Sicko and Euro Vase
New and improved post with LJ-cuts, because that's what polite people do….which makes one wonder why I bother.
For the Fiver faithful, Euro Vase should be familiar. For the remaining 99.99947% of mankind, Euro Vase is the UEFA cup - the second-finest footy-related waste of time. Spurs are competing this year and tonight's embarrassment involved Spanish Getafe. It wasn't a bad game as such, just not good enough. Champion's league it is not. Oh, and the final score was 1-2.
Earlier tonight we went to see Michael Moore's Sicko. I'll start out by admitting that I squeed a little inside when I saw that they used Hammersmith Hospital where I used to work. That little bit of personal trivia aside, I spent two hours being touched, flabbergasted, appalled, shocked, angry, perplexed and confused - and not exclusively in the way I'm sure Mr. Moore intended. The movie was clearly made with a US audience in mind and I can to some extent look beyond that. It didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know, but it allowed me to see the human beings affected by the tragic stories we hear. The first part was touching and I was appalled that one of the world's riches countries - a country that repeatedly presents itself as the pinnacle of civilisation - treats the welfare of its citizens with such contempt. I'm aware that Mr. Moore is known to play fast with facts, but the image it paints of US health care is terrifying if even half of it is true. I suspect it is.
The second half - the case stories from countries with universal health care - made me simultaneously smile, shake my head and feel privileged. There's great comic relief in Mr. Moore stuttering 'um, no. We don't have a programme for sending domestic help to families with small children'. The weakness of his…alternative…use of material is - of course, one is tempted to say - that he doesn't tell the full story. We have our share of problems. We have bureaucracy that would stun you although that's not the patients' problem - it's a problem of waste and inefficiency within health care (and yes, I've been known to whine about that). What is worse, we have waiting lists, but it struck me as I watched the stories of patients wrestling their HMOs for approval for life-saving procedures that I'd prefer a waiting list over struggling with a health care insurer for weeks or months only to be told no.
Another small thing that I feel I should mention: The clips from Cuba were interesting to say the least. It was modern healthcare. The equipment was good; the personnel looked and behaved highly professional. There are many things one could say about Cuba. It is not a free country, but they do seem to manage well for themselves.
One of the common arguments against universal health care seems to be that it removes freedom of choice. First of all, I can't recognise that description. I am free to choose my GP. Furthermore, I must agree with Mr. Benn that the freedom to choose, which is elevated to an almost divine good in US health care, matters little if one is too poor and too uneducated to make a choice - or rather be allowed to make a choice. I have had the pleasure of Mr. Benn's company on a number of occasions and while I disagree with him on a number of issues, I find him to be a highly astute observer of the world around us.
It's entirely possible to find a person to echo the Americans in the film and say 'this kind of failure shouldn't be possible under the NHS' because mistake are made and the system has weaknesses - but no one is denied health care. No one dies for want of basic medical care. No one dies because their doctor is forced to refuse treatment. No one dies because treating them would be financially unfavourable. A young woman working for an HMO describes how an approved payment for treatment is considered 'a medical loss'. It is sick. How can 300 million people sit by and let it continue?
I mentioned above that the movie was meant for a US audience. That is perhaps what shocks me the most. The questions it asks are so basic to my view of the world that I am astounded that they even need being asked. Of course we have a responsibility for one another. It is obvious to me that living together in a society means looking after those who have too little as well as those who have too much. Solidarity might be a dirty word in our post-Cold War world, but let's use cohesion then, or brotherly love. Are there really people who can bear to watch to watch their neighbour suffer? I don't think that's what Americans want. The Americans I know are warm, gentle, loving people who look after their fellow man (and woman, one should add). Why is that not the case for US health care? Why do Americans not shout from the rooftops about this most heinous violation of basic human consideration? How can politicians get away with thundering against the evils of socialist health care, when the present state so obviously puts lives in peril? I don't understand how that can be.
There was one doctor that I felt a certain kinship with: A young GP living in Greenwich (and I have to admit that I've never met the man but I'll look for him). He spoke about what it's like to work under the NHS and his observations were spot-on. I agree with him: I could make more money in the US, but that's not really the issue, is it?
I have never turned a patient away; I have never provided less that optimal care because of poverty; I have never been in a position to passively kill a human being because the system required it of me. I feel privileged. I can't imagine working, practicing the art of medicine, under a system that regards a life as a means to profit. I am thankful.
And now I will end this sanctimonious rant by promising to stay away from propaganda for a long time…maybe a few weeks…or days….or something like that. And I need to get some sleep anyway.
