http://www.politico.com/blogs/anneschroeder/0707/More_of_a_leftwing_promote_than_Hugo_Chavez.html

Has anyone seen the film? Generally its getting very good reviews and much better reviews than Farenheit 911 - makes me concider going to catch it.

It's not playing yet down here in Laredo (big surprise :) ), but I too have heard very good things about it and hope to catch it when I get up to San Antonio next...

I didn't really give many of his other pictures to much time but after seeing a recent interview with him I'll probably watch this one.

From what I have heard, it is the usual Michael Moore slanted view of something. But, being that his subject this time around is healthcare, who cares if there is a biased view.......anything to turn attention to the healthcare field is a good thing. I will be seeing it when I have the time.

I've seen allot of discussion about it and frankly don't know if I will see it. B/C I am in healthcare (sorta) and have a limited understanding of Europe's healthcare... well at least France's. He takes bad examples from the US and only good ones from Europe and paints his picture. I will not disagree we have issues with healthcare in this country but it is not as bad as he makes it seem.

Where I work we spend millions each year on the uninsured as we turn NO ONE away EVER. If you need treatment we give it to you; we don't care if you're a legal citizen, black, white, red, yellow, pink, purple, blue, gay, straight, confused.... our first concern is your well being. After that we try to get money back if not then we charge the state. We have a program here for the poor called ACCESS. It is an insurance for those folks who make min. wage or less and is better than Medicare of course I guess when you're as big as we are and are non-profit you get more dollars for things such as these. We gave up a long time ago trying to be a for profit hospital and realized it was pointless. We make far more money off of the local doctors and facilities who wish to use our backbone and technology than we do off of the uninsured. And if you work here you get the best healthcare period. I pay about $100 a pay check to cover my family including my gf to whom I'm not married but can still have covered. She just had knee surgery b/c of a genetic defect with her knee cap the whole thing cost me "zero" no deductiables nada....b/c I used our facilities and doctors. That benefit is the same for a vice president here or a janitor there is no distinction you're an employee you get the benefit.

I get other benefits too like if I use one of our pharamacies I don't pay a dispensing or stocking fee so my scripts are generally 20% cheaper than if I went to CVS.

Some could say I'm just lucky, I guess so. But my mom is a retiree who lives in Western NC and who has never had a job where she's made anything over min. wage. She is on Medicare and she can see the same doctor she's wanted to see the past 10 years, the previous one died she'd seen him since before I was even born.... She's never had to pay for any surgeries like when she broke her hip or needed knee replacement. Her scripts are $3 a piece regardless of the medicine. I guess she's lucky too.

Programs exist they just take effort to find them and enroll. My nephew who is living with us just turned 22. He works at Target and EBgames and neither full time... he makes barely over min. wage and has no insurance. I have told him repeatedly to apply for my company's program "ACCESS" and instead he blows it off b/c he'd rather do somethnig else with his time. It's going to bite him, apathy is a big problem in my eyes for allot of people's woes. They are apathetic until something happens to them. That and people thinking shit should be handed to them, he's the same damn way. He doesn't want to go out and get something he wants he some how thinks a college education is going to fall in his lap.

Anyway... I've debated this till I'm blue in the face on another forum I'll stop ranting here :)

Fildien, everything you've said only confirms the idea that our health care system is broken. He takes bad examples from the US and only good ones from Europe and paints his picture. Is this assertion based on a review of Sicko or your impression of what the doc will contain or...?
Programs exist they just take effort to find them and enroll.Really? There are 40-46 million uninsured in the country; are you saying that there are options for all of them?

Note that while Sicko does spend time with the uninsured, it focuses more time (as I've read) on those who actually have insurance and how it hasn't helped them.
Where I work we spend millions each year on the uninsured as we turn NO ONE away EVER. If you need treatment we give it to you; we don't care if you're a legal citizen, black, white, red, yellow, pink, purple, blue, gay, straight, confused.... our first concern is your well being. After that we try to get money back if not then we charge the state.I believe this is standard practice at most hospitals; it seems woefully inefficient in terms of how money is spent. I'm not saying these people shouldn't be treated (quite the opposite).

Fildien, everything you've said only confirms the idea that our health care system is broken. Is this assertion based on a review of Sicko or your impression of what the doc will contain or...?

It is based on reviews, I haven't seen it. I did not say our system wasn't broken. Re-read what I wrote, I said we have issues but it is NOT as grave as he would like to paint it.

Really? There are 40-46 million uninsured in the country; are you saying that there are options for all of them?

No I am not saying that at all. But correct me if I am wrong that is all of what the movie is about. Have you seen it then? I wasn't aware it was about the uninsured, my understanding was his examples of people being denied claims or not receiving proper care. In several cases he specifically shows where people were denied care but in Europe is was readily available.

Note that while Sicko does spend time with the uninsured, it focuses more time (as I've read) on those who actually have insurance and how it hasn't helped them.

Exactly my points. It's not about the uninsured. And where he can take 100 people and show bad examples I can take 100 more and show good examples. And given that I have family in both France and the U.K. I can give examples of the shitty care they get AND how whenever they visit they take things like Aspirin, Tylenol, Midol etc back with them b/c there it isn't easily come by.

I believe this is standard practice at most hospitals; it seems woefully inefficient in terms of how money is spent. I'm not saying these people shouldn't be treated (quite the opposite).

No, it's not standard in hospitals. There are 2 hospitals in my county. One for profit the other not. We are an inner city hospital and therefore the majority of the uninsured come to us. The other hospital is hurting so bad they are actually changing their distinction and trying to cater more to speciality services. You will get turned away if you don't have insurance there and there is a good chance if your illness too bad or it's a trauma you will be shipped to us since we're the region's trauma center. We have 4 clnics throughout two counties located inside the city for urgent care FREE of charge we did this to try to limit ER visits for the flu, ear aches etc and the access is closer to the majority who visit the ER for such things (people who don't have insurance).

... I have to get on con-calls right now... I'll get back to this later!

I don't agree with Thor all that often but he said exactly what I would say to you Fil...the system is broken. It is much to be desired and much like Thor said he spends a lot of time with people that have insurance and he points out the problems with it. Lets just wait and see but I actually hated Moore till a recent interview which he pointed out how much of a beating he does take ...however. He braught up points on how easy it is to get a gun and problems with that...since his documentary West Virginia shooting and many more, He pointed out in 911 that we went to war on false reasons...i disagreed as did many people...he was pretty much right. Now hes painting a picture of our health care system that needs drastic over hauling.

I don't know man but having to work many xtra years to build up my retirement JUST FOR HEALTH care is b.s. Why should I have to worry about having an xtra million on hand for the wife and I when we reach retirement age just to cover anything that can happen to us? With out it we could both be sitting in a state run nursing home, sitting in our own shit.

And where he can take 100 people and show bad examples I can take 100 more and show good examples.Extrapolating, we end up with a 50/50 healthcare system. Those are rather piss-poor odds. I don't know whether or not the system is as bad as Moore says it is (however bad that may be), but one ranking places the US ~37th in the world. I'm pretty sure we can do better than that, and without many of the problems faced by Europeans.

I'm not disagreeing with you on all points; I'm stating things differently. I am showing that the system is sub-standard in some areas but in others it is ok. I personally worry about what a gov't health system would do to areas that ARE working. I know we can do better I just think the problem is way bigger than some political candidate using it for a stump speech. It's not an easy problem to fix and I think Moore goes for the shocking side of the story which can confound the issue as well.

I say this b/c on one forum I visit a person saw this movie and then started soliciting foreigners for how they can get healthcare services from them based solely on seeing this movie. /boggle

Again, for the 3rd time I'm not saying the system is NOT broken in some aspects I am saying parts are working and parts aren't working. It's not just about uninsued or having claims denied it's much larger than that. And, I'm not sure what if anything the gov't can do to fix it now.

It's not an easy problem to fix and I think Moore goes for the shocking side of the story which can confound the issue as well.Moore has been criticized for taking a superficial look at healthcare, but he really had no choice. It's an immensely complicated topic, and simply delving into possible policy solutions makes for a snoozer of a documentary. His goal, and I think he's on target here, is to demonstrate in an entertaining, and disturbing, manner the degree of the problem and to highlight possible solutions in the world (rather than just engage in wishful thinking).

