman or Thomas Sowell, or just watch some videos on YT of theirs that give the basic concepts.

        • beefsandwich on 18/12/2024 - 15:05
          +3

          I have private health cover. And you know what? If some of my tax dollars help some poor family get healthcare for their sick kids, I'm glad.

          • Mr Plow on 18/12/2024 - 16:04
            +3

            @beefsandwich: More of your money would be going to help wealthy and obese retirees get gold plated healthcare for the rest of their lives via your private health insurance premiums than your tax dollars go to poor families.

          • 1st-Amendment on 19/12/2024 - 11:35
            -1

            @beefsandwich:

            And you know what? If some of my tax dollars help some poor family get healthcare for their sick kids, I'm glad.

            Good for you, you spend your money how you see fit, hooray freedom! But why do you think that YOU should get to decide how I spend my money? Or conversely would you be happy if I get to decide how you spend YOUR money?

            • beefsandwich on 19/12/2024 - 12:29
              +1

              @1st-Amendment: It's not my money lol, it's tax. I'm not controlling anything about your money or your tax.

              • 1st-Amendment on 19/12/2024 - 16:24
                -1

                @beefsandwich:

                It's not my money lol, it's tax

                Where do you think tax comes from?

                I'm not controlling anything about your money or your tax.

                What do you think voting is?

                What a curious response. Do you also know that food you eat is not created in supermarkets?

      • noisymime on 18/12/2024 - 09:42
        +5

        Mostly considered a given… For now. The push to Americanise the health care system here is mind boggling, as are the number of people who seem to support the idea.

        • kiriakoz on 18/12/2024 - 12:22

          Yes, I suspect that the only people who genuinely agree with that are people who stand to financially benefit from it. Even if you're rich enough not to need universal healthcare, you know that society is better, safer and more productive if people don't need to worry about being able to afford basic healthcare.

      • 1st-Amendment on 19/12/2024 - 11:29
        -1

        I agree with the message.

        What message is that? I want stuff and I want someone else to pay for it?

        Too many debate bros on here nowadays who miss the big picture

        Well the biggest picture is who pays for all this 'free' stuff when the people supplying the money run out of it? It all ready happened once with Defined Benefits Super, and is currently on track to happen again with Medicare and NDIS given the rate of spending commitments to tax receipts. The money pit is not endless. Feel free to enlighten me on this big picture of what actually happens to the free ride once the money runs out?

  • cmyk on 18/12/2024 - 07:53
    +3

    Good to see Americans (excluding the elite class) united behind something.
    Ben Shapiro's conservative audience wake up to the propagandistic role that he plays. They finally see how his business model is to profit from division and they revolt against his left and right framing of the issue
    Ultimately it's just about humanity

  • ForkSnorter on 18/12/2024 - 08:18
    +8

    There may be inaccuracies in this documentary, but the core message is accurate:

    In the US, where medical care is heavily biased to the wealthy class, where costs of healthcare can be astronomical, and availability is limited to people without funds, the average salary of surgeons is absolutely ridiculous (nearly twice that of Australia), as are the profits of health insurance companies.

    The problem is not so much that the US government spends less on healthcare. It's that the majority of that spending is sucked up by health insurance companies and the higher costs of medical care due to the lack of a proper public healthcare system.

    • techno2000 on 18/12/2024 - 08:25
      +26

      Australia is following in USA footsteps.
      Medicare is steadily being destroyed and everyone is being pushed on to private health insurance.

      • fantombloo on 18/12/2024 - 08:44
        +19

        Medicare Slowly everything is steadily being destroyed and everyone is being pushed on to private health insurance everything.

      • Mr Plow on 18/12/2024 - 16:06
        +2

        We wouldn't want to make wealthy retirees pay for their own medical costs now, would we?

      • Nedkellyinthebush on 18/12/2024 - 17:44

        The wntire world is following in USA footsteps, with very few exceptions

    • onegpt on 18/12/2024 - 08:35

      You can get the core message right. No need to watch the documentary now

    • 1st-Amendment on 19/12/2024 - 12:19
      -1

      In the US, where buying goods and services are heavily biased to people with actual money…

      FTFY and I'm struggling to see where the problem is. Things cost money, so it is natural that people with more money have more access to more things. The core message which you missed is that Michael Moore like every other Communist would like someone other than him to pay for things that he wants. Can you give me a version of the core message that doesn't rely on this principle? If so I'd love to hear it.

