#300472 - 11/07/2007 15:43
SiCKO
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
I went to see Michael Moore's new film SiCKO last night, and I was wondering what everyone's thoughts are on the healthcare crisis in the United States, be those thoughts from inside the US or outside. I thought the audience here, in particular, may have some interesting observations on the state of healthcare in other non-US industrialized nations where healthcare is socialized and/or universal. I won't go into a long review of the film, as I think the reviews on the Rotten Tomatoes page linked above do that better than I could. Suffice it to say that I found it remarkably informative, persuasive, and entertaining, and I think everyone should see the film, regardless of what you think about the role of government/private enterprise in ensuring access to affordable medical care.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#300473 - 11/07/2007 16:15
Re: SiCKO
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/06/1999
Posts: 7868
|
Will I get much out of the film if I'm already upset about the state of health care in the US and can't stand Moore's methods? I gave up paying attention to him after Bowling for Columbine. This was because I felt he ran with the whole gun issue as a big part of the film without really ever coming to a proper conclusion as to why the Columbine shootings occurred. He also came off to me as someone very one sided in his reporting of information, and I've moved away from any news source like that, preferring to get both sides of the issue and make my own mind up.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#300474 - 11/07/2007 18:18
Re: SiCKO
[Re: drakino]
|
veteran
Registered: 08/05/2000
Posts: 1429
Loc: San Francisco, CA
|
Quote: Will I get much out of the film if I'm already upset about the state of health care in the US and can't stand Moore's methods? I gave up paying attention to him after Bowling for Columbine. This was because I felt he ran with the whole gun issue as a big part of the film without really ever coming to a proper conclusion as to why the Columbine shootings occurred. He also came off to me as someone very one sided in his reporting of information, and I've moved away from any news source like that, preferring to get both sides of the issue and make my own mind up.
Drakino - I do believe that Moore cherry picks statistics and facts in order to make his point more persuasive... Who doesn't?
I went to a panel discussion of "independent" and "new" media in San Francisco a few years ago. They were all talking about how ridiculous the mainstream press has gotten in the US. Of course, I totally agree with that sentiment. After the discussion, I asked the woman who was some mukety-muck at one of the larger independent organizations how they approach their news items. I asked if they go INTO the story with a notion of how they want it to be presented - in other words, do they have an agenda - she said "of course we do!"
The question is - what is truly fair and balanced today? Ok, you can persue your news from a variety of sources, but each is trying to persuade you as best they can. They ALL seem to have an agenda! Which one do you believe? Which is most persuasive? The one with the highest budget? The one with the most charismatic reporters? Which one SEEMS most honest and fair to you?
One thing is for sure in my mind - Michael Moore is encouraging us to DISCUSS these important issues. As far as I'm concerned, he's succeeded.
Have you guys been watching this Wolf Blitzer / Sanjay Gupta / Larry King stuff that's been happening in the last few days?
- Jon
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#300475 - 12/07/2007 14:05
Re: SiCKO
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 18/06/2001
Posts: 2504
Loc: Roma, Italy
|
Italian Health Care has always been "socialized".
Today, after 50 years of such system, you 1. go to a private dentist if you don't want to wait two months. 2. do the same for echographies, radiographies, most exams that are somewhat more than a blood test. 3. I you can afford, you end up using private hospitals for surgery. 4. Possibly, you end up getting a privateh health insurance.
"Public" healthcare, as state-run health care is usually referred to, here, is simply, generally speaking, less efficient and lower quality. That's an undeniable fact, here. The worst cases, the most negative extremes that end up on the news, are just unbelievably scary. You read of rats running in corridors in some of the worse hospitals. And, it is not unfrequent, expecially in southern hospitals, to see several patients sleeping in the corridors (with rats?!) due to lack of rooms.
Understandably, people is quite unhappy with state-run health care. While some defend its importance, I personally find that's mostly due to mere ideology.
There are exceptions. Some excellent doctors in state-run hospitals give great reputations to them, while some private institutions are there simply to profit illegally on ignorant patients. Still, generally, it is the opposite, and quite obviously so.
_________________________
= Taym = MK2a #040103216 * 100Gb *All/Colors* Radio * 3.0a11 * Hijack = taympeg
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#300476 - 12/07/2007 14:57
Re: SiCKO
[Re: Taym]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Happy Birthday!
What about the poor people of Italy? Do they have access to free health care, even if it is not as good as what you might pay for privately? Are they likely to die because they cannot get treatment or prescription drugs? Can they go to a clinic for illnesses rather than go to work sick or simply miss work until they get better on their own?