"You're too young to have cervical cancer"

oh snap!

His goal, and I think he's on target here, is to demonstrate in an entertaining, and disturbing, manner the degree of the problem and to highlight possible solutions in the world (rather than just engage in wishful thinking).

Right gotcha. In other words his documentary becomes more or less a work of fiction.

That's a pretty extreme conclusion to draw. It's more of a summary.

I think our news organisations have been more fictional than Moore has...Here (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2007/07/09/blitzer.michael.moore.cnn)

In other words his documentary becomes more or less a work of fiction.

It might be sensationalism and biased reporting at its worst. His aim is to gain attention to a subject and spark debate and reform; he doesn't have to present a clear and unbiased view to do this. In fact, doing so would go against his agenda.

If he was a scientist, he'd be in trouble, but he is a film maker with an agenda, which he is up front and honest about. As such, I can forgive him is omissions, biases and slants. To the best of my knowledge, they aren't causing people to get shitty healthcare, unlike the system itself.

I don't think Americans get shitty health care... I actually live right around some great hospitals. Having older parents and both going through open heart surgery, and brothers in horrible car accidents...I wouldn't of wanted them in any other hospitals than the ones right down my street.

Problem I have and so does most Americans is the high rate of cost for such services. Its out of control...

Problem I have and so does most Americans is the high rate of cost for such services. Its out of control...


Bingo!!!! (emphasis mine)

Personally, I blame the HMO's for most of the problems in the area of health care. They establish fees, salaries, criteria, etc., for a broad range that takes no account for the individsual case. It is no longer a patient dealing with a doctor and hospital so much as it is dealing with some large corporate office full of people, none of whom are actually connected to the specific hospital where you went for treatment.

On the flip side, having good medical insurance (I am with Group Health with my job) can really relieve a lot of stress. About ten years ago I had to spend a 24 hour period in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit, where I got to watch the All-Star game on a nice color tv in a comfortable bed. Other than being unable to leave the bed due to wires and tubes and what-not, it was not that bad of an experience (minus the friggin' catheter, of course).
When I read the billing itemization, I was pretty much floored. It cost (ten years ago) approx $860 just for the paddles being applied to my chest. The over-all bill was several thousand dollars for that 24 hour stay; I paid a $20 copay.

Moore is doing what he does best, pointing a spotlight at something that needs to be talked about more. He has never to my knowledge tried to be decepetive about his personal agenda; what he shows he shows from his point of view. I think it is good to have someone like Moore be able to make the films he does; it demonstrates to all that we still are a free country.

I am looking forward to seeing this film. And, I am looking forward to some serious congressional review of why health care and health insurance has gotten so expensive as to eliminate many from being able to access it.


(For the record, in Minnesota we have what is called Minnesota Care, which is a state sponosred insurance plan for those that have no other options available due to work, or economic reasons. My daughter has her and her three kids enrolled in it, since her husband is not the greatest at keeping good jobs.)

Lets also note that many businesses aren't increasing health and medical benefits but just the opposite. Many more people are having to find health care for themselves and their children outside of the work place. As a small business owner I pay $120 / month for quite possibly the worst possible option in health care simply because I'm a healthy guy and rarely get sick, and if I do paying the $1,000 deductible for a surgery is a manageable thing. If I had a newborn who needed regular medical checkups, I'd have to pay around $500 / month for their coverage. If I had a wife who didn't work and another child we are now talking about $1,000 / month for a decent medical coverage package for my family. Thats almost a fifth of my salary and I think I make a lot more than a large portion of this country. How can the poor be expected to pay that? The truth is they don't and despite what happens at Filiden's hospital it simply doesn't happen at every hospital - let alone prenatal care, dentistry, regular check ups, mental health care, etc.

Lets also note that many businesses aren't increasing health and medical benefits but just the opposite.


A frequent maneuver in contract negotiations the last decade (and I am including the Postal Service here) has been to offset any salary increases with increases in the employee percentage of health insurance premiums; and, in some cases, a higher increase than what the salary increase was, meaning the employee actually loses money with the new contract.

I think another factor is rising health care cost is malpractice insurance. I can't remember the specifics but a few years back in PA there was some fiasco going on about the cost of malpractice insurance here. I think doctors were threatening to leave or something (I'll dig it up later). Frivolous lawsuits don't help, it's sad when many doctors have to purchase their malpractice insurance abroad b/c they can't afford it here in the states.

You're right though, insurance has been a bargaining chip for contracts and unions. :(

Well, I just got out of the hospital spent a while in ICU and the rest of the time in Cardiac Care (still waiting for the bill) not covered by insurance so its a self pay situation. I spent almost a month in...private room, constant lab work, heart failure, liver failure and kidney failure. I also coded in ICU and have a huge gap in my memory as far as what happened while in ICU.

Lesson learned....smoking cigs WILL kill.

Glad to see you are able to rejoin us, Rover.

That shit is scary, as I well know. As for smoking, I am now in my 11th year off the nasty things.

Ibudin:I don't think Americans get shitty health care... I actually live right around some great hospitals. Having older parents and both going through open heart surgery, and brothers in horrible car accidents...I wouldn't of wanted them in any other hospitals than the ones right down my street.There's no doubt that the US has incredible capability for providing quality healthcare. I don't know that any nation exceeds the US along that metric. Delivering that quality care, though, is an issue.

Fildien:I think another factor is rising health care cost is malpractice insurance. I can't remember the specifics but a few years back in PA there was some fiasco going on about the cost of malpractice insurance here. I think doctors were threatening to leave or something (I'll dig it up later). Frivolous lawsuits don't help, it's sad when many doctors have to purchase their malpractice insurance abroad b/c they can't afford it here in the states.Not a large factor, as several studies bear out. For example, this study (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2006-releases/press05102006.html) from 2006 showed that most cases were correctly decided (those who deserved compensation got it; those who didn't didn't), that "the deteriorating liability environment has had only a modest effect on the supply of physician services," that malpractice payouts haven't been rising any faster than medical inflation, frivolous suits are rare, and other results that tend to disprove the idea of malpractice as significant contributor to health care costs. The system isn't perfect by any means, but increased accuracy may pay out more claims, not fewer.

This study (http://insurance-reform.org./pr/MMSOFTMARKET.pdf) posits another reason for insurance rate hikes:These kinds of volcanic eruptions in insurance premiums have occurred three times in the last 30 years – in the mid 1970s, again in the mid-1980s, and then again following the year 2001. The cause is always the same: a severe drop in investment income for insurers compounded by underpricing in prior years. Each time, insurers and the health care industry have tried to cover
up their mismanaged underwriting by blaming lawyers and the legal system. To buy this position, one would have to accept the notion that juries engineered large jury verdicts in the mid-1970s, then stopped for a decade, then engineered large verdicts again in the mid-1980s, stopped for 17 years and then did it again beginning in 2001 – only to stop once again.This study (http://www.centerjd.org/ANGOFFReport.pdf) lends credence to the above, showing that premiums have doubled even as payouts have remained flat, record amounts of surplus have accumulated, and premiums have increased even as projected payouts have remained flat or decreased.

So while the malpractice system isn't perfect (~72% efficiency according to one of the studies), it's not catastrophically out of balance, and its effect on malpractice insurance rates is minimal. Of course, those high rates don't help keep medical costs down, with US surgery costs being in some cases double (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM. 20050713.wxhheart13%2FBNStory%2FspecialScienceandH ealth&ord=1346519&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true) those of Canada.

I'd hate to see those medical costs. Just a couple hours in the ER last year, with insurance, still set me back quite a bit. Cigarettes bad, yeah.

Oh yeah, as to there being systems out there ... I nearly forgot this story. One of my friends is working for one of our leading presidential candidates - we can say in the top 6 - who happens to be the person in the office that researches health issues for their constituents below the poverty level. Her first week in the Capitol she went on a skiing trip and broke her wrist before her government insurance kicked in. After getting turned away from 3 free / low cost clinics because they couldn't handle a MRI or broken bones she went to a hospital and got a huge bill she'll never be able to pay off on her salary and her mom and I helped bail her out. If someone who's job is to research that system has trouble figuring out where to get help in an emergency, I can't imagine how our random citizen can be expected to.

