Grace-Marie Turner asks:
If Michael Moore’s waistline ever puts him in the hospital for heart surgery, it will be interesting to see where he goes for medical care – the Mayo Clinic, or Cuba?
(via David Hogberg)
Related posts:
- Time softballs Michael Moore
- Disagree with Michael Moore?
- The AMA supporting Michael Moore?
- Michael Moore loses it on CNN
- The meltdown of Michael Moore
- AMSA supports Michael Moore
- Attacking Michael Moore
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 11 comments }
Not merely an academic question. Moore has substantial wealth and can easily pay for any health care he might need out of pocket change. In essence, for him all health care is free of having to consider cost because cost differentials of a few tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars are immaterial to one with great wealth.
When he checks into a US hospital and makes no arangement for transfer then we will know his preference.
Probably Presbyterian in NYC or Cedars-Sinai in LA, unless he ends up grounding an aircraft somewhere in between.
Not the “gotcha” question you think it is. More isn’t saying that he can’t get good health care here–he can afford it now. There is no question that rich people can get excellent health care, the problem is healthcare for average Americans.
Let’s pose a more interesting and more useful question. If hypothetically More were to have to declare bankruptcy (MC Hammer anyone?) and need treatment, where would he be better off as a native citizen, Canada, France, Britain or the US?
just curious. how much will he make on the movie and what will he do with the proceeds?
“There is no question that rich people can get excellent health care, the problem is healthcare for average American.”
Oh really? Why don’t you ask the wealthy Medicare patient whether they can find a doctor to see them any more readily than the impoverished Medicare recipient? Actually our system is much more egalitarian than most. Let Mr. Moore just wait and see how fast he can get an appointment when he is on Medicare and he learns that you cannot buy access with your private funds. In fact, taking care of the poor is a lot easier than taking care of demanding high-maintenance wealthy folks that you cannot charge more. The average American has access to excellent care, it is actually the folks over 65 and wealthy who are disadvantaged.
anon…11:17, and what planet did you just drop in from?
Sorry if I caused a bit of factlash. Hope your not on Medicare.
11:17 is correct. The following commenter is not. If I had to compare (in my 5 years as a private practice general internist) the hassle factor between rich old lady with medicare and working plumber (or better yet, cop) on an HMO, I’d pick the working class joe everyday.
There is a bimodal distribution of hassle. If you plot hassle on the y axis and wealth on the x axis, hassle is high with medicaid and “self pay” patients, bottoms out with the working class, and then rises precipitously with the non-working rich. (excluding the self-made man or woman who is always easy to get along with. Unfortunately, the self-made man brings along his entitled wife which negates any pleasure one would get treating the self-made man)
b
11:17 is absolutely correct. On Medicare I would get paid the same to see Warren Buffet as I would to see the unemployed crack smoking 30 year old whose self abuse led to renal failure …. which made him eligible for medicare in the first place.
“11:17 is absolutely correct. On Medicare I would get paid the same to see Warren Buffet as I would to see the unemployed crack smoking 30 year old whose self abuse led to renal failure …. which made him eligible for medicare in the first place”
If you are actually wealthy you can self-pay and go to doctors who don’t even accept Medicare. I assume Moore could do this.
BTW, I think it is ironic to try to use Medicare as an element to try and prove Moore to be wrong. Medicare is the US version of Universal Healthcare with huge arbitrary eligibility limits.
Comments on this entry are closed.