      • ForkSnorter on 19/12/2024 - 13:40
        +1

        Here's a bit of nuance to go with your black and white:

        The US government spends more per capita on healthcare than just about any other country (including countries with proper universal healthcare systems, like: the UK, most European countries, Canada, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, etc.), yet generally has worse outcomes, worse access, and higher costs.

        So, the US government could actually be called "communist" from your perspective, because it's spending more taxpayer money per person on healthcare than countries with near fully socialized healthcare, like the UK.

        On top of that, US citizens pay more for health insurance than people in other countries, AND they pay more out-of-pocket for medical care despite paying more for insurance, and despite the US government spending more per capital on their healthcare than other countries.

        One of the major reasons for this ridiculously poor cost-performance ratio in the US is the waste that results from the complexity of the healthcare system, which stems from the lack of a proper universal healthcare system. The healthcare system is in the US is a jumble of different systems, it is chaotic and near incomprehensible to the average person. Even if we ignore the complexity of the private system, where 60-80% of people reported having problems with their health insurance in 2023, the complexity of the public systems is truly bizarre: there are at least 3 different public healthcare systems in the US, with 100s of different plans between them, and millions of people regularly being delisted from them.

        The health insurance companies like this complexity, because the more wastage, the more money coming in, the more they profit; the more complexity, the easier it is to squeeze in more confusing, additional fees to add to their profits.

        • 1st-Amendment on 19/12/2024 - 16:22
          -2

          So, the US government could actually be called "communist" from your perspective

          I agree in this respect, as do the majority of voters hence the recent election result. Almost everyone has had enough of public money being thrown at Communism and getting poor outcomes yet again.

          On top of that, US citizens pay more for health insurance than people in other countries,

          And why is that? https://truthout.org/articles/top-5-us-health-insurers-annua…

          We knew ACA was a Socialist lemon back in 2010, but this is the problem with bleeding heart liberals, they always think that good intentions are good enough but they never ever are…

          the complexity of the public systems is truly bizarre

          Agree again. Public systems usually are highly complex and inefficient for no good reason. It's the nature of the public service. Everyone knew this 30 years ago, but for some reason the love affair with Socialism is on the rise again.

          The health insurance companies like this complexity

          Agree again. Some people confuse corruption with Capitalism, but this not a free market at work, it is a Corporatocracy installed by the Democrat party.
          Imagine if we had something like maybe a 'Dept of Government Efficiency', run not by public servants, but business people who understand basic principles of ROI who could have a go at trying to improve this? Hmm… who could do such a thing?

          Now watch the corporate machine, lobbyist and their donors try and do everything in their power to stop this. I mean you seem to understand the exact problem, but won't join the dots to agree what the necessary solution is.

          • ForkSnorter on 19/12/2024 - 16:48
            +3

            @1st-Amendment:

            I agree in this respect, as do the majority of voters hence the recent election result. Almost everyone has had enough of public money being thrown at Communism and getting poor outcomes yet again.

            And yet, countries with a higher mix of socialism with their capitalism (e.g. Sweden, Denmark, most European countries) are doing fine.

            Public systems usually are highly complex and inefficient for no good reason. It's the nature of the public service. Everyone knew this 30 years ago, but for some reason the love affair with Socialism is on the rise again.

            The US doesn't have a proper universal healthcare system, because the insurance companies and wealthy people actively campaign against it. Instead, they have 3 or 4 half-hearted attempts at some minor public medical systems for poor people.

            Yet, countries with proper public universal healthcare systems like the UK have far better cost:performance ratios than the US, so your opinion just doesn't add up here.

            Furthermore, it's not just the public systems in the US that are complex, it's the entire healthcare system, including private health insurance.

            You seem to have an across-the-board anti-socialism bias without any attempt to look at the data or any interest in the truth. All healthy democracies across the globe include a mix of socialist and capitalist policies, whether you like it or not.

