Canadian Journalists Can’t Swallow SiCKO

Michael Moore’s new film SiCKO praises the government-run health care systems of such countries as Canada.  Moore claims the film was warmly received at Cannes by Americans from both sides of the political aisle. 

Canadian journalists, however, were a little more skeptical.  Here’s how Peter Howell, a film critic for the Toronto Star, described their response to SiCKO:

Michael Moore is handing out fake bandages to promote his new film Sicko, an exposé of the failings of the U.S. health care system.  But he may feel like applying a couple to himself after the mauling he received yesterday from several Canadian journalists – present company included – following the film’s first viewing at the Cannes Film Festival.

“You Canadians! You used to be so funny!” an exasperated Moore said at a press conference in the Palais des Festivals.  “You gave us all our best comedians. When did you turn so dark?”

We Canucks were taking issue with the large liberties Sicko takes with the facts, with its lavish praise for Canada’s government-funded medicare system compared with America’s for-profit alternative.

While justifiably demonstrating the evils of an American system where dollars are the major determinant of the quality of medicare care a person receives, and where restoring a severed finger could cost an American $60,000 compared to nothing at all for a Canadian, Sicko makes it seem as if Canada’s socialized medicine is flawless and that Canadians are satisfied with the status quo…

Other Canadian journalists spoke of the long wait times Canadians face for health care, much longer than the few minutes Moore suggests in Sicko. Moore, who has come under considerable fire for factual inaccuracies in his films, parried back with more questionable claims…

Sicko, to be released in North America on June 29, is by turns enlightening and manipulative, humorous and maudlin. It makes many valid and urgent points about the crisis of U.S. health care, but they are blunted by Moore’s habit of playing fast and loose with the facts. Whether it’s a case of the end justifying the means will ultimately be for individual viewers to decide.

On June 21 – the day after the D.C. premiere of SiCKO – the Cato Institute will help viewers decide when it hosts a screening of clips from SiCKO and short films by independent filmmakers who are more critical of Canada’s Medicare system.  Click here to pre-register.  And arrive early: seating is limited. 

Republicans for Government-Run Health Care

First it was Mitt Romney supporting a HillaryCare-style health care reform in Massachusetts. Now Tommy Thompson, who as secretary of health and human services was responsible for the Medicare prescription drug debacle, is attacking Missouri governor Matt Blunt for cutting Medicaid spending. Thompson told the Associated Press that states should expand access to Medicaid because the federal government pays most of the cost.

Thompson apparently has not read Michael Cannon’s terrific paper, Medicaid’s Unseen Costs, that shows how increased Medicaid spending drives out private health insurance, increases dependency on government, and drives up costs.

With Republicans like this, who needs Democrats?

Live Free Or Not

NH sealIn this age of galloping leviathan, one cause for joy is New Hampshire’s continued willingness to thumb its nose at various dictates from Washington, D.C. In some cases, the state’s federalism obstinacy prohibits it from receiving Uncle Sam’s largess — a penalty that many Granite Staters consider a sign of honor.

But the joy of New Hampshire was muted a bit this spring when the state’s General Court (the legislature) flirted with giving up one of its most celebrated examples of recalcitrance— the refusal to adopt mandatory seat belt laws for adults. A bill mandating the wearing of seat belts made it through the state’s House of Representatives before stalling in a Senate committee. What’s more, proponents scored a victory by placing a “seat belt policy exploratory committee” rider on a completely unrelated piece of legislation.

The standard justification for seat belt laws — that government is looking out for your well-being — would have little truck in “Live Free or Die” New Hampshire. So bill proponents tried a different tack; as noted in an AP story, they claimed that they’re simply looking out for the taxpayer:

“Live Free or Die would be great but you expect everyone to pay for you,” said Rep. Jennifer Brown, the bill’s prime sponsor. “The state has to pick up the medical bills and it could be for the rest of your life.”

State. Sen. Maggie Hassan said mandating seat belt usage is just as much about her rights as those who don’t like the idea.

“People like me who use my seat belt will wind up paying for people who don’t,” she said. “This is about my rights.”

Notice the strange conception of “rights” assumed by this argument: Because government offers a benefit, government — acting on behalf of “taxpayer rights” — can dictate people’s behavior because of the possibility that some people who engage in that behavior might use that benefit. (This is different than, say, work requirements for welfare — in that case, people choose to accept a benefit, and government is placing a condition on the receipt of that benefit.)

The slippery slope problem of such thinking is obvious. Because government provides an education benefit to children, can it mandate certain behaviors for adults of child-bearing age? Because government provides some health benefits, can it regulate everyone’s risk-taking behavior? Because government provides retirement benefits, can it dictate people’s employment decisions?

This should prompt good civil libertarians to look skeptically at any proposal to create or expand government benefits. Laocoon’s warning can be updated: Beware of politicians bearing benefits.

“Michael Cannon Is Dead Right”

So says Matthew Holt of The Health Care Blog

Although, I’m not sure I wrote what he’s crediting me with writing.  Specifically:

[T]he only rational way to start groping towards a management of the insurance market that makes some kind of logical sense…must by definition involve a mandate and severe restrictions on the cherry-picking activities of insurance companies.