Yikes Rover!

I thought things were quieter around here than usual. I'm happy to hear you're okay and doing well. As you're not too far down the road from Leah and I if we can help you out in some way don't hesitate to ask us. I believe you have our number? If not, I can PM it again. Seriously.


Thor -- As I'm not a doctor I don't know the ins and outs of malprac insurance. All I can go by is what is trickled down to us from the top about the rising costs. I know that one of our lures for doctors to come to us is that we will pay their mal-prac ins. I believe we recently might have acquired or are in the processing of ... starting our malprac ins.

I know that where I work I have good benefits and it's a huge factor in my not wanting to leave here :) Leah just had knee surgery and my insurance sends me a detailed slip of costs/breakdown of the benefits paid. The whole thing from surgery to therapy, hospital stay, imaging, medicines etc was about 10k I paid exactly $0 dollars of that. Last November I had to go to the ER for what I thought was a heart attack and turned out to be I have GERD, I've had x-ray studies, CAT Scans, and Upper GI's done and see a specialist I have padi $0 for these services aside from y $10 co-pay for office visits. So, it is within my best interests for my insurance to not change.

Thor -- As I'm not a doctor I don't know the ins and outs of malprac insurance. All I can go by is what is trickled down to us from the top about the rising costs. I know that one of our lures for doctors to come to us is that we will pay their mal-prac ins. I believe we recently might have acquired or are in the processing of ... starting our malprac ins.There's a fairly effective campaign to blame health care and insurance costs on malpractice claims, and the occasional outrageous, newsworthy suit bolsters that already intuitive correlation. And yeah, paying malpractice is a great lure for a physician. My father's a doctor -- I've heard many times how pricy insurance is.I know that where I work I have good benefits and it's a huge factor in my not wanting to leave here.While this fortunately works in your favor, this is actually related to another problem with the current system: People are often forced to remain in lower paying jobs because of health insurance concerns that come with switching positions. This is especially a problem for the many people with pre-existing conditions -- anathema for insurers.

As an addendum to everything else, many lawsuits are filed simply to gain access to the patient's own medical records. For example, a patient may wish to know just why she's a quadruple amputee (http://www.wftv.com/news/6253589/detail.html).

I think malpractice insurance costs truly depend on which state you are in. And in some states it could be cheaper than others. Again, I don't know for sure. But I am going to copy and paste someone else's rant who works in the Dental industry it is a response about this movie and the cost of healthcare.

I snipped it but if you want to see the whole thing I'll provide the link.


Costs- The cost of dental and medical care has gone up exponentially in the last 10-20 years. Everything from rent, to supplies, to malpractice insurance, license fees, payroll, ect. But has the amount of money the insurance companies pay to the providers gone up...not enough. We got a $2 raise in insurance benefits last year across the board. So in order to keep my doors open I have to raise my fees each year, as does the insurance premium that you...the employee pays. But I am BETTING, that the annual maximum that your insurance pays each year has not gone up, not even enough to match the cost of inflation. Check it out....call your HR manager and find out. So your paying more out of each paycheck...and not getting any more for it.
My wife's first priority is to the care of her patients, but this business of ours is a business, and it HAS to be run in a profitable manner. If your upset at the cost of medical or dental care, get on the insurance companies.

In addition, my wife and I have both served in the U.S. Navy, she obviously was a dentist, and I was a Hospital Corpsman. She elected to do her specialty residency at the VA hospital in Long Beach. I can assure you, with first had knowledge, that quality care IS available for our vetrans. There is a bit of red tape involved, but it is there, and it is within reach.
In closing ......I GUARANTEE, that the socialization of medicine will decrease the quality of care that is available in the US, and exporting out best and brightest to other places, rather than gathering the best and brightest from around the world.



I think his point about the cost to the subscriber going up but that the provider doesn't kick it back is key. My insurance here goes up about every 2-3 years they can do that b/c we are the insurance company. And when it does go up my cost is less than $2 a pay check.

I do not think anyone is forced to do anything; perhaps not knowing what or how to do something? Yes, I can buy that but no one is forced into anything. My mother and even my deadbeat brother are not forced into their chosen life. Oh they will tell you they are but the fact is there are many things they could do differently to climb out of the shit hole they are in. I can list many people with pre-existing conditions who do get medical care starting with people in my own family.

But you are right; it works in my favor. I could change it and go elsewhere and make more money in say Maryland or Philly doing the exact same job. I choose however to stay here. It's a choice and boils down to what is more important to me. But because I have people under my policy who do have conditions that require frequent care it's the best choice for me.

I am not the greatest at always conveying my point but I will try again to summarize what I am trying to say. I think there are good and bad points about our system. I think it could be improved but with those improvements I worry about how it will affect what I already have and what I work for. I am not a fan of just giving someone insurance who doesn't pay for it but realize in some cases it is necessary. I think there are so many factors involved that have caused us to be at the point of a broken system it's going to take a long road back and I shudder to think of what Congress/White House will cook up in hopes to earn votes. I think it should be planned and chunked away one step at a time and not expecting to land gold in the first year. Insurance companies are to blame, employers are to blame, patients are to blame, doctors and pharmacuticals (sp, I butcherd that I know) are to blame. It's not just the gigantic HMOs it's everything. And, it's the gov't too for their regulations.

I realize Moore is trying to bring light to the problem but I personally disagree with the content of his opinionated movie. These are my opinions of course so I'm at just as much fault as he is but again they are my opinions. I'm of the opinion that it is ok to express them. In the end you could say I'm selfish because I don't want my insurance to change.

Chenaho, it's good to see you back!

QUIT SMOKING! Don't bother with the gum, patches and bullshit. Man up and stop that nonsense!

Fildien, I agree with the general content of your post (especially the first portion). You seem to be in a sort of trap with the "sure there's bad stuff about the system but I know people with good coverage" reasoning. I think it clear that our healthcare system is poor given its incredible potential. This isn't a problem Michael Moore invented.I realize Moore is trying to bring light to the problem but I personally disagree with the content of his opinionated movie.Did you see the movie, then?

In closing ......I GUARANTEE, that the socialization of medicine will decrease the quality of care that is available in the US, and exporting out best and brightest to other places, rather than gathering the best and brightest from around the world.


I haven't seen the movie, don't plan to do so, but I love these arguments in that virtually every nation of comparable economic status to us with socialized health care pays a net lower portion of their GDP for medical coverage for nearly everyone while maintaining comparable levels of service and most of them are, in general, healthier by most standards. But of course it can't work here.

Actually out of fairness that comment you quoted Malse was directed to someone saying VA care was shitty to someone who was complaining that the VA won't authorize 80k in implants. I should have snipped that too it was my oversight. Those aren't my words, I copied them from another forum.

Nope, still haven't seen it. Just going by reviews :( I will probably watch it when it hits video like I did with F911.

Oh, I wasn't implying it was yours, that's why I didn't attribute it, but it's the same flavor of "X will NEVER work" or "Y will lead to rivers of blood in the street" ideological argument that predominate so much of the political milieu.

""The immediate goal is to make sure there are more people on private insurance plans. I mean, people have access to health care in America," he said. "After all, you just go to an emergency room."

--President Bush, yesterday

This follows from Tommy Thompson's comment (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001870042_iraqdig03.html) of a few years ago, when Congressional Democrats were wondering why the then Health and Human Services Secretary was sending nearly a billion dollars to Iraq to establish universal health care. Different situations!"Even if you don't have health insurance," said Thompson, who toured medical facilities in the Iraqi cities of Baghdad and Tikrit on Saturday and Sunday, "you are still taken care of in America. That certainly could be defined as universal coverage. Every American's health care is far superior to what the health care is in Iraq."

why dont you just download it? its been out for like 2 months..

The current situation (where people are denied inexpensive, preventative and early-stage care due to lack of or inadequate insurance, only to show up in emergency rooms, much sicker, later) is obscenely wasteful in terms both of care for dollar and human morbidity/mortality - almost *any* nationalized system would provide better return-on-investment on both counts. To give you an example just from a real life situation of mine, my insurance provider some years ago denied coverage of a very expensive oral antifungal medication for an infection I had (and not some vanity nail thing, this was invasive), but informed me that if it went systemic and I needed to go into the hospital for Amphotericin B (IV), that *would* be covered. Now being that I *like* to work and pay taxes, and wasn't too keen on the idea of waiting until I needed a procedure that was in itself life threatening, I took a cruise to Mexico and bought several months worth of the meds there, which was less expensive, even with the cruise and all extraneous expenses included, than paying for 6 weeks of the drugs here (and I was told I'd need a minimum of 3 months).

