|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:07 am Post subject: Is Michael Moore right to praise British way of medicine? |
 |
|
A picture of health?
| Quote: |
| For this special G2 report we took 16 NHS workers to an advance screening of Sicko and asked them: is the British way of medicine really that good? |
| Quote: |
| Doctors in the British system are very efficient in terms of the number of people they see, but they spend a lot less time with each patient than in the US' |
| Quote: |
| I really enjoyed the film, but in terms of the health service it is obviously showing just the very best side of our NHS and the very worst parts of the US system. |
| Quote: |
| Of course we don't fund the NHS properly. Americans pay far more for their health service than we do; the tax we pay here is really not much compared with what they pay in insurance premiums. In lots of ways we are a long way behind the US system. For example, we are pretty good at accessibility - doctors in the British system are very efficient in terms of the number of people they see - but they spend a lot less time with each patient than in the US. And my impression is that there are generally more resources per patient in the US than in the UK: more doctors, more nurses, more beds. The problem they have, of course, is that access to all that is just not equitable. |
| Quote: |
| Overall the film is a good thing - Moore is bringing a lot of issues to the attention of the American public that they probably would not think about much otherwise. But it doesn't translate that well over here. We're used to a bit more sophistication, we want both sides of the picture. As far as the NHS goes, you can see he is glossing over all sorts of problems. That said, it makes you realise how lucky we are. |
| Quote: |
| By and large most UK doctors feel at home with the NHS model; you can treat whoever needs the treatment, without any monetary considerations. Doctors in the US must have to compromise their ethics; it would be hugely frustrating for us to work in an environment where you have to turn people away because they don't have the right insurance. And the other side of that coin is that in the US people who have good insurance are often over-investigated, to make money. |
| Quote: |
| But I can see that even for someone very pro-NHS, Moore's portrayal went a little over the top. It was very rose-tinted. |
| Quote: |
| 'No one who works in the NHS would pretend it's perfect' |
| Quote: |
| You could never imagine anyone in a British accident and emergency department saying to a patient, 'You'll have to choose between us reattaching your ring finger and your middle finger according to how much you can afford." And I really had no idea that patients can just get kicked out of hospital, put in a taxi and dumped on the street |
| Quote: |
| On the other hand, American fears of "socialised medicine" and what it means for doctors' freedom to choose what they want to do and where they want to do it are beginning to be realised here. |
| Quote: |
The film was very one-sided, but a number of the points it made were valid, such as the advantages of a government-managed universal healthcare system as opposed to a patchier system provided by HMOs [health maintenance organisations, which provide healthcare to consumers for a monthly fee]. Healthcare can be so expensive that an individual can't really afford to manage that risk themselves. What we saw with the insurance companies is that they were only insuring low-risk people; in a government, tax-funded system, the risk is spread out evenly.
Having said that, the Republican party had perfectly valid objections too: do you want the government to be in charge of healthcare provision? Do you want the government deciding what treatment you can get, where a doctor can live, where a doctor can work? What we have now is a situation where provision of healthcare depends on political will. |
| Quote: |
| It is true that Moore chose an easy target, because he used acute casualty departments - we've always known the NHS is good at casualty. If he had done this film 10 years ago and someone had an arthritic hip, he would have heard a completely different story. Things have improved an awful lot, although one of the areas where you still see the longest waits is in psychotherapy. I think that is one of the places where it is going to be most difficult to deliver target times, and where the biggest change will come. In America, you could see an analyst tomorrow, if your HMO would pay for it. In Britain there are quite long waits for psychological treatment. |
| Quote: |
A lot of complaints about the NHS are to do with the amount of bureaucracy, which is a mess because of decisions made by this government and previous governments.
There are still inequalities in healthcare. For example, waiting lists - we tell patients that because of the strain on resources they have to wait many months. But then you find other patients who are still somehow getting to the top of the waiting list because they can afford to. I know of patients who can see a consultant privately and still end up high up on an NHS waiting list. In very affluent areas where I've worked that can happen. It's not as equal as it looks. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I really enjoyed the film, but in terms of the health service it is obviously showing just the very best side of our NHS and the very worst parts of the US system. |
Some people in the Commonwealth can think. Imagine that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's a great post, Big_Bird. I like to think that there are people out there that don't subscribe to the "Gospel of Michael Moore" and can see things the way that they really are.
That being said, I really appreciated this quote:
| Quote: |
| Overall the film is a good thing - Moore is bringing a lot of issues to the attention of the American public that they probably would not think about much otherwise. But it doesn't translate that well over here. We're used to a bit more sophistication, we want both sides of the picture. As far as the NHS goes, you can see he is glossing over all sorts of problems. That said, it makes you realise how lucky we are. |
Sadly, if you were to say this on this board, you're labelled a neo-con and hurried out the door. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I really enjoyed the film, but in terms of the health service it is obviously showing just the very best side of our NHS and the very worst parts of the US system. |
Some people in the Commonwealth can think. Imagine that. |
Hehehe! I knew you'd like that quote, Mr Gopher.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
That's a great post, Big_Bird. I like to think that there are people out there that don't subscribe to the "Gospel of Michael Moore" and can see things the way that they really are.
|
Cheers. It's interesting to see comparisons of the two systems. It would appear to me that both systems work well in some aspects, but need improvement in others. Looking over at continental Europe is also interesting. There are a few countries that seem to be doing it better than the UK. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| It's interesting to see comparisons of the two systems. |
By all means, compare X and Y. Or X, Y, and Z, for that matter. But beware judging Y, or Z by X's standards.