Edited: I came across this in today's the Guardian. The comments section is particularly illuminating.
For the Fiver faithful, Euro Vase should be familiar. For the remaining 99.99947% of mankind, Euro Vase is the UEFA cup - the second-finest footy-related waste of time. Spurs are competing this year and tonight's embarrassment involved Spanish Getafe. It wasn't a bad game as such, just not good enough. Champion's league it is not. Oh, and the final score was 1-2.
Earlier tonight we went to see Michael Moore's Sicko. I'll start out by admitting that I squeed a little inside when I saw that they used Hammersmith Hospital where I used to work. That little bit of personal trivia aside, I spent two hours being touched, flabbergasted, appalled, shocked, angry, perplexed and confused - and not exclusively in the way I'm sure Mr. Moore intended. The movie was clearly made with a US audience in mind and I can to some extent look beyond that. It didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know, but it allowed me to see the human beings affected by the tragic stories we hear. The first part was touching and I was appalled that one of the world's riches countries - a country that repeatedly presents itself as the pinnacle of civilisation - treats the welfare of its citizens with such contempt. I'm aware that Mr. Moore is known to play fast with facts, but the image it paints of US health care is terrifying if even half of it is true. I suspect it is.
The second half - the case stories from countries with universal health care - made me simultaneously smile, shake my head and feel privileged. There's great comic relief in Mr. Moore stuttering 'um, no. We don't have a programme for sending domestic help to families with small children'. The weakness of his…alternative…use of material is - of course, one is tempted to say - that he doesn't tell the full story. We have our share of problems. We have bureaucracy that would stun you although that's not the patients' problem - it's a problem of waste and inefficiency within health care (and yes, I've been known to whine about that). What is worse, we have waiting lists, but it struck me as I watched the stories of patients wrestling their HMOs for approval for life-saving procedures that I'd prefer a waiting list over struggling with a health care insurer for weeks or months only to be told no.
Another small thing that I feel I should mention: The clips from Cuba were interesting to say the least. It was modern healthcare. The equipment was good; the personnel looked and behaved highly professional. There are many things one could say about Cuba. It is not a free country, but they do seem to manage well for themselves.
One of the common arguments against universal health care seems to be that it removes freedom of choice. First of all, I can't recognise that description. I am free to choose my GP. Furthermore, I must agree with Mr. Benn that the freedom to choose, which is elevated to an almost divine good in US health care, matters little if one is too poor and too uneducated to make a choice - or rather be allowed to make a choice. I have had the pleasure of Mr. Benn's company on a number of occasions and while I disagree with him on a number of issues, I find him to be a highly astute observer of the world around us.
It's entirely possible to find a person to echo the Americans in the film and say 'this kind of failure shouldn't be possible under the NHS' because mistake are made and the system has weaknesses - but no one is denied health care. No one dies for want of basic medical care. No one dies because their doctor is forced to refuse treatment. No one dies because treating them would be financially unfavourable. A young woman working for an HMO describes how an approved payment for treatment is considered 'a medical loss'. It is sick. How can 300 million people sit by and let it continue?
I mentioned above that the movie was meant for a US audience. That is perhaps what shocks me the most. The questions it asks are so basic to my view of the world that I am astounded that they even need being asked. Of course we have a responsibility for one another. It is obvious to me that living together in a society means looking after those who have too little as well as those who have too much. Solidarity might be a dirty word in our post-Cold War world, but let's use cohesion then, or brotherly love. Are there really people who can bear to watch to watch their neighbour suffer? I don't think that's what Americans want. The Americans I know are warm, gentle, loving people who look after their fellow man (and woman, one should add). Why is that not the case for US health care? Why do Americans not shout from the rooftops about this most heinous violation of basic human consideration? How can politicians get away with thundering against the evils of socialist health care, when the present state so obviously puts lives in peril? I don't understand how that can be.
There was one doctor that I felt a certain kinship with: A young GP living in Greenwich (and I have to admit that I've never met the man but I'll look for him). He spoke about what it's like to work under the NHS and his observations were spot-on. I agree with him: I could make more money in the US, but that's not really the issue, is it?
I have never turned a patient away; I have never provided less that optimal care because of poverty; I have never been in a position to passively kill a human being because the system required it of me. I feel privileged. I can't imagine working, practicing the art of medicine, under a system that regards a life as a means to profit. I am thankful.
And now I will end this sanctimonious rant by promising to stay away from propaganda for a long time…maybe a few weeks…or days….or something like that. And I need to get some sleep anyway.
Edited: I came across this in today's the Guardian. The comments section is particularly illuminating.