            Imagine if we had something like maybe a 'Dept of Government Efficiency', run not by public servants, but business people who understand basic principles of ROI

            Are you referring to the guy who spent $44 billion dollars on an app, then lost most of its revenue? How efficient of him.

            • 1st-Amendment on 20/12/2024 - 12:20
              -1

              @ForkSnorter:

              Sweden, Denmark, most European countries

              That old chestnut, spoiler: They're all free market economies…

              Yet, countries with proper public universal healthcare systems like the UK have far better cost:performance ratios than the US

              According to whom? I suspect that if you are poor, then getting stuff for free is better than nothing. But if you are not poor then having higher quality services is better than shit ones? Do you see how that works? If you already own a BMW why would you trade it for a Lada?

              You seem to have an across-the-board anti-socialism bias

              Sure but for good reason. I have a bias against shit things. Can you provide an example where a government service is better than a private one? Public vs Private School, Public vs Private hospital? Public vs Private toilet? I prefer better things and every example I can think of, private does a better job.

              Are you referring to the guy who spent $44 billion dollars on an app, then lost most of its revenue? How efficient of him.

              I could argue that investment was heavily responsible for swaying global public opinion and won the most important election of the modern era. If you can't see the ROI on that you aren't looking hard enough.

              • ForkSnorter on 20/12/2024 - 13:11
                +3

                @1st-Amendment:

                That old chestnut, spoiler: They're all free market economies…

                Spoiler: All successful democratic free-market economies include a mix of socialist and capitalist policies. I suggest you read a little instead of getting your opinions from the back of that dungeon you call your mind, or your favorite rightwing social media channels.

                According to whom?

                According to the data. The US healthcare system works well if you're extremely wealthy. It doesn't work well if you're on median or lower income. Spoiler alert: 50% of the population is on median or lower income. Spoiler alert: The majority of the US population is on just over median or lower income, and it's not enough for decent healthcare in the US, whereas it often is enough in other countries.

                I suspect that if you are poor, then getting stuff for free is better than nothing. But if you are not poor then having higher quality services is better than shit ones? Do you see how that works? If you already own a BMW why would you trade it for a Lada?

                The last 70 years of western society has demonstrated that a combination of free-market and public infrastructure/investment has the best outcomes. Can you point me to a purely capitalist society (no public investment at all in anything) that has succeeded?

                I have a bias against shit things. Can you provide an example where a government service is better than a private one?

                Actually I can: The UK socialized healthcare system is far better than the US private healthcare system.

                Public vs Private School

                Narrabundah College was the highest ranking school in the ACT in 2023, beating all private schools based on academic results. And it has been the top school for years. In fact, a bunch of public schools are in the top 10, for both years 7-10 and years 11-12.
                In NSW, the top 4 high schools are all public, based on academic results, and the top 10 is dominated by public schools. I haven't researched the other states, but it is likely a similar picture.

                In regard to universities, private universities don't even rank.

                Public vs Private hospital?

                The best hospitals in Australia are the large public ones, e.g. Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital. They are the most comprehensive, best equipped, and have the largest range of world-class practitioners, as well as strong collaborations with universities. Private hospitals tend to be smaller and have a smaller range of specializations.

                I could argue that investment was heavily responsible for swaying global public opinion and won the most important election of the modern era. If you can't see the ROI on that you aren't looking hard enough.

                This is purely a matter of opinion, but I see that you base all your knowledge and understanding on opinions, so I'll take your opinion here with a grain of salt.

                • 1st-Amendment on 20/12/2024 - 14:15
                  -1

                  @ForkSnorter:

                  According to the data.

                  'Better' is an opinion. You really should learn the difference.

                  Spoiler alert: The majority of the US population is on just over median or lower income,

                  Lol. By definition the majority of any population of anything anywhere is on median or higher or lower. That's what a median is, the middle. It literally means half are on or over and half are on or under. This is one of those trick statements those fools uneducated people, you need to do better.

                  has the best outcomes

                  Citation required. If we look at obesity rates, health issues, divorce rates, education levels etc, I could easily argue that there is a strong correlation between increased welfare and worse long term outcomes. Welfare offers a short term satisfaction, but usually makes things worse over the long term. We have a great example of that here in Australia with Education. Record levels of funding, but falling standards. How does your theory explain that?