I'm also having to shell out for COBRA for three months this summer while I change employers (even though I *worked* the first half of the summer here) because my employer dropped coverage the minute my annual contract was over, to the tune of 365.00/mo (just for myself, very no frills coverage) so that I don't get nailed with the 'pre-existing condition' hammer when I am covered by my new employer - did I mention I don't get paid during the summer, unless I adjunct (and don't get insurance while adjuncting).

The point is, Fildien, while I have no doubt that the not-for-profit hospitals are, to the best of their ability, providing compassionate coverage for the folks who show up at their doors, the very reason you guys are so hopelessly overburdened is *because the rest of the system that should be acting as a safety net is broken*. People are literally being ruined by medical expenses which are, despite what legitimate inflation exists, out of control not due to malpractice complaints, which make up a minute portion of medical inflation (~0.5% last figures I saw), but due to the burden of the insured having to 'carry' the uninsured, as well as the relentless profiteering that goes on *because* procedures/medications are billable to for-profit insurance.

Regards,
Nydia

why dont you just download it? its been out for like 2 months..

We call that stealing in America..thats why. Maybe you should work for free as well?

by golly, its the morale brigade! i better watch myself =(

Not saying I don't but you do come across often as being on the high and mighty morale ground yourself mister!

I'd like to think my high and mighty morale ground are on things that actually matter, instead of this victimless crime =D

People are often forced to remain in lower paying jobs because of health insurance concerns that come with switching positions. This is especially a problem for the many people with pre-existing conditions -- anathema for insurers.


Ok, I am just home from work, and only one beer downed, so I might be fuzzy here, but wasn't there some legislation being bandied about some years back (I actually think Bob Dole was involved with it) that would provide a mechanism for people to take their insurance with them from one job to another? Or was that related to the Clinton healthcare plan? Anyone remember that, or know whatever happened with it?

On another note, I have already said how good my insurance has been for me; it is much like Fildien's post. However, I just found some more info on my policy that actually had me chuckling at the irony. The biopsy on my liver cost me the usual $20 copay; the specialists who did all the blood work and referral for biopsy, another $20; if I do end up having a liver transplant, it will be covered; BUT, I have to pay the costs of all lab work involved in finding a donor that matches. That is so much a lawyer at work, hehehe.

Insurance is necessary for everyone, but those of us with the so-called "good" policies will undoubtedly see a reduction in service and higher copays in order to offset the larger numbers of "high-risk" patients being covered under a "universal" form of coverage. Now I am confident that Michael Moore will say, no problem, I will gladly pay.......but I am also confident that the vast majority of his fan-boys in the far left liberal wing will shriek to high heavens at having their wallets dipped into to achieve a universal system.

Byl, no idea of the answer to your 1st questions. I'm not sure why you'll "undoubtedly" see a reduction in service under a universal plan -- I think it really matters just what kind of plan is adopted. In the greater scheme of things, do you feel the benefits outweight the hypothetical costs to those with "good" policies.

Byl, no idea of the answer to your 1st questions. I'm not sure why you'll "undoubtedly" see a reduction in service under a universal plan -- I think it really matters just what kind of plan is adopted. In the greater scheme of things, do you feel the benefits outweight the hypothetical costs to those with "good" policies.

I do feel, yes, that the benefits outweigh the costs; I feel that way as a beneficiary of those benefts. I am sure that someone who has not suffered any serious illness or accident might grumble about having to pay premiums and grouse about a copay going to $20 from the last several years' $15, but anyone who has had the misfortune to need to use the coverage is most likely going to be content paying what they need to for that safety net.

I only hope that if we do come to some point that we are able to insure virtually everyone that the government and large corporations and insurance groups do not crawl into bed together and screw the little guys, as they so often do. Meaning, coming up with a formula for cost distribution that is fair to all, and not the usual free rides to the powerful.

Ok, I am just home from work, and only one beer downed, so I might be fuzzy here, but wasn't there some legislation being bandied about some years back (I actually think Bob Dole was involved with it) that would provide a mechanism for people to take their insurance with them from one job to another? Or was that related to the Clinton healthcare plan? Anyone remember that, or know whatever happened with it?


That was CORBA (or maybe COBRA?) and it allows you to pay to maintain your coverage for some number of months after leaving an employer provided insurer, however it is both time limited and does not really address the problem of the insidious pre-existing conditions clauses.

In effect "Health Insurance" is really a misnomer since virtually everyone uses it at some point and it covers things that have nothing to do with unforeseen events.

I only hope that if we do come to some point that we are able to insure virtually everyone that the government and large corporations and insurance groups do not crawl into bed together and screw the little guys, as they so often do.Many large corporations would be just as happy to let someone else handle healthcare costs. Was it GM that spent $8 billion a year or two ago on healthcare? Rest assured that insurance companies will attempt to scuttle any such program, or at least make sure that they're still in the loop if universal healthcare goes thru.

I for one have benefited from our health care system. I have been on Medicare for over 20 years. I have been disable for over 22 years. I have not had a steady job in those 22 years because of the risk of loosing my benefits. For me it's not an if I'll need the coverage, it's when I need it. It's an issue that has govern my life for the last 22 years. So even someone like me whom is benefiting from our health care system, it has become a burden on my quality of life. I'm having to get a master degree to increase my chances of getting a job that I can afford to have.

due to the burden of the insured having to 'carry' the uninsured

Bingo. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, remember that. The argument that universal healthcare would mean paying for another person's medical bills is pretty much bunk because if you've ever paid any money into the health care system that is what you're already doing.

The argument that the best and brightest doctors wouldn't practice medicine in this country if we had universal healthcare is also 100% bullshit. The best and brightest doctors could still easily make a killing from those with the money to spend on their services, it is basic supply and demand. Just look at plastic surgeons in Beverly Hills. Do you honestly think an HMO is paying for the Ferraris those guys are driving?

There really isn't any question that the system is broken.

L2's Health Care Plan.

Government mandates that all "Acute and Critical" medical care is universal. Nobody should have to worry about how they are going to pay their bills if they get hurt or sick.

How this is implemented is left up to each individual state. They would be, however, under legal obligation to provide the service and meet certain mandatory standards.

The free market system would be left in place for longer term, cosmetic, or non acute medicine. This would keep spurring growth and innovation in cutting edge medicine while providing a baseline for immediate care.

Example: John cuts his finger off at work, he goes to the emergency room and it is put back on for free. While there John finds out he has Cancer, treatment for Cancer (Chemo, ect) is not free, and his insurance would pick that up.

I think a hybrid system like would work. And let the states act as 50 different laboratories for ideas, the way the founding fathers envisioned.

Oooh I love this thread but just now reading it. Lots of opinions from my side of things...

A couple of quick points until I have time to digest this stuff.

-why shouldn't you get better health care if you can pay for it?
-why should the massess have to pay for you taking poor care of yourself?
-who's poor is better off in the world (healthcare wise)? America's or (fill in the blank)
-what is so wrong with the individual taking responsibilty for finding/paying their own health care?
-the cost of health care is so high mainly due to (imo) technology and our 'free' healthcare for those who don't do their part by paying ANYTHING.
-also there is the double edged sword that life expectancy has increased dramatically in the US over the last 50 years.... lots of healthcare mouths to feed expensive healthcare food with not as many healthcare food providers.

More later but I dislike Micheal Moore and won't be seeing this 'film'.... now if it was something like "College Heathcare Gone Wild" I may rent it.

-why shouldn't you get better health care if you can pay for it?