That would be the postcolonialists' insistent position, by the way. Said and Spivak, among others. They call this, as you know, "ethnocentric," "racist," and "imperialistic..." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bertuzzi
Joined: 07 Sep 2007
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, Michael Moore is guilty of using idealistic (to the point of inaccurate) perspectives to support his theses. Anyone remember the part in Bowling for Columbine where he demonstrates how nobody in Toronto locks their front doors? This is in fact untrue and clearly Mr. Moore purposefully overlooked Toronto's ongoing struggle with gang violence and shootings.
As for Sicko, there are flaws with both the private and public systems, however the superiority of one over the other is still up for debate. Personally I find the Canadian system ethically superior, however it does not function as well as Moore would like to think.
Nonetheless, Moore uses hyperbole as a kind of exclaimation point on his arguments, of which the core I agree with wholeheartedly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| It's interesting to see comparisons of the two systems. |
By all means, compare X and Y. Or X, Y, and Z, for that matter. But beware judging Y, or Z by X's standards.
That would be the postcolonialists' insistent position, by the way. Said and Spivak, among others. They call this, as you know, "ethnocentric," "racist," and "imperialistic..." |
So, um, Gopher, let me get this straight. You are suggesting I am a racist because I believe your nation does not go far enough to ensure every American has reasonable access to healthcare? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ha.
Pretty frustrating to be called "racist" like that, is it not? Welcome to the other side. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Ha.
Pretty frustrating to be called "racist" like that, is it not? Welcome to the other side. |
Well, I don't recall every applying that logic to the 'other side' myself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Cheers. It's interesting to see comparisons of the two systems. It would appear to me that both systems work well in some aspects, but need improvement in others. Looking over at continental Europe is also interesting. There are a few countries that seem to be doing it better than the UK. |
The U.S. healthcare system sucks. But, not as bad as Moore portrays it. And, the Canadian and British healthcare systems are great, but they aren't perfect like Michael Moore makes them out to be. I don't dislike Michael Moore because I disagree with 100% of what he says. I dislike Michael Moore because of the people that believe 100% of what he says.
Basically, I don't like the people that watch a Michael Moore docu-tainment film and consider themselves educated on a topic. I think the important film he made was "Roger and Me." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Cheers. It's interesting to see comparisons of the two systems. It would appear to me that both systems work well in some aspects, but need improvement in others. Looking over at continental Europe is also interesting. There are a few countries that seem to be doing it better than the UK. |
The U.S. healthcare system sucks. But, not as bad as Moore portrays it. And, the Canadian and British healthcare systems are great, but they aren't perfect like Michael Moore makes them out to be. I don't dislike Michael Moore because I disagree with 100% of what he says. I dislike Michael Moore because of the people that believe 100% of what he says.
Basically, I don't like the people that watch a Michael Moore docu-tainment film and consider themselves educated on a topic. I think the important film he made was "Roger and Me." |
I think anyone with half a brain understands that Moore presents things in a simplistic and sensationalist way. I've seen a couple of his films, and laughed. However, I think he serves a purpose. While there are plenty of thoughtful people who are able to 'see through' his tactics, there are so many other people who need things put to them in simple and sensational terms before they will begin to demand any action, or even consider the issue at all. We live in democracies, in which practically any lout or thicko can vote, and their opinions count too. If you seek to make a change in society, you need to get some of these donkeys behind you. Not everybody reads The New York Times. You've got to appeal to the tabloid readers too.
It also serves to stir up controversy and get people talking about an issue that might otherwise recieve little coverage.
So while I understand the criticism of his methods, I also see that they are very effective in the kind of societies in which we live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| I think he serves a purpose. While there are plenty of thoughtful people who are able to 'see through' his tactics, there are so many other people who need things put to them in simple and sensational terms before they will begin to demand any action, or even consider the issue at all... |
Sounds like Goebbels.
I would rather cultivate and nurture an informed, reasonable republican democracy than one that relies on mass-oriented propaganda campaigns. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| I think he serves a purpose. While there are plenty of thoughtful people who are able to 'see through' his tactics, there are so many other people who need things put to them in simple and sensational terms before they will begin to demand any action, or even consider the issue at all... |
Sounds like Goebbels.
I would rather cultivate and nurture an informed, reasonable republican democracy than one that relies on mass-oriented propaganda campaigns. |
You are talking like an Idealist and a Purist.
There is a reason British prime ministers (and would-be prime ministers) are terrified of Rupert Murdoch. He owns The Sun (and Sky TV) and has all the donkey brains voting and thinking the way he chooses. The donkey portion of the population is made up of millions, so if you can control their opinions, you have an awful lot of power.
If I were trying to effect a change that needed much political will, I would do my best to harness these idiots. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