So I’m going to assume that Holt meant I’m dead right when I write that Jonathan Cohn is dead right when he writes that RomneyCare and HillaryCare have a lot in common.

Oddly, Holt thinks that forcing consumers to purchase health insurance is an important part of making sure no one takes advantage of them.  Funny — I think that if I wanted to take advantage of consumers, the first thing I would do would be to take away their right to say no.

India’s CCS on School Choice

The Centre for Civil Society’s Raj Cherubal has an insightful post on the difference between bureaucratic “accountability” and real market accountability in education. He caps it off by pointing out the merits of education tax credits as a tool for providing universal access to the education marketplace.

If the poor have access to the money that the tax payers set aside to help the poor, they can use that money to access far better services that the private sector is able to provide. Instead of funding government services with taxes, empower the poor with it.

(What if the tax payer could give the money directly to the poor person and get a tax credit? No need to send it to the government and then redirect it to the poor with all the leaks in the system. Pay government for the services like defence that government is supposed to do.)

Today, I have choice. You, if you are poor, have none. Soon, thanks to the growing school choice movement in India, this will not be the case.

If the Centre’s national campaign for school choice really gains traction, the 21st century will belong to India. (Hat tip to Kuffir at Blogbharti.)

The House Votes on Cloning: Good News! Bad News!

Last Wednesday the House held a surprise vote on Rep. DeGette’s (D-Colorado) Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2007. The bill that would prohibit reproductive, but not therapeutic cloning was defeated by only nine votes. That same morning, the White House issued a “Statement of Administrative Policy” declaring “The President unequivocally opposes all forms of human cloning” and that the President would veto any bill that allows even therapeutic cloning. The good news is that the House bill did not pass. The bad news is that Congress, the President, and a dozen or so states would like to ban at least some forms of cloning.

The Act would have prohibited human cloning which it defines as “the implantation of the product of human somatic cell nuclear transfer technology into a uterus or the functional equivalent of a uterus.” It would have prohibited both actual human cloning and any “attempt to perform” human cloning. The bill did not define “equivalent of a uterus” or what would constitute and “attempt” to perform human cloning. Vagueness is a problem in all efforts to ban cloning because of the possible chilling effects such prohibitions can have on scientific advancements. Ten years in prison or a ten million dollar fine would be a harsh penalty to pay for a misunderstanding of scientific motives.

Science is no longer something done in the basement of a mad scientist’s mansion. Scientific inquiry requires teams of researchers with universities or research institutions to back them. It is possible to conceive of one mad scientist or even one mad scientist who convinces another to go along, but a whole team of mad scientists? That is not only highly unlikely, but nearly impossible. The only way something that horrific could conceivably happen is if government sponsored a highly top secret project. No one in the private sector could command that amount of secrecy without the public finding out what was going on.

This isn’t the first time there have been efforts to ban new reproductive technologies for fear of mad scientist and monster babies. There were cries to ban in vitro fertilization (IVF) in the 1970s, but Congress never passed any such laws, and the research proceeded without the creation of any “monster babies,” only millions of happy infertile couples who now have children – children, who by most estimates, have fewer birth defects than children born without the assistance of reproductive technologies.

Cloning is an integral part of several potential medical advances. It is essential to embryonic stem cell therapies, potential infertility therapies, and possible genetic therapies. The best course of action for the federal government is no action at all. If we are lucky, Congress and the President will remain at loggerheads long enough for cloning to continue to play its part in the advancement of science. But, what might happen at the state level is another story.

Forty Years of Loving

Tuesday is the 40th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia, in which the Supreme Court struck down Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage. It’s a good time to reflect on the social progress that Brink Lindsey discusses in The Age of Abundance: How Prosperity Changed America’s Politics and Culture. Indeed, the Freedom to Marry Coalition has been celebrating the anniversary with a series of newspaper ads highlighting the interracial marriages of such prominent Americans as Jeb Bush, Mitch McConnell, Clarence Thomas, Jim Webb, and Tiger Woods.

But Virginia’s attempts to impede the course of true love didn’t begin or end with its “anti-miscegenation” statute. As I noted for Reason a couple of years ago, in the early part of the 20th century the state was in the habit of sterilizing “imbeciles.” The Supreme Court, influenced by Progressivism, approved that exercise in social engineering. And in our own times, Virginia has been repeatedly banning same-sex marriage, not worrying excessively about how much collateral damage it does to wills, custody agreements, medical powers of attorney, or joint bank accounts.

I wrote about the state’s tradition of interfering with private choices:

Neither of these now-derided laws is a perfect match with the predicament facing gays in Virginia, but both flowed from an arrogant desire by the state to control private relationships. The state is schizophrenic about such things, but if the past is any indicator, things do not look good for gay Virginians. In the 1995 case of Sharon Bottoms, the Virginia high court took a two-year-old child away from his lesbian mother, because of her sexual orientation. If voters pass the amendment against gay marriage and civil unions next year, it would have real teeth. Already, many gays in Virginia are talking about moving to Washington or Maryland if what they view as an anti-gay crusade doesn’t recede. If things continue on their present course, the state might have to amend its slogan, “Virginia is for lovers,” to include the caveat, “some exceptions apply.”