I'm not aware of a current proposal that says you couldn't. Is there one?
-why should the massess have to pay for you taking poor care of yourself?A focus on preventative care, especially early in age, will help people take care of themselves. Of course, the focus of such a system is to better facilitate those who wish to take care of themselves by making it affordable for them to do so. Also, it would aid those who, through no fault of their own, require medical care (the source of ~half of bankruptcies in the US).
-who's poor is better off in the world (healthcare wise)? America's or (fill in the blank)Do tell. How do Germany, Canada, France, Britain and Japan compare, for instance? Obviously, countries like Chad and Uzbekistan aren't in the same league.
-what is so wrong with the individual taking responsibilty for finding/paying their own health care?It's regularly impractical, not possible, insufficient for their needs, and puts healthcare into the hands of agencies who seek to minimize or void costs and responsibility for the very service they supposedly provide. That, in fact, is the focus of SiCKO.
-the cost of health care is so high mainly due to (imo) technology and our 'free' healthcare for those who don't do their part by paying ANYTHING.Other countries use the same technology, cover the masses and still pay much less than we do. Costs in the US run particularly high because we have an entire layer of useless middlemen (insurance companies and benefits coordinators in industry) soaking up money that could better be spent on actually providing care. Much of that money, of course, is also spent lobbying in an effort to keep them in the loop on any proposed changes to the healthcare system. The "free" healthcare provided to those without insurance does cause problems -- we essentially have the most inefficient form of socialized medicine already in place. Of course, many of those people have jobs and do what they can to make ends meet, but are not provided insurance by their employers. If those people did find better work with benefits, others would fill the void, working without benefits -- nothing would change.
-also there is the double edged sword that life expectancy has increased dramatically in the US over the last 50 years.... lots of healthcare mouths to feed expensive healthcare food with not as many healthcare food providers.Thus the big push to train nurses, attract physicians (especially GPs, which the US sorely lacks) and find a better system. Note that keeping the status quo only exacerbates the current problems for the very reasons you cite.

Our Healthcare system is corrupt and not something we as a "wealthy" country should tolerate.

Fix it, and fix it now...

Fandros

I'm not aware of a current proposal that says you couldn't. Is there one?

There is an assumption that everyone should be treated equal.... I beg to differ. If I have the money to drive a Lexus it doesn't mean everyone needs to drive a Lexus.

A focus on preventative care, especially early in age, will help people take care of themselves. Of course, the focus of such a system is to better facilitate those who wish to take care of themselves by making it affordable for them to do so. Also, it would aid those who, through no fault of their own, require medical care (the source of ~half of bankruptcies in the US).

So basically take care of the people from cradle to grave. That is basically what you are saying. Who requires medical care through fault of there own (besides smokers)? Everyone's body breaks down as you get older through "no fault of their own". So once again we cover them from cradle to grave. Welfare mom's come to mind here. The baby is brought into the world through no fault of there own, but the mother and father could be considered 'at fault' ... who pays?

Do tell. How do Germany, Canada, France, Britain and Japan compare, for instance? Obviously, countries like Chad and Uzbekistan aren't in the same league.

The main concern in those countries is rationed care. They have the technology but not everyone gets to access it (in a timely manner). Is that fair? Nothing is truely fair or ever will be.

It's regularly impractical, not possible, insufficient for their needs, and puts healthcare into the hands of agencies who seek to minimize or void costs and responsibility for the very service they supposedly provide. That, in fact, is the focus of SiCKO.

When I first entered the work force as a nurse I opted out of the hospital's insurance plan and bought my own. It was considered a catastrophic policy but it worked out fine. Maybe we need a federal plan to teach people how to manage their money instead.

Other countries use the same technology, cover the masses and still pay much less than we do.

See above statement. Sure they have the technology but may have to wait 18 months to get an MRI done.... which is done after an hour of waiting here in the US.

Thus the big push to train nurses, attract physicians (especially GPs, which the US sorely lacks) and find a better system. Note that keeping the status quo only exacerbates the current problems for the very reasons you cite.

I don't see a "big push". All I see is (to my delight) a higher demand and pay going up for nurses but at the expense of heavier workloads and decreasing quality of care, much like I would imagine in those other countries you listed above. As far as the GP's or Primary care MD's, what we are getting 'foreign' doctors from places like India etc who come to USA complete a year of residency then get to practice. Good luck with that plan.

I agree that the system is not working. But I don't agree with the reason's why. I would love to know if other countries are having the immigration problems of the USA which overloads many different levels of our governement to include the health system.

If you want to educate people on the front end and not hold them accountable on the back end then why even do it? For instance, if you want to smoke Camels for 50 years, why should resources be spent for your life of abuse? Go ahead and smoke up but don't come crying when you need home 02 and can't pay for it. But if you made that choice and CAN pay for your care then I'm good with that.

Eh, its just my opinion though :)

Edit: Changed a word.

What I do not see being discussed is the impact of NOT providing basic health care to all. Most of those workers with minimal or no health care through their jobs are doing the most menial work that many would not consider doing; the uninsured are not all welfare or unemployed, but often the migrant farm workers, the day laborers, the folks that do the work that keep things moving smoothly.

If productivity is the goal of an employer, would it not be in his interest to make sure the employee with a pregnant wife has his mind on the job at hand rather than on whether the wife might be having complications? That the employee with a sick child is not thinking more about that child needing medicine than about performing the assigned task? I am sure we all have experienced at some point what it is like to be worrying about someone we care for being sick or injured or hospitalized; imagine then the added burden of no insurance to pay for the care needed, and honestly look at how that would affect your job performance. And job performance is only one area of the social contract that is impacted by not seeing to it that everyone is cared for when required. We also find ourselves having outbreaks of varied contagious ailments, which causes even more people to now be in need of services.

It just seems to be such a no-brainer to make sure that everyone has access to healthcare, but the folks that are making the big money from the system realize that there would be less profit if monies were put into a pot that covered those with little or no insurance. As with all other major societal challenges, change will only come when common sense wins out over greed.

There is an assumption that everyone should be treated equal.... I beg to differ. If I have the money to drive a Lexus it doesn't mean everyone needs to drive a Lexus.Your example overstates the assumption by several orders of magnitude. It's also not an assumption at all, but rather a matter of principle. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," at its most basic, and quotable, level.
So basically take care of the people from cradle to grave. That is basically what you are saying. Who requires medical care through fault of there own (besides smokers)? Everyone's body breaks down as you get older through "no fault of their own". So once again we cover them from cradle to grave. Welfare mom's come to mind here. The baby is brought into the world through no fault of there own, but the mother and father could be considered 'at fault' ... who pays?Why the focus on an incredibly small minority of people who might unfairly (at least in your view) benefit from the system, compared to the vast majority of millions who do work hard, but who get screwed by the system currently in place? Your distaste for keeping the populace healthy is peculiar, especially given your profession.
The main concern in those countries is rationed care. They have the technology but not everyone gets to access it (in a timely manner). Is that fair? Nothing is truely fair or ever will be.No one is trying to make some meta-point about "all of us must be treated perfectly equally." Going down that road is a non-starter. As for rationing, we already have that. Insurance companies ration treatment approval in order to maintain a profit. When their own investments go down hill, they raise rates; companies increase the amount in which employees pay into the system or cut benefits entirely. Problems snowball from there.
When I first entered the work force as a nurse I opted out of the hospital's insurance plan and bought my own. It was considered a catastrophic policy but it worked out fine. Maybe we need a federal plan to teach people how to manage their money instead.I'm sure it would help, but it's really not germane to the health care crisis. There are plenty of personal (http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/07/delta-dentals-t.html) anecdotes (http://www.samefacts.com/archives/health_care_/2007/07/rationing_health_care.php) where things don't work out fine, even for those with insurance.
See above statement. Sure they have the technology but may have to wait 18 months to get an MRI done.... which is done after an hour of waiting here in the US.Any support for that assertion? And why do you think the US can't do better than various European countries (+Canada)? Also, wait times in the US do exist (only we don't collect data on it like Euros do), and they are not (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/76295.php) good (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042072.htm) at all -- worse than many universal health care countries.
I don't see a "big push". All I see is (to my delight) a higher demand and pay going up for nurses but at the expense of heavier workloads and decreasing quality of care, much like I would imagine in those other countries you listed above. As far as the GP's or Primary care MD's, what we are getting 'foreign' doctors from places like India etc who come to USA complete a year of residency then get to practice. Good luck with that plan. Yes, those foreigners couldn't possibly be good doctors. Your repeated "I would imagine" type statements don't mean much in the absence of support (and in the presence of conflicting data).
I agree that the system is not working. But I don't agree with the reason's why. I would love to know if other countries are having the immigration problems of the USA which overloads many different levels of our governement to include the health system.France has many immigration issues. I've heard the same (to lesser extent) of Germany and Britain, but don't know how profound they are. But in citing immigration it seems like you're looking for a more comfortable target for blame than what the data show.
If you want to educate people on the front end and not hold them accountable on the back end then why even do it? For instance, if you want to smoke Camels for 50 years, why should resources be spent for your life of abuse? Go ahead and smoke up but don't come crying when you need home 02 and can't pay for it. But if you made that choice and CAN pay for your care then I'm good with that.Again, you seem to be focusing on those who "do it to themselves" (which you seem to agree are a minority) rather than the general populace who get sick, have accidents, are injured by bad people or negligence and just grow old.

