Michael Moore's "SiCKO"

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Probably best to give fake details and flee asap.

which many people do. That was part of my point. and even those that don't give us fake names and do get billed often don't pay a penny of the bill. There is a ridiculously high number of patients who never pay for any of the care they receive. The extra cost gets passed on to other patients who actually have insurance.

It's good that some hospitals operate such a policy but I wonder how typical it is. Do hospitals have 'uninsured' patient cover to recover such costs?

Less typical at for-profit hospitals than at not-for-profits like Inova... as the for-profits are not under such tight scrutiny. Also the often make less money, ironically enough, because of all the financial breaks not-for-profit organizations in the States get which makes it so that Inova and other similar orgnizations can afford to provide indigent health care, something they are required by law to do anyway.

Many other places in the world, yes, but I'm asking specifically about G8 countries, even more specifically about the countries like France, Britain and Canada. Regardless of where a new treatment or piece of equipment is developed, upon demonstration of success they become adopted by other medical facilities. Newest, best and most expensive is going to be a facility by facility and piece by piece assessment. You can't generalize that for a country overall.

As to the most qualified and highly trained professionals that tends to go back to the money making aspect of the system. Canada loses a high percentage of our doctors and nurses to the US annually because we can't compete with the salaries offered there.

Much of the talent has been lured from elsewhere much like you see happening in professional sports. It's an odd analogy but I think it's apt.

It is an apt analogy and it's also true and makes my point. There are plenty of talented doctors and good facilities around the world, but still nobody quite competes with the U.S. Of course it varies by region, but in general hospitals here do have the best and most expensive equipment. If not at your local hospital than surely within another larger hospital that you can get flown to (helicopter ride if its not a county helicopter: $6,000). Always springing for the very latest technology costs a pretty penny, and the improvement such equipment can offer in terms of the quality of care patients receive may be marginal over the older, cheaper models. But Americans demand the best, and then expect not to have to pay for any of it because most of them have an enormous sense of entitlement.


I agree insurance companies and the way they are managed are a problem. There are some well-paid people whose only job responsibility is wording medical care in the correct way to tweak out as much money as possible from these companies. Of course if they weren't so stingy that opens up the doors for abuse and fraud.

 

[ital8]

I don't know if this has been posted before, but I'm just curious what some people think about this new documentary about the healthcare in the United States. It hasn't been released yet so it may be hard to form an opinion, but the whole gist of the documentary is about how expensive American healthcare can be for those who do not have it compared to other countries like Canada and the U.K. who offer universal healthcare.

 

[Gillette]

Has been mentioned.

merged

 

[monstro]

I watched the first ten minutes or so on Google Video last night. It was compelling. Moore's really good at what he does.

 

[B_Cocktale]

Though a bit of a sensationalist Michael Moore serves his purpose.

This latest has some bipartisan support - After all we all get sick, we all die. Moore doesn't give a shit what anyone thinks of him and goes on his merry way bringing to light the absurdities and inequities of this American culture.

All told that cannot be a bad thing in the long run.

 

[whatireallywant]

As someone who lives in the US and does not have health insurance, I just hope I don't get sick. Fortunately, when I did become seriously ill 4 years ago, I did have health insurance. If I hadn't, I would have been stuck with a huge bill and probably had to declare bankruptcy.

I am not sure what the answer is to the health care problem, but I think it should be fixed so that people who have low incomes and do not have health insurance can get the health care they need without having to worry that it will bankrupt them afterwards.

 

[Blocko]

I don't think that's erroneous. It's 2D thinking because it lacks depth of thought. :biggrin1:

Frustrated with the denizen of LPSG too? Who more often get it spoon fed to them and then regurgitate the pablum without digesting it for themselves first. MZ erroneously refers to it as 2D thinking. I think she meant binary thinking.


Happens on the left and the right.

I SAY SOCIALIZE THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY NOT MEDICINE.

 

[LeeEJ]

Capitalism is a sick system for delivering something like healthcare.

Yup. Capitalism is designed at its core to take from everyone and give to the rich. I suppose that's fine if you're into buying cars, but it's no good if you have to buy health care.

It really doesn't matter what we can do on the operating table if the people who need it the most can't even get on the table in the first place.

Also -- if people are going to dismiss his Cuban excursion as a dog & pony show, then why wouldn't the US do it to make themselves look better?