                  Can you point me to a purely capitalist society (no public investment at all in anything) that has succeeded?

                  I'm not making that claim. This discussion is about healthcare systems and why some people don't want to give up high quality private medical services for lowest common denominator socialised ones.

                  The UK socialized healthcare system is far better than the US private healthcare system

                  Apples and oranges. Private healthcare services the UK are higher quality than the NHS and you know it. Private healthcare in the US is higher quality than public. We both know this.

                  https://excelacademics.com.au/blog/the-best-schools-in-canbe…

                  Your link shows the top high schools as private…

                  Also without looking I'll bet money that Narrabundah is selective? So much for socialism eh… Who knew that competition produces the best results…

                  Private hospitals tend to be smaller and have a smaller range of specializations.

                  Yeah, that's how quality works. The higher quality is increasingly smaller pool size and more specialised. The top end of the curve is the smallest and narrowest.

                  but I see that you base all your knowledge and understanding on opinions

                  Pot meet kettle… Just let me know next time you're busting for a shit, which toilet you'd prefer to use. You're only lying to yourself if you think public toilets are better. The principle is the same. This is not an argument for the abolition of public toilets, just a recognition that in the general sense, services by private business in a free market are almost always higher quality than public ones.

                  • ForkSnorter on 20/12/2024 - 15:39
                    +2

                    @1st-Amendment:

                    https://excelacademics.com.au/blog/the-best-schools-in-canbe…
                    Your link shows the top high schools as private…

                    You are looking at years 7-10. The top high school in terms of year 11-12, where the ranking is based on objective test results, was Narrabundah College, a public school, where admission is based on area. However, it may be more popular with international students and exchange students due to its international programs.

                    On the other hand, I don't think academic results are the only way to evaluate a school.

                    If we look at obesity rates, health issues, divorce rates, education levels etc, I could easily argue that there is a strong correlation between increased welfare and worse long term outcomes.

                    Correlation doesn't imply causation. In fact, correlations can indicate reverse causation, i.e. obesity, bad health, divorce, might be causative factors that lead to higher levels of welfare. On the other hand, it is very difficult to prove causation.

                    So much for socialism eh… Who knew that competition produces the best results…

                    I thought we were discussing whether publicly funded and organized things can be any good, not whether selective schools are better than non-selective?

                    Lol. By definition the majority of any population of anything anywhere is on median or higher or lower. That's what a median is, the middle. It literally means half are on or over and half are on or under.

                    Glad you are able to define median. How educated you are.

                    But my point was, if a healthcare system isn't working for people on median income, can you claim it's any good?

                    Yeah, that's how quality works. The higher quality is increasingly smaller pool size and more specialised. The top end of the curve is the smallest and narrowest.

                    You've failed to demonstrate this. Saying things doesn't make them true.

                    Many, if not most, private medical practitioners in Australia also work publicly. There is a big crossover between hospitals, where one practitioner may work at 2 or 3 different medical facilities.

                    Just let me know next time you're busting for a shit, which toilet you'd prefer to use. You're only lying to yourself if you think public toilets are better. The principle is the same. This is not an argument for the abolition of public toilets, just a recognition that in the general sense, services by private business in a free market are almost always higher quality than public ones.

                    Not sure what you're trying to say. Obviously my toilet at home is nicer than one that is used by hundreds of random strangers every day.

                    services by private business in a free market are almost always higher quality than public ones.

                    Except for schools, universities, healthcare systems, hospitals, etc., which you've failed to demonstrate.

  • Rainowar on 18/12/2024 - 08:27
    +2

    CEO deserved it

    • techno2000 on 18/12/2024 - 08:33
      +3

      Even though its wrong,I cant feel much sympathy for blood sucking leeches. They are like the vampires running the blood bank.