Eh, its just my opinion though :)Thanks for taking the time to express it.

Anterak --

I was wondering if you could answer a few French specific questions about healthcare over there. My only experience was in Nice (which I believe is where you are?) but it's from 6 years ago. I'm wondering if it's still the same....

Is it still true that before you can go to the ER or have an ambulance come to you an on-call doctor has to be dispatched to assess/triage you?

Is it still true that this on-call doctor is paid separately and upfront?

Is it still true that the ambulance drivers are paid separately and upfront?



Those questions come from a harrowing experience I had in 2001. The hospital I was in was scary. It had a 1950s feel. The people were great though and treated me very well. I obviously got better but was happy to be released even if it was to come back to the states and be hospitalized here. I cannot recall the name of the hospital but I think it was a catholic one as it had St. in the name. It just so happens the day I got sick was right before we were supposed to fly out and we'd already exchanged the bulk of our money....since these services had to be paid upfront my family had to go to ATMs to get Francs...it also happened on the day I got sick all of the ATMs in Nice were having some issue so it was a mess. It was like 5am when all this occurred which also compounded things.

It was a bizarre experience for sure. My brother's wife who is French was our only translator and they wouldn't let her go with me on the ambulance or wouldn't let her in the ER room. Since I shared a room with 3 other patients my family could only visit me for 15min at a time.

Anyway I'm curious if it's still like this or if b/c I was a foreigner my care was handled differently. My brother's wife tells me no that this is how things were done there. So I'm curious to hear how things are now.

I'm suprised to see this not linked here.

CNN's response to Michael Moore
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/15/moore.gupta/index.html

I was just about to link that. I'm surprised at the length of CNNs response, I'd think they'd just ignore him at this point.

Your example overstates the assumption by several orders of magnitude. It's also not an assumption at all, but rather a matter of principle. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," at its most basic, and quotable, level.

While I think I know what you mean here I don't agree that any of those are indicative of free health care. Maybe I'm missing your point.


Why the focus on an incredibly small minority of people who might unfairly (at least in your view) benefit from the system, compared to the vast majority of millions who do work hard, but who get screwed by the system currently in place? Your distaste for keeping the populace healthy is peculiar, especially given your profession.

That was just an example of what I was talking about. There are many more instances and variables that would make it infinately more sticky under the 'no fault of there own' heading. Who gets cancer, has a stroke or needs a coranary artery bypass through their own fault? Who develops diabetes or sickle cell anemia through their own fault..... while I'm not attacking you personally my point is EVERYONE will need medical care at some point and the odds grow exponentially as you climbe to 60 70 80+ years old. It is impossible to keep everyone alive forever. Please don't see this as some sort of Logans run-let them all die thing. I'm just saying if you can take care of yourself then great. But if it costs 1million dollars for 50 million people to live an extra 1 year then is it worth it?


No one is trying to make some meta-point about "all of us must be treated perfectly equally." Going down that road is a non-starter. As for rationing, we already have that. Insurance companies ration treatment approval in order to maintain a profit. When their own investments go down hill, they raise rates; companies increase the amount in which employees pay into the system or cut benefits entirely. Problems snowball from there.

But the difference here is that the people who are paying to be in those programs actually did PAY something in.... not just feasted at the table without helping prepare the meal.



I'm sure it would help, but it's really not germane to the health care crisis. There are plenty of personal (http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/07/delta-dentals-t.html) anecdotes (http://www.samefacts.com/archives/health_care_/2007/07/rationing_health_care.php) where things don't work out fine, even for those with insurance.

Life is rough. What can I say? There are folks who eat drink and party up their whole life and never set foot in a doctors office and live to 100 I'm sure. There are young lives snuffed out in wars, car wrecks slipping on old EQ boxes in the kitchen. There are people with "money" who have the wrong kind of insurace for their disease. I can't be responsible for all those people just like they aren't responsible for me.

Any support for that assertion? And why do you think the US can't do better than various European countries (+Canada)? Also, wait times in the US do exist (only we don't collect data on it like Euros do), and they are not (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/76295.php) good (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042072.htm) at all -- worse than many universal health care countries.

While I don't want to google it, I have read stories in the past that the Canadians come to US when they have medical problems (and the means to do so). I can first hand attest to seeing people get MRI's CT's and what ever else they need after coming to the ER with no money cost or wait. Seems like pretty good care to me.

Yes, those foreigners couldn't possibly be good doctors. Your repeated "I would imagine" type statements don't mean much in the absence of support (and in the presence of conflicting data).

Good doctors or not .... it won't fix the problem. I would imagine you would agree :)

France has many immigration issues. I've heard the same (to lesser extent) of Germany and Britain, but don't know how profound they are. But in citing immigration it seems like you're looking for a more comfortable target for blame than what the data show.

"don't mean much in the absence of support (and in the presence of conflicting data)" to quote you, if you don't know how profound they are then in the presence of conflict data and it doesn't mean much.

Again, you seem to be focusing on those who "do it to themselves" (which you seem to agree are a minority) rather than the general populace who get sick, have accidents, are injured by bad people or negligence and just grow old.

I'm sorry if I mislead you. I can garauntee that 99% of the populating will get sick, have accidents and get injured. But who is responsible for fixing them is where I take issue.

Don't take this post as anything personal.... I think (know) we just disagree on this subject :)

I was just about to link that. I'm surprised at the length of CNNs response, I'd think they'd just ignore him at this point.

/agree

I started reading Moore's letter to CNN on his site but the first few lines made me just roll my eyes ... What an incredible whiny baby.


Well, the week is over -- and still no apology, no retraction, no correction of your glaring mistakes.
I bet you thought my dust-up with Wolf Blitzer was just a cool ratings coup, that you really wouldn't have to correct the false statements you made about "Sicko." I bet you thought I was just going to go quietly away.
Think again. I'm about to become your worst nightmare. 'Cause I ain't ever going away. Not until you set the record straight, and apologize to your viewers. "The Most Trusted Name in News?" I think it's safe to say you can retire that slogan.


So it's no wonder their going to respond to him. It could be an interesting spectacle :)

>>The very same newsletter cited by Moore points out that complementary insurance "provides cover for services excluded or not fully covered by the state." The rates cited for complementary insurance in that newsletter show 85 percent of the French buys such policies, 9 percent of the Germans, 45 percent of the Irish, and 15.6 percent of the Italians. In Britain, 11.6 percent buy supplementary health insurance, which the newsletter says provides "cover for faster access and increased consumer choice."<<

I found this paragraph very telling......


Edit: Put it in the quote feature.

Is it still true that before you can go to the ER or have an ambulance come to you an on-call doctor has to be dispatched to assess/triage you?
Not at all. It depends who you call first. But if you feel very sick, and you call ambulance, then ambulance is coming.

Is it still true that this on-call doctor is paid separately and upfront?

Is it still true that the ambulance drivers are paid separately and upfront?
Separately most probably, but never upfront.

I cannot recall the name of the hospital but I think it was a catholic one as it had St. in the name.
St Roch Hospital, main emergency one.

It was a bizarre experience for sure. My brother's wife who is French was our only translator and they wouldn't let her go with me on the ambulance or wouldn't let her in the ER room. Since I shared a room with 3 other patients my family could only visit me for 15min at a time.Weird for ambulance, and still the same for emergency room. They only let patients there. About visits... I don't know. Well being in emergency may be a little less permissive.