 

[Blocko]

Having lived in both the US and Australia, I'd generally say Australians get a better deal on Healthcare, but it has taken a long time to stabilise due to it's complex nature and funding structure. It's also taken the system time to recover from idealogically related funding cuts and lack of planning in a system more conservative state governments wanted to dismantle.

Here you have public healthcare (0% - 2.5% of your income depending on how much you earn, also a percentage of GST, depending on how much your state puts into their health department), but you also have the option of private healthcare (private medical insurance counts as a tax deduction, as you'll use less of the service). Generally private healthcare takes care of voluntary surgery, premium healthcare (e.g. option to have your own room even if you don't need it) and auxiliary treatments (e.g. chiropractic).

I have been living without private health cover now for about 3 years, because I'm young and anything that happened to me (emergency wise) would be best covered by the public health system (also, for reasons I won't go into, I would have a higher than usual premium). I'll probably get it again when (and if) I get married as it will cost significantly less.

 

[Blocko]

I should add that the phrase "The health care industry is in crisis" is a Truism in any country. Any industry that has a deathtoll and injury list as a matter of course will have a crisis *somewhere*.

It's something politicians can always say to make/score a point.

 

[ETA123]

As someone who lives in the US and does not have health insurance, I just hope I don't get sick. Fortunately, when I did become seriously ill 4 years ago, I did have health insurance. If I hadn't, I would have been stuck with a huge bill and probably had to declare bankruptcy.

But what if, as with one example shown in the film, your insurance company had RETROACTIVELY denied and cancelled coverage based on a "pre-existing condition" or undisclosed medical history unrelated to your illness? Meaning they had PAID your claims for that illness, then months later, taken the money back due to say (to cite the example in the film), a yeast infection that occurred years before the insurance went into affect, and which had no relationship whatsoever to the current disease, but which the insurance company used as grounds to cancel your policy retroactively to the date of inception due to an alleged failure to disclose.

 

[dong20]

which many people do. That was part of my point. and even those that don't give us fake names and do get billed often don't pay a penny of the bill. There is a ridiculously high number of patients who never pay for any of the care they receive. The extra cost gets passed on to other patients who actually have insurance.

Rather like any other insurance I suppose, car insurance especially.

Less typical at for-profit hospitals than at not-for-profits like Inova... as the for-profits are not under such tight scrutiny. Also the often make less money, ironically enough, because of all the financial breaks not-for-profit organizations in the States get which makes it so that Inova and other similar orgnizations can afford to provide indigent health care, something they are required by law to do anyway.

I thought so, I suppose it's a fundemental ideological differerence in upbringing and environment but to me, medial care being driven by profit in a modern society seems wrong. I know that's an oversimplification but the underlying ethos is, in general financial.

That's not to say socialised medicine is perfect when it manifestly isn't.

 

[Mattness]

Yes, Michael Moore's films are serving his Political agenda, but they do one thing...they make people talk about important subjects (see above), which in my opinion is a good thing.

As a self-employed person with a variety of health problems and an independent health plan, I'm still on hold for 6 more months until I can get coverage on 1 pre-existing condition and owe over $15,000 for 3 Emergency Room visits in the past 6 months (that's MY part of the fees AFTER insurance!)...that's fucked up and something needs to change.

I'm not saying this Documentary will change America's health system, but maybe with it's sensationalist nature it will bring to the forefront some issues and make people think about them when voting or making laws.

My two cents...

 

[LeeEJ]

... but to me, medical care being driven by profit in a modern society seems wrong.

I don't think that there's anyone who will disagree on that point.

 

[need2bfilled]

i can't imagine a more worthless waste of time......

 

[ClaireTalon]

I don't see much political agenda behind his films, except they work anti-Bush, anti-economics and anti-military. Anti-Bush is okay, but not very groundbreaking. Also, I prefer an argument based on facts rather than polemicizing it. Same goes for anti-economics, plus, in this special matter, you don't have to forget that a medical insurance is a major incentive for companies hiring personnel, and a binding clause in contracts of employment. Anti-military: Well, there are always bad peas in a pod. And as a former career officer, I have a different opinion on that subject anyways.

I'm sure the movie will rise a few discussions, making the problems of health insurance popular. But it doesn't give proper information on how it could be done better with its black/white way of depicting the health systems of other states, nor will the hype it creates live much longer than its last airing. The debates about the Iraqi war have been going on before and after the airing of Fahrenheit 9/11, the discussions about the right to carry arms have been in the news now and then before and after the airing of Bowling for Columbine. These movies have much less been creating a the discussions than exploited possibly popular subjects.