      • AngusD on 18/12/2024 - 08:51
        +3

        It's telling that the response so far from corporate America hasn't been to examine their own behaviour that has led to this state of affairs (not the shooting itself which is clearly ****ed up, but rather the fact that it has been met with almost universal glee rather than shock) but instead to just spend more on security for senior execs.

      • Caped Baldy on 18/12/2024 - 10:32
        +2

        It's one thing for the business to fail their core business principles but it's another thing when they will let people die and/fall into poverty by denying claims.

        • AngusD on 18/12/2024 - 10:47

          But those ARE their core business principles.

    • gakko on 18/12/2024 - 08:34
      -1

      Yep

    • whyisave on 18/12/2024 - 12:54

      https://www.reddit.com/r/redscarepod/comments/1hdd8u4/commen…

      The official story is that Luigi shot the CEO, went to the park, dropped off his backpack full of Monopoly money for no reason, transferred all of the incriminating evidence to a similar but different backpack, wandered around NYC at night for a laugh, changed into slightly different yet similar jacket, grew a unibrow, lost a couple of inches in height, changed skin color, randomly flirted with someone long enough to reveal his new yet slightly different facial features, drove to Pennsylvania for no reason, then walked around for no reason for a week with a signed confession, the murder weapon, 12 grand in cash, and a bunch of fake IDs including the one he used at the hostel that he didn't get rid of for some reason, and a manifesto that first line reads "I support the feds", until a random McDonalds "volunteer" not a worker but a "volunteer" who is 85 years old with cataracts but also batman vision somehow ID'd him across the room?

      Finally after being arrested the first words out of Luigi's mouth to the public as he screams at reporters while being manhandled by police and forced into a holding cell are This is clearly an abduction and an insult to the intelligence of the American people!

      Mama mia! That's one magic Luigi!

      • beltdrive on 18/12/2024 - 08:46
        +13

        RIP Brian Thompson

        LOL bootlicker

          • star-ggg on 18/12/2024 - 08:55
            +12

            @BlueJay87: denied an essential service to millions

            • Freestyle on 18/12/2024 - 17:05

              @star-ggg: and what enables him to do that is the idiocy of the Murican people of being addicted to their guns and doing no other reforms

              They all deserve what they get

          • beltdrive on 18/12/2024 - 09:03
            +17

            @BlueJay87:

            hugely successful man from humble beginnings

            who cares? like, why even bring this up? it doesn't say anything about his character or his contribution to society.

            essential service to millions

            he wasn't altruistic. his main focus in his career was keeping the shareholders happy

            brutally

            as opposed to being murdered in a non-brutal manner? lmao. free advice: if you want to be convincing, you shouldn't attempt to appeal to emotion. it undermines your argument, and makes you a weak communicator.

      • Landsmith on 18/12/2024 - 08:49
        -1

        I’d have more sympathy if the alleged murdered wasn’t a hyper elite wealthy hypocrite who could have afforded the finest doctors in America if he’d wanted.

  • mookill on 18/12/2024 - 09:07

    Came on my youtube shorts feed

    https://youtube.com/shorts/XWfXHnMRWVM?si=4DAouCRKO7DXhdhM

    • f4te on 18/12/2024 - 09:47
      +5

      Make sure you wash it off afterwards…

  • HoochieMamma on 18/12/2024 - 09:10
    +18

    I saw first hand how bad their system is over there. My wife and I were in NY for a holiday where she became ill. After calling the concierge they sent up a GP that administered about 3 different injections including some anti nausea ones. The total we needed to pay out of pocket right there and then was around $6500, they even had a card reader for payment. Lucky we had the ability to pay for it and got it back from the travel insurance but my god I would never go back there in my life if this is how they treat tourists. What would have happened if I wasn't able to pay or someone didn't have a CC/savings? I looked up the different injectings on the CWH site and it totaled like $120 if I remember correctly. I have been to the doctors in Italy a couple of times and never had to pay anything thanks to the agreement we have with them. The USA is complete trash with their healthcare.

    • mookill on 18/12/2024 - 10:06
      +1

      That's nuts.

