Sicko, the Diagnosis

Having just seen 'Sicko' with my dad, a man who is (unlike me) an expert in the field of health care. Essentially, this is what he told me:

The movie is right to say that other countries with national health insurance do a better job of taking care of their citizens' health. That's the most important thing.

Other countries with 'socialized' or semi-socialized medical systems even manage to spend less money on health care than we do. 16% of US GDP - about two trillion dollars - is spent on health care. Most European countries (and Canada) spend about 6-7% of their GDP on health care. Even socialist Scandanavian countries spend about 9%, and all those systems cover everybody, as opposed to the American system which leaves about a fifth of the population with no insurance at all. Oh, and do you have trouble imagining what two trillion dollars amounts to? Just picture two thousand billion-dollar bills.

So what does all this money buy us? One of my dad's favorite examples is that there are more MRI machines in the greater Washington DC area than in all of Canada. That sounds good for us, but the truth is, we don't have any use for all those freaking MRI machines, and it amounts to a loss for the system. The US medical system puts great value in the newest and flashiest technologies and procedures, many of which are unnecessary.

Plus, more than a fifth of the money goes to administrative costs - the inevitable result of having a myriad of companies providing care. About 20% of Kaiser's budget goes to administration. By comparison, Medicare spends 2% of its budget on the same thing.

What the movie doesn't really talk about is the differences in the health care systems. Basically, he presents Britain, Canada, France etc. as being identical to the US, just with higher taxes in lieu of health insurance costs. Actually, what many of those universal systems have is an emphasis on primary care, and thus less of an emphasis on specialists. So, those famous waiting lists have people on them for exotic or non-urgent procedures.

By far my favorite part of the movie is his interview with former Labour MP Tony Benn. It sums up in clear and unpretentious language, I think, the philosophy not just of universal health care but the whole idea of social democracy.

The Perons - or the Clintons?

With the mayoral elections just over, I had expected at least a temporary respite from the political posters being plastered everywhere. But, before you could say ´Pte. Jose E. Uriburu´, a sinister new figure began to make its appearance.

Concealed behind inhuman layers of make-up, this new presidential candidate - the candidate of the ruling Justicialist Party - is named Christina Kirchner. Her relation to president Nestor Kirchner? She´s his wife.

She´s also a senator, making the allusions to the Clintons rather obvious. While Christina doesn´t have an entire industry dedicated to hating her, she isn´t as popular as her husband. Supposedly, Nestor is exhausted after his first term and hopes that if his wife is the new president they can continue their policies.

In Argentina, this is not as uncommon as you might think. When Evita was still around, she was chosen as Peron´s vice-presidential candidate but had to withdraw for health reasons. Later, when Peron returned from exile only to die in office a year later, his third wife Isabel took over, with disastrous results.

Of course, even the Clintons waited a few years before transferring power. Argentine politics are a little more improvisational.

Teenage Mutant Neocon Turtles

Been busy lately. Here are some right-wing cartoons to pass the time: more Argentina stuff soon.

La Vida Por Peron

In Argentina, the memory of Juan Domingo Peron and his last two wives (Evita and Isabel) continues to dominate the Argentine political scene, with every possible political party calling themselves the 'true heirs' of Peron and the enactors of his legacy. Kind of like international communism in miniature (although Peron never felt it necessary to say "Yo no soy peronista").

So, who exactly are the peronists? let's see:

Current president Nestor Kirchner? He's a peronist.

Former president and ultra-neoliberal Carlos Menem? Peronist.

The Montoneros, quasi-communist guerrilla group? Also peronists.

The Triple A (Argentine Anticommuist Alliance), secret police/death squad under the military dictatorship? Peronist too.

Peron, of course, didn't call his philosophy (such as it was) 'peronism' but 'justicialism', with the focus on social justice. Essentially it entailed strengthening the labor unions, giving aid to the poor, and breaking down the social restrictions which had dominated Argentine society since it's inception.

Twenty years in exile with Franco, though, seemed to have changed his mind a bit. During his brief third presidency, Peron exhibited far more right-wing attitudes towards the economy and far harsher reproach for social dissent, which some believe paved the way for the military dictatorship that followed soon after his death.

Of course, every professor, political analyst, and cabdriver has his own views on the subject:

Professor 1: Peronism is what your parents are. Do you have parents? Then they're peronists. When you have kids you'll be a peronist too.

Professor 2: Peronism is about social justice. But, since this is Argentina, scratch the skin and we're all fascists.

Cabdriver 1: Peronism is the Boca Juniors (Argentina's most popular soccer team) of politics.

Cabdriver 2: Peronism is whatever the hell you want it to be.

Cabdriver 3: Peronism is helping the poor and the workers...all these bullshitters just call themselves peronists to win votes.

So there you have it, I guess.

Va a Estar Malo Buenos Aires

Mauricio Macri has won the election to be mayor of Buenos Aires.

His supporters - his real supporters - say that, as a businessman, he can keep the city in order. Having the son of an increibly wealthy businessman as our president didn´t work out to weel for us, but I guess the Argentines haven´t learned their lesson.

Worse than that, though, was the reaction from the supposed radicals at UBA and my Hugo Chavez-supporting host mother. Originally there were signs all over the place urging people to ´votar en blanco´; that is, use their obligatory vote to vote for nobody. One by one, though, they all squirmed and admitted they had voted for Macri.

¨But WHY??¨ I asked.

¨You know, to...uh...send Kirchner a message?¨

This is how extremist regimes come to power. People get disatisfied with moderation and send a ´Fuck You´ to the center-left by putting the ultra-right in power. Where´s the Old Mole when you need it?