Yes, Michael Moore's films are serving his Political agenda, but they do one thing...they make people talk about important subjects (see above), which in my opinion is a good thing.

As a self-employed person with a variety of health problems and an independent health plan, I'm still on hold for 6 more months until I can get coverage on 1 pre-existing condition and owe over $15,000 for 3 Emergency Room visits in the past 6 months (that's MY part of the fees AFTER insurance!)...that's fucked up and something needs to change.

I'm not saying this Documentary will change America's health system, but maybe with it's sensationalist nature it will bring to the forefront some issues and make people think about them when voting or making laws.

My two cents...

 

[Blocko]

Moore isn't anti-economics, he might disagree with a particular economic idealogy or practice, but he's hardly against the practice of economic theories (in fact, Sicko has a bit of a discussion on the Keynesian economic theory that was behind the NHS in the UK). Also, I'd say he's more anti-war than anti-military. Careful wording is important because "anti-economics" and "anti-military" mean more different and extreme views.

While Moore is definitely guilty of polemicizing, he does actually present facts and references, it isn't total sensationalism. Sicko is much better than Bowling for Columbine or Fahrenheit 9/11 as a documentary (rather than just sensationalism) just because he does actually focus more on facts and case-study than sensationalist confrontational tactics.

I don't see much political agenda behind his films, except they work anti-Bush, anti-economics and anti-military. Anti-Bush is okay, but not very groundbreaking. Also, I prefer an argument based on facts rather than polemicizing it. Same goes for anti-economics, plus, in this special matter, you don't have to forget that a medical insurance is a major incentive for companies hiring personnel, and a binding clause in contracts of employment. Anti-military: Well, there are always bad peas in a pod. And as a former career officer, I have a different opinion on that subject anyways.

I'm sure the movie will rise a few discussions, making the problems of health insurance popular. But it doesn't give proper information on how it could be done better with its black/white way of depicting the health systems of other states, nor will the hype it creates live much longer than its last airing. The debates about the Iraqi war have been going on before and after the airing of Fahrenheit 9/11, the discussions about the right to carry arms have been in the news now and then before and after the airing of Bowling for Columbine. These movies have much less been creating a the discussions than exploited possibly popular subjects.

 

[amiegrrl]

I can't wait to see it, not that any of the information will be very surprising as an employed, (very) under-insured person.

My ultra-conservative boss and I (a Flaming Liberal, to be fair :wink had a surprisingly adult conversation about this the other day. I was talking about socializing health-care, to which he quipped, "Oh, yeah - so you want to be enslaved by the government?" From there I explained a health issue I am having, the cost to me after insurance contributes, and the effect it will have on my financial situation. I explained that the amount of money I will be expected to pay will cripple me financially, and that I will end up 'enslaved' by the doctors and hospitals that will doubtless garnish my wages until they get all of their money, plus late fees - anyways. I, for one, would rather pay higher taxes up front than to be harassed by debt collectors, dragged through court proceedings and ultimately made to pay these bills I can't afford by force. Either way the money is taken out of my check; it is simply less painful to have it taken up-front, in the form of taxes, than later on as insurance premiums AND garnishments. Either way they will get their money; that's really what my health is about now anyway.

Please enslave me and pay my medical bills. Thanks!

 

[chico8]

That's not to say socialised medicine is perfect when it manifestly isn't.

No human designed system will ever be perfect but some are definitely more perfect than others. The US has utterly failed in reaching any kind of parity in its health care.

One of my biggest gripes about health care is that a lot of money is spent on useless end of life attempts to prolong life that should no longer be prolonged.

My grandmother collapsed three years ago at a friend's funeral. She was taken to the local hospital and then when they realized how serious her condition was, they airlifted her to a larger hospital.

She told everyone who listened that when it came to her time she did NOT want any heroic actions taken. All that expense meant that she suffered for two more days with a great deal of pain. She was 87 years old.

More was spent on her those last two days than was spent on her health care in her ENTIRE life.

Her wishes were disregarded by the medical system, she was forced to suffer and tens of thousands of dollars were spent to keep her alive for TWO lousy days.

We need to have a serious discussion about end of life treatment.

 

[amiegrrl]

......but you know, we wouldn't have to pay much higher taxes for Universal Health if we slashed military spending and brought our children/husbands/wives home from the killing grounds...........

*dons her flame-retardant suit*