      I sure hope the big pharma dont infiltrate down here in AUS

      • HoochieMamma on 18/12/2024 - 10:50
        +3

        They are already trying to get around the ban on prescription drugs here on TV. You get these ads talking about shingles or some other ailment and they say "Talk to your doctor about shingles". Nothing about what the drug is as that would be illegal here but you can see the GSK logo at the bottom so it's obvious they have a drug that your GP will tell you about. It's 100% disgusting. Thank god for the PBS.

        • Ruckmauler on 18/12/2024 - 11:20

          Agree it's 100% disgusting. The purpose both here and in the US is not primarily to advertise a drug to the masses but as payola via advertising revenue to the media empires to ensure uncritical coverage of the pharma industry.

      • Caped Baldy on 18/12/2024 - 11:12
        +2

        I mean, that's the realistic cost of US citizen getting care in America…. Also, we do have Reciprocal Health Care Agreements with some countries.

        • Sharp324 on 18/12/2024 - 13:08
          -4

          I have never paid that much for healthcare in the US, but sure, lets keep mentioning anecdotal cases and acting like its across the board. Murica bad, etc.

          • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 18/12/2024 - 13:21
            +5

            @Sharp324: So, you're also talking about anecdotes, but the difference seems to be your anecdotes don't have any numbers (or any detail at all) behind them. Look in the mirror, champ.

      • HoochieMamma on 18/12/2024 - 11:47

        No, no were near the level of the USA. That's for sure.

      • murdercluck on 18/12/2024 - 11:48
        +2

        US is far worse even as someone from overseas.

        Comparing my doctors visits while I've been overseas from memory:

        UK: Free
        Sweden: I think around $100
        Italy: I think around $100
        USA: Around $950 AUD or $600USD for a ten minute consult for a basic ear infection.

        • freefall101 on 18/12/2024 - 12:07
          +4

          In Canada I went to emergency, when the doctor heard my accent he upfront told me to really check I had coverage, as it would cost me $500 to talk to him and told me about clinics I could go to that would be way cheaper for foreigners. The opposite to the US, where patients are walking dollar signs to their mostly private hospital system.

          I was covered, because in Canada even non-PR can get coverage if they’ve worked there for more than 3 months.

        • runamuck on 18/12/2024 - 12:39
          +1

          Tips included?

    • murdercluck on 18/12/2024 - 11:52
      +1

      Yeah I remember going to the GP in the US for a really obvious ear infection (I just needed antibiotics) and I got charged around $950 AUD for a ten minute consultation.

      I don't understand how a poor American could afford it.

      The doctor was like a dodgy mechanic, and saw me as a cash cow because I had no other option for a doctor and ordered every single test under the sun and I was too sick to object. The tests were completely pointless because I was only staying for one more night, so couldn't even collect the results.

      • Helenn on 18/12/2024 - 16:38
        +2

        I cut my hand on a glass ashtray in LA, fairly big and deep enough to see the bone. Got sent to a free clinic in Inglewood. Doctor agreed that it needed stitches but wouldn't do them in case there was glass inside.. couldn't see any glass, but couldn't prove that there wasn't as it wouldn't show up on x-ray and he might miss it if looking. Resulting treatment was to leave it open, no treatment at all. Such a bizzare experience all around. So great the the free clinic was there, and I thought the doctor was good, but so liability focused that they refused to treat just incase. Went back to the backpackers I was staying at and a tattood English guy closed it with some super glue, kept it from getting infected and I barely even have a scar there anymore.

        • try2bhelpful on 18/12/2024 - 17:39

          I was talking to an American who had a similar experience. He got a piece of glass in his finger and got bounced around a couple of medical people because nobody would take the responsibility to fix it. In Australia your average GP would take it out with some tweezers and stitch it up if necessary.

        • Nuggets on 18/12/2024 - 22:51

          Sounds like freedom and first world living standards to me!

    • TightAl on 18/12/2024 - 09:27
      +7

      That's some extreme mental gymnastics, advocating for the poor who probably don't have the means to carry this out because their POOR.
      More "sympathy" if shooter is poor lol, I don't think the shooter carried this out for 'sympathy'

    • Caped Baldy on 18/12/2024 - 13:58
      +1

      The family man had a salary package of over USD$10 million…. The shooter's family is wealthy so it's really rich person vs rich person. Individually, he's hardly hyper elite like you've described.