In my opinion, universal health care in the US shouldn't be primarily geared towards reducing the cost of health care to those who currently have it, although that should be a prime secondary consideration, but, rather, providing health care to those who are not able to afford it now. Currently about one-sixth of the US population has no health insurance at all, and they are, by and large, poor. And despite the lack of universal health care, the US government spends far more per person than any other country in the world on health care, which has been posited to be because of the quickly rising cost of letting illnesses go untreated until emergency room visits and expensive procedures are required. Imagine, for example, the cost differences between having a malignant melanoma excised and being treated for metastasized cancer.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#300477 - 12/07/2007 15:22
Re: SiCKO
[Re: drakino]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote: Will I get much out of the film if I'm already upset about the state of health care in the US and can't stand Moore's methods?
I think so. Fox News' review of the film was very positive, and I'd say their editorial opinion wouldn't come down on the side of increased socialization of healthcare, nor are they chomping at the bit to endorse anything Michael Moore puts out.
Moore is a liberal, and makes no effort to hide that fact, but this is not a liberal vs. conservative issue. Most people in America have encountered frustration with the healthcare system at some point in their lives, and everyone can feel empathy or at least sympathy for someone who's forced to watch a loved one get sick or die due to inadequate care. So, the film focuses on those instances, and shows exactly how the healthcare and drug industries are complicit in these deaths due to their motivation to increase profits by denying care.
I think even a hard-right conservative who's forced to watch this film Clockwork Orange-style will have to admit there's a persuasive case made for a re-evaluation of the way healthcare works in America. You can factor Moore's personal political bias out, correct for the fact that he's showing the best care available abroad and the worst care available in America, and you're still left with a vivid picture of a worsening crisis. Furthermore, it's done in a very entertaining, engaging style, which I think comes from the fact that Moore has softened up his rhetoric in the movie and (with a couple exceptions) avoids cheap shots at the current government.
Finally, I agree wholeheartedly with jbauer's comment that all news sources have an agenda, and that you need to be able to distinguish and filter this out yourself, rather than counting on a particular source or sources to be unbiased.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#300478 - 12/07/2007 15:37
Re: SiCKO
[Re: jbauer]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
Have you guys been watching this Wolf Blitzer / Sanjay Gupta / Larry King stuff that's been happening in the last few days?
I have. Moore acquitted himself quite well in the face of inaccurate "fact-checking" from Gupta, CNN's medical correspondent, who I had previosly felt did remarkable and fair reporting on other issues. Moore's main point, other than correcting the inaccurate figures coming from Gupta, was to ask where all of this fact-checking, distrust, and criticism was in the run-up to and throughout the execution of the war in Iraq, among other issues.
He has a point. Wolf Blitzer and the other CNN zombies are remarkably deferential to whatever spin is coming out of the White House, and has not ever made any effort to "fact check" anything that comes from the government. Their selective hit-job on Moore's film was an unnecessary attempt to appear "balanced" so they didn't piss off Republican viewers who might be angered by the fact that a liberal is actually on their television sets.
Really, it's just another story of media figures being upset at having to actually do their jobs.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#300479 - 12/07/2007 23:11
Re: SiCKO
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 18/06/2001
Posts: 2504
Loc: Roma, Italy
|
Bitt, Thanks! Now, I had a long post I just lost. Yes, I know about the thread on how to avoid this. I'll fix the problem. I should've done so before. However, for now I have to give up and promise I'll be back with hopefully interesting considerations about your questions. This is a long debated issue, and even more so here in Italy. I'll be happy to bring it here and read what you guys think.
_________________________
= Taym = MK2a #040103216 * 100Gb *All/Colors* Radio * 3.0a11 * Hijack = taympeg
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#300480 - 12/07/2007 23:42
Re: SiCKO
[Re: Taym]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I'm certainly interested in other points of view, especially those from a country with socialized medicine other than Canada -- we hear those all the time.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#300481 - 13/07/2007 04:33
Re: SiCKO
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 12/11/2001
Posts: 7738
Loc: Toronto, CANADA
|
Healthcare in Canada isn't all it's cracked up to be unfortunately. You may already know that though. If something serious/complicated is wrong and needs expedited attention, a lot of people still go to the US and pay for treatment.
Is it normal in many (any?) parts of the US to wait 2 to 3 weeks for an MRI for something as urgent as a just-discovered brain tumor?
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#300482 - 13/07/2007 11:51
Re: SiCKO
[Re: hybrid8]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 20/01/2002
Posts: 2085
Loc: New Orleans, LA
|
Wow. My wife's doctor decided she needed back surgery. She had an MRI in 20-30 minutes. She had surgery 3 days later.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#300483 - 13/07/2007 12:41
Re: SiCKO
[Re: hybrid8]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote: Is it normal in many (any?) parts of the US to wait 2 to 3 weeks for an MRI for something as urgent as a just-discovered brain tumor?
No. Well, unless you don't have any insurance, in which case you can't pay for it and you never get it. Or you get it and have to declare bankruptcy.
