Sicko and Socialism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Katarina Koncokova
November 7, 2007
I didn't have a chance to see Michael Moore's latest movie Sicko until several weeks after its release. A friend of mine saw it, and I was quite intrigued after hearing how disillusioned and disgusted he became with the United States' healthcare system after watching the film. I listened to my friend's comments with a grain of salt, fearing that once again Michael Moore had come up with another biased "documentary,” this time promoting universal healthcare, which I am very familiar with since I grew up in former socialist Czechoslovakia.
Despite my skepticism, I decided to go and see the movie for myself to "discover" the great benefits of government -run healthcare, which apparently I wasn't aware of. The film made a stronger than expected impression on me. Prior to watching Sicko, I was not deeply aware about the complexity of the healthcare system in the U.S. I was aware of the fact that millions of people in the United States live without health insurance, but I was rather stunned to learn about the awful consequences of not being covered. Moreover, I realized that having health insurance does not always translate into peace of mind. As shown in the movie, in some cases, even patients with health insurance are faced with unpleasant surprises such as denial of certain treatments. More often than not, as the film points out, these denials of care are encouraged by the insurance companies which offer high incentives for doctors, who by denying care, save them money. I was quite disturbed by this and I realized that my health (or anybody else's, for that matter) should not be in the health insurance company's hands nor in anyone else's.
In the hope of finding a better solution to this problem, Michael Moore suggests we should make our government responsible for health care coverage, as opposed to the health insurance companies. But is this really the best solution? Is universal healthcare the answer? Is the government going to provide us with better healthcare than what we have today? Considering the past performance of our government as an indicator, I personally would not want them to get involved in important matters such as healthcare. Besides, the universal healthcare systems present in Canada, France and England are far from being flawless. What Michael Moore fails to portray in his "documentary" are the long waiting lists as well as the lack of doctors and hospitals, hence the lack of care that people in these countries are faced with.
It is important to note that it is not the U.S. healthcare itself that is the problem but rather the way we pay for it. It is undeniably true that the quality of healthcare in the United States is extremely high, with great doctors and great hospitals with the latest technology, as pointed out by Harvard Business School Professor Regina Herzling on John Stossel's TV special on healthcare. The issue with the U.S. healthcare system is its cost. And why is healthcare in America so expensive? The answer is simple: We don't pay for it. Someone else is paying for it, thus you will always be dependent on that someone, whether it is the government or the insurance company, to decide for you whether and when you will receive a treatment. Isn't time to take responsibility into our own hands? Why should the government or the health insurance make decisions for us?
Katarina Koncokova is a student at the Hawaii Pacific University.
grassrootinstitute.org |