  • movieman on 18/12/2024 - 10:14

    Thanks OP.

  • Brrrrt on 18/12/2024 - 10:26
    +3

    All the more reason we need to save medicare.

    • Caped Baldy on 18/12/2024 - 11:12
      +8

      1 direct death VS 1000s of indirect deaths….

      • chadleyshe on 18/12/2024 - 14:36

        regardless, the support when someone is murdered regardless of their place in society just sums up this pathetic forum and it's users.

        • Caped Baldy on 18/12/2024 - 14:59
          +2

          Were you upset when Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein was killed?

          • chadleyshe on 18/12/2024 - 15:10
            -1

            @Caped Baldy: Yes.

          • try2bhelpful on 18/12/2024 - 15:18
            +1

            @Caped Baldy: Frankly I wasn’t cheering. Not because I in any way believed in their ideology but because neither death contributed to a solution. Iraq is even more mired in a fundamentalist swamp than when Hussein was in power. Osama Bin Laden was a figurehead but the fundamentalists are still oppressing the Afghani population since his death. Unless the underlying issues are dealt with then the deaths are just a ra ra exercise. The other thing to keep in mind is both of these people had the support of the USA at some time. Iraq was given weapons and assistance to fight Iran. The Islamic fundamentalist fighters in Afghanistan were given weapons and assistance to fight the Russians. So exactly who should we be assassinating here?

      • chadleyshe on 18/12/2024 - 14:39
        -3

        so in that theory, anyone who openly works for/or contributes to a private health insurer should also be murdered with no recourse of action?

    • franz87 on 18/12/2024 - 11:13
      +16

      He wasn’t murdered, he had a pre-existing sensitivity to bullets which meant that his application to live was unfortunately denied. Rip death merchant :’(

    • BeauKilla on 18/12/2024 - 11:36
      +1

      What are you talking about? I don't see any people supporting the CEO?

  • cannedhams on 18/12/2024 - 11:42
    -1

    Profit margins for US healthcare insurers are about 3%. Basically the same they are anywhere.

    The insurers could operate as not for profits and it would make only a marginal difference for most policy holders. Something in the order of several hundred dollars a year.

    Reality is high costs are due to high remuneration (US medical specialists get double the income they would elsewhere) and loads of medical imaging, which is done for legal and liability reasons mostly.

      • Helenn on 18/12/2024 - 17:04
        +2

        But the insurance companies are denying medications and treatment when they have no medical background to make that determination, and are financially motivated to deny claims, so should not be in charge of healthcare decision making. Don't think I'd blame doctors for overservicing to a degree in such a litigious culture but don't believe that's what most people are objecting to.

        There are actually some similarities with NDIS funding here though, the additional man hours needed to write reports to justify claims, and review those claims are quite incredible. And the staff reviewing and making decisions regarding the claims often have no medical background, whereas the therapists writing the reports do have some financial incentive to ask for more. Yes it gives choice, and some families are doing really well, but it doesn't seem equitable particularly for those that live rurally or are less health literate/savvy. And the costs have skyrocketed, for provision, equipment and therapy. But it's all because people are paying for sex workers if you believe the media.

        • BlueJay87 on 18/12/2024 - 17:09
          -1

          Your argument is that health insurers have no medical knowledge? Lol not even worth replying to if this is how you view the world

    • murdercluck on 18/12/2024 - 12:15
      +8

      I'd be pretty pissed off if I lived in the USA.

      A family in the USA pays on average $40000 AUD per year for health insurance premiums ($60000 if you include costs that they pay through taxes): https://truthout.org/articles/top-5-us-health-insurers-annua…

      Lets do the figures on profits.

      UnitedHealth profits in 2023 were $USD 22 billion dollars on 29 million customers, or about $1200 AUD per customer.

      So a for family of four, I'd be paying $4800 every year for the rest of my life going directly to the profits of UnitedHealth.

      That seems an insane amount, its hundreds of thousands per customer over their lifetimes going directly to health insurer's profits!

      I can see why Americans are so mad, their system is insane.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join