Certainly having to wait that long for procedures is something that needs to be fixed. But at least it's available.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#300484 - 13/07/2007 12:49
Re: SiCKO
[Re: hybrid8]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
"Yeah, but there are long lines in $name_of_country_with_socialized_medicine" is one of the most often-cited reasons why America shouldn't move more in the direction of socialized universal healthcare. Here are a few reasons why it's bogus:
1. The reason lines are shorter in America is not because our system is better or more efficient. It's because those who are covered are hesitant to go in for routine preventative checkups, or even for significant procedures they know they need, just because they know that (a) they'll have to pay a large co-pay and (b) the HMO/PPO is almost guaranteed to try to stick them with a giant bill. The HMOs and PPOs know this, and the simple threat of the healthcare consumer having to pay what could amount to thousands of dollars is enough to keep them away, raising profits for the healthcare provider, and yes, Virginia, making sure those lines are shorter for those lucky folks who have good health plans (or just haven't been fucked by theirs yet.)
2. Another significant reason the lines are shorter here is because 47 million of us, one out of every six, can't get into those lines because they have no coverage and no ability to pay the bill themselves.
3. The United States is a country of enormous means. If we simply stole the blueprints for any moderately-successful socialized medicine plan, with no changes at all in terms of its policies, administrative costs, etc., we would come out ahead, because we can afford to spend more per person on healthcare.
How do I know that? Because we already do. Americans pay way more than most countries with socialized medicine, yet receive less care. If we spent what we spend now, but the HMOs and drug companies weren't taking their enormous piece of the pie, Americans would have better care. The difference would be that the costs would be predictable (taken out of taxes) so nobody would ever be surprised/bankrupted by unforeseen medical expenses, which is important, given that the #1 cause of bankruptcy in this country is inability to pay for medical expenses.
The free market is good for many things, but for healthcare, it has proven to be a catastrophic failure. We got this one wrong, and we shouldn't be ashamed of borrowing ideas from others to make it right
Edited by tonyc (13/07/2007 12:50)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#300485 - 13/07/2007 13:50
Re: SiCKO
[Re: tonyc]
|
old hand
Registered: 14/04/2002
Posts: 1172
Loc: Hants, UK
|
I was going to say that the reason there are waiting lists for scanners is because they are there and "free" for the NHS to use, so they are used whenever they might be useful in a medical diagnosis. The waiting lists are for non-time critical cases and anybody who needs one urgently will get seen as soon as possible.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#300486 - 13/07/2007 14:25
Re: SiCKO
[Re: g_attrill]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 12/11/2001
Posts: 7738
Loc: Toronto, CANADA
|
Quote:
The waiting lists are for non-time critical cases and anybody who needs one urgently will get seen as soon as possible.
Not in Ontario. The brain tumor example I cited is real-world and just happened to the husband of an associate of my fiancee. His doctors discovered something thhat was so urgent they told him to come in the very day they called him. Everything they told him exuded urgency. Yet that much needed scan needed to be scheduled and he had to wait at least 2 weeks.
Hospitals and other facilities with scanners sell time on those machines. I'm sure those sold time blocks impact private citizens who must book around this. I'm also sure that if enough pressure and effort were expended one could either find another scanner at another facility or squeeze in sooner.
I would never argue a long-line argument to defend the current US situation. I'm just stating that Canada has problems of its own, even with socially funded healthcare. There's also an extreme shortage of doctors in Southern Ontario. Even this city in which I currently live (Vaughan), with one of the highest tax rates in the area and a booming population over the past 10 years, lacks its own hospital.
A number of healthcare related benefits have also been cut back over the years (provincially), including any form of eye-care. We used to be able to get an eye exam at any time. Then it went down to one every 2 years. Now you have to pay for all exams (there's an exclusion for seniors and young children I believe). What's worse is that many employee health plans have not stepped up to fill in the coverage.
I don't know how the health plans in other countries compare, but when looking to Canada, make sure to correct for the problems currently plaguing us.
It's practically a no-brainer that social healthcare would work in the US if it can work anywhere else. The US spends untold sums on so much else like defense (or rather "offense") as well as lining the pockets of so many representatives.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#300487 - 13/07/2007 14:42
Re: SiCKO
[Re: tonyc]
|
addict
Registered: 18/02/2002
Posts: 658
|
IMHO, the experts already know our system is fucked and that there is definitely a better way. Sicko does well to bring the issue up for discussion but unfortunately, the sad truth is that there are way too many lobbyists with way too much power and money that will never allow the U.S. to change its current system.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#300488 - 13/07/2007 15:51
Re: SiCKO
[Re: hybrid8]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
I don't know how the health plans in other countries compare, but when looking to Canada, make sure to correct for the problems currently plaguing us.
Sure, but will you at least grant me that if more funding went into your system (which would of course have to come from tax dollars) then there would be more scanners, more doctors, etc. and the wait times would go down? Canada's healthcare costs (insuring all Canadians) are around 9% of GDP, whereas the US's costs (insuring only around 85% of Americans) are 16% of GDP. If your country spent, let's say, 1/3 more than it does now on healthcare (and spent it wisely, of course) I think things would improve.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|