Anyway I'm curious if it's still like this or if b/c I was a foreigner my care was handled differently. My brother's wife tells me no that this is how things were done there. So I'm curious to hear how things are now.
I guess being a foreigner didn't help, especially at 5am. I'm not an expert in medical care (I could ask my sister), but the few times I went on emergency, I paid nothing upfront, was taken care at hospital right after showing my social security card, and paid a purcentage later.

War of quotes!! :D

/agree

I started reading Moore's letter to CNN on his site but the first few lines made me just roll my eyes ... What an incredible whiny baby.
So it's no wonder their going to respond to him. It could be an interesting spectacle :)

Hehe, two bloated, self-important entities going at it in public view over such "important" issues will indeed be a spectacle. Everyone knows how Moore slants his presentations; CNN made the mistake of making an eror (although they promptly corrected and apologized) which Moore can now grab and build on, to further his agenda and delusions of grandeur.

Thank you for your reply Anterak! :)


Yes it was St. Roch as I said the staff were incredibly nice and accomodating to me but it didn't help the spooky feeling of how old everything looked lol. I could understand them not letting my family see me while I was in the ER having tests done...I was out of it anyway but having MiMi would have made communication better my French isn't all that great and even worse in that condition. Try explaining symptoms in another language when you're in so much pain you can barely move.

They wouldn't let them see me after I was admitted (they went hours before they could see me), I spent 3 days there. My whole family was present b/c my brother and Mimi had jsut gotten married and that's why we there. They eventually gave up fighting with my mom and just let her sleep in a chair beside me. Apparently everyone thought I was dying so that compounded things further. But no one else could stay longer than 15min.

The doctor and ambulance drivers were paid after I got to the hospital as I said there was some odd thing going on with ATMs that day so they actually had to wait a few hours but they stayed and waited lol. It was confusing for me to have a doctor come do an EKG on me in my hotel room instead of just letting me go to the hospital... we were told that's just how things operate.

Even after paying I think the equivalent of $160 between the doctor and ambulance the cost of the hospital visit was like $400 (after my insurance paid for it). I was working for the D.O.D. at the time and honestly can't remember what insurance I had I just know they covered most of it. I didn't even try to get the doctor and ambulance reimbursed; I just paid and put it past me. I'm sure I could have submitted it to my insurance for payment. It was an odd experience for sure.

Incidentally it turns out I had Pericarditis (sp) so it seemed like a heart attack however I was so physically exhausted even breathing took allot of effort. Once they diagnosed me I was given mega antibiotics; they weren't going to let me leave until the infection was completely gone but that's another story involving the embassy having to communicate with the hospital and a hospital in the states to receive me. It took me 6 months to get past that illness, after the initial heart infection was done I got pluerisy and it kept coming back. I think I contracted something in Morocco or something man it was nasty :)

While I think I know what you mean here I don't agree that any of those are indicative of free health care. Maybe I'm missing your point.The only point was to dispel the idea that there's a "presumption of necessary equality" behind the desire for universal health care. Instead, it's a matter of principle. A universal system doesn't flow from my snippet of the Declaration of Independence, but the two dovetail nicely.
There are many more instances and variables that would make it infinately more sticky under the 'no fault of there own' heading. I think you're taking "no fault of their own" in an entirely unintended direction. I never meant it to constitute a special category or anything. It was in reply to some of your own phrasing; I don't see it as particularly relevent (perhaps you do).
Who develops diabetes or sickle cell anemia through their own fault..... while I'm not attacking you personally my point is EVERYONE will need medical care at some point and the odds grow exponentially as you climbe to 60 70 80+ years old. It is impossible to keep everyone alive forever. Please don't see this as some sort of Logans run-let them all die thing. I'm just saying if you can take care of yourself then great. But if it costs 1million dollars for 50 million people to live an extra 1 year then is it worth it? A million dollars is a pittance, really. Insurance execs piss on that kind of cash. Compared to 50 million years worth of lives lived? I'd say it's worth it. But it's also probably not a valid comparison. I'm not that concerned with tacking on a year or two to the end of peoples' lives. It's more about making life livable so that people reach the end of their lives in better health, at reduced cost, and with fewer bankruptcies. It's about making a healthier society overall -- possible extended lifespans are just a byproduct we already experience.

Props for Logan's Run references, though.
But the difference here is that the people who are paying to be in those programs actually did PAY something in.... not just feasted at the table without helping prepare the meal.And they still get screwed. I'd like to prevent that. And sure, there will be some hangers on who get treatment that you (or even I) don't think they deserve. For you, that seems to be unacceptable. For me, it's a small price to pay for a better system. My further point in that regard is that those people can still receive treatment today, while the people who could benefit from a better system still get screwed.
Life is rough. What can I say? ... I can't be responsible for all those people just like they aren't responsible for me.You don't need to be personally responsible. You're not responsible for people who drive on the roads you pay for, or whose kids attend schools you pay for, or for the recipients of any other services your tax dollars provide.
I can first hand attest to seeing people get MRI's CT's and what ever else they need after coming to the ER with no money cost or wait. Seems like pretty good care to me.Until the bill comes. ;)
Good doctors or not .... it won't fix the problem. I would imagine you would agree :)It eases the problem. But this problem exists given the current state of affairs. Indeed, the lack of focus on preventative care over 'point of trauma or illness' care exacerbates the problem, as do vetoes (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/washington/15child.html?ei=5088&en=c156687b96059d9c&ex=1342152000&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1184602261-ByzYDPiY4haXi2m/I3JrRw) of child care bills (money quote: "This will have the effect of encouraging many to drop private coverage, to go on the government-subsidized program.”).
"don't mean much in the absence of support (and in the presence of conflicting data)" to quote you, if you don't know how profound they are then in the presence of conflict data and it doesn't mean much.I'm perfectly willing to remove both our unsubstantiated claims of immigrant issues from the thread. ;)
I'm sorry if I mislead you. I can garauntee that 99% of the populating will get sick, have accidents and get injured. But who is responsible for fixing them is where I take issue.Actually, we agree who fixes them. Health care professionals like yourself (and eventually, hopefully, like myself). The issue is who pays for it: private companies that earn profits through denial of the services they allegedly provide, or the government. The latter is hardly a perfect instrument, and there may be some downsides to a universal scheme, but I think it will create a healthier, happier and more productive society for less the cost of the current, highly broken system.
Don't take this post as anything personal.... I think (know) we just disagree on this subject :)I don't take it personally at all and enjoy the correspondence. It's the most you've spoken on any issue, and I find your presentation edifying despite thinking it incorrect or undesirable.

EDIT: I wish CNN and other media would spend half as much time fact-checking every other damn thing they report on (e.g., Dobbs, immigrants & leprosy) as they do Michael Moore's docs.

A million dollars is a pittance, really. Insurance execs piss on that kind of cash. Compared to 50 million years worth of lives lived? I'd say it's worth it.



Well, considerng we have spent an estimated $450 billion on our war with Iraq, a mere .5% of that money would have done a heck of a lot more good if it had gone toward providing medical insurance to those in need. The problem I see is that any time we go and set up a program to "help" someone, by the time all the logistical folks and paper pushers and planners, and "those in charge" get through with their end of things, there always seems to be barely any of the money left for the intended purpose.

There are many ways folks find themselves without coverage too. Some friends of mine worked for 20+ years up the ladder from cashiers to managers at the Tom Thumb stores locally; they had health benefits and vacation and sick leave, etc. Then one day people in suits came and locked the stores, and told them they no longer had jobs, due to bankruptcy. Bye bye insurance coverage. And look at the folks displaced by hurricanes, floods, etc. Some people simply need a hand at times.

Anyone going into bankruptcy over medical bills is B.S. and should never have to happen.

I have top shelf insurance...some of the best offered in this country and in fact companies try to model there insurance after it. However I pay for it with reduced wages because I get such wonderful insurance. Tit for tat I guess.

Even with the best insurance best hope your loved one never falls prey to a horrific disease that drains you of every penny. Friend of mine who I work with his wife came down with a very rare and deadly form of Lupis. She was insured through his work but life time is around 1 million and she out ran that in about 1.5 years. Guess what happens after that? They want you to pay for that service...why the hell does it cost over a million to help out someone who is dieing? Thats the problem with this country the service itself cost wise is WAY out of wack. For many years I thought like you Bise on health care...pfffft I have great coverage and all you have to do is ind a job that offers those benefits or pay for your own insurance...i say B.S. to all that after this country wastes so much money on things like the Iraq war ect...shows we as a country can come up with $$$$ then why not for something to ease life..

Direct quote from a Doctor after my recent hospitilization:

It's better for you that you are a self pay, it allows us to treat you unencumbered without being told what we can do. I don't care whether you pay the bill or throw it in a trash can I am here to make sure you get well.

I just got back from seeing Sicko this evening, and here are my initial impressions (needless to say, copious 'spoilers' below):

Strengths of the film: Rather than dwelling on the (50 million!) Americans who are completely uninsured, he took great pains to illuminate from all sides how people who *are* insured are mis-served or, more often, systematically *not* served by the current for-profit system, and some examples of the extreme lengths the insurance industry will go to in order to deny coverage (either in general, or for specific procedures). Not only do these companies pay their medical examiners bonuses based on their denial percentage (and several such examiners were willing to testify to this on camera; there was also one such confession from the 1996 HMO hearings before Congress on C-SPAN footage), they hire folks to go deep into peoples' medical history to deny coverage based on 'pre-existing conditions' that were trivial and unrelated to the health issue at hand or even which someone *never sought professional help for*; if sufficient evidence cannot be found to deny a procedure beforehand, the insurance companies will continue to investigate people's medical/employment histories for *any* evidence which might be used to revoke payment after the fact (and frequently do so).

Interviews were also conducted with patients and their family members (often quite young) who are *dead* now because they were denied more or less routine, if expensive, therapies for such things as bone cancer, and others who were bankrupted of lifetime savings. Some shameful examples of patient dumping were also shown.

The section where he went to Canada, the UK, and France to look at their systems of medicine was also fairly strong; it is to his credit that he not only interviewed 'customers' of those systems, but also doctors who worked for them; the doctors working for those systems both seemed much less harried than ours do (being that they are able to concentrate on patient care) and quite comfortably well off (which an attractive young British doctor testified to); and ample footage was shown of hospital emergency and clinic waiting rooms in working class areas, where patients were asked questions about such things as their wait time (minimal) and their cost (minimal to none). A couple of upper-middle class British citizens, and a group of French ex-pats, were asked about their expenses and benefits, relative to their tax burden; all felt that they were getting ample return on their investment (and didn't have to worry about being bankrupted by an illness or how to pay for something as routine as a childbirth), but no attention was given to the real problems, and real struggle that the French system in particular is undergoing with regard to paying for their *extremely* comprehensive coverage. Probably the most banally surprising, in an amusing-yet-sad way, was the Canadian citizens buying medical insurance in advance of travel into the US, concerned about what might happen if something happened to them while 'south of the border' ;). Statistics were also given on how citizens in each of these countries fared, relative to the US, on such things as infant mortality and life expectancy (Canadians, for example, have an average lifespan that exceeds ours by over three years; even Cubans have lower infant mortality).

Two interesting points that were brought up in the narrative which did not necessarily support his case, but were interesting historically or philosophically, were 1) the White House footage from 1971 of Nixon and Erlichmann in the Oval Office, discussing Nixon's distaste with the idea of nationalized health care (which was being seriously considered at the time), and Erlichmann mentioning Kaiser Permanente's 'managed care' concept; Nixon liked the idea that it was profit driven, and thus the federal nod to HMOs was born; and 2) a discussion theme in the narrative, most eloquently espoused by a former member of the British Parliament, of how indebtedness and the sense of precariousness it brings, makes citizens timid with regard to approaching the government, or challenging the system, for redress. A hypothesis was advanced that it is precisely *because* American citizens are in fear of losing or leaving their jobs (because of the consequences of loss of insurance, no matter how poor in fact it may be, as well as the burden of debt they carry due to student loans and other things) that they can't afford to risk literal ruin and so simply take it and hope for the best - in other words, the profit-driven system is detrimental to the self-correcting actions of democracy (and certain parties, of course, prefer it that way).

Ironically, I thought that the weakest portion of the film may be regarded by some of the film's audience as the strongest, and that was the part where he took a group of 9-11 rescue volunteers who later developed respiratory or other disorders (and were denied coverage) to Cuba for treatment. While it was surprising, (and probably especially so to those who weren't aware beforehand that the Cuban medical system, and its doctors, are renowned all over Latin America and on the international aid circuit), to see how clean, modern, and relatively well-equipped Cuban medical facilities are in such a poor country, and the quality of care that the average Cuban gets, I felt it was here that the film felt the most contrived and manipulative. The EMTs and other patients were clearly overwhelmed by being treated *as* patients without question or having to fight about it, and by sheer gratitude (many broke into tears), but one cannot wonder, of course, how much of that care 'identical to what any Cuban would receive' was arranged by the Castro government without Moore's awareness in order to maximize contrast. I also think that too much was made of the '9-11 hero' angle in order to pull at heartstrings/sympathy in this particular case.

Moore closes the film by asking the viewer the question: Don't we, as Americans, members of the ostensibly greatest country in the world, want to do better to our fellow citizens than to dump them on Skid Row when they're sick, to let them simply die due to treatable conditions, or do we have the political will to be 'better' than that? In my opinion, he soft-soaps it here, in the hopes of appealing in the gentlest possible way to those who might not be receptive to more pointed or accusatory approaches (who of course may or may not be receptive enough to see his film in the first place).

As for myself, while I agree that the system is in dire need of change, I can say from a personal perspective associated with memory, that I don't think that Nixon, in 1971, or even the average AMA member in the mid '70s to mid '80s, could have in his/her wildest dreams have imagined what would happen once the reins of healthcare were firmly in the hands of HMOs and the pharmaceutical companies, and think that what has happened didn't start out as some sort of nefarious plan but was rather was the insidious and inevitable result of us trying to commodify a basic human need such as health care in the first place (Kaiser, for example, was very *good* insurance in the late 1970s and more or less did what it claimed to; paid for basic and preventative care with the goal of preventing people from becoming very ill and needing more serious care). Once the for-profit system was in place, the milking began to snowball, with pharmaceutical companies coming up with large numbers of expensive drugs for vanity conditions in order to sell insurance-paid prescriptions (accelerated once direct-to-patient marketing was legalized); and health care facilities specializing in exotic or vanity procedures and equipment, again, in order to bill insurance companies (and thus the company and patient 'haves'), thus artifically, as well as genuinely, inflating costs, ultimately making basic and necessary coverage available to fewer and fewer people (and less desirable to provide at all, once these built-in costs reached a certain point).

This model is now in such an advanced state of decay that even the administrators and architects of our current system must be worried; even their army of lobbyists can't hold off the impending starvation and ultimate cannibalism forever. I think that it is this ultimate untenability and collapse that may eventually impel us to adopt an NHS-like system; while I admire Moore's appeal to people's better instincts, I am cynical enough at my age to believe that most Americans will demand change only when it has affected enough of them directly (and not even then if the myth-marketing is handled skillfully enough) that they're able to get over the "No *true* Scotsman" mindset with regard to the idea of socialized medicine. I do, for all our sakes, hope that we are nearly at that point.

Regards,
Nydia

Thanks for the great write up!

I'd just like to add one more bit to this thread. At one point early in the film, Moore shows some footage of members of Congress walking into a meeting, with little green boxes and arrows pointing at their heads, indicating how much of each of them 'cost' the insurance and pharmaceutical companies (and mentioning that there are four such lobbyists for each and every member of Congress ;) ). The degree to which the will of the people, and the legitimate financial interests of the government, has been co-opted and subverted in this way cannot be overstated (a good example, brought up in the film, was the Medicare Drug Act, in which the government was *prohibited* from negotiating prices with the drug companies - result, people on Medicare now often pay *more* for their medications with the new drug rider than they did when they had no drug coverage at all).

Another case in point, which affects me personally, and which seems incomprehensible until one thinks about the above, was Rick Perry's (Texas state governor and protege' of Geo. W. Bush) line item veto of what should have been a routine appropriations bill covering health insurance for Texas Community College employees for the next two years (on June 15th, the last day of the State Legislature's session). This was a routine bill, covering appropriations for a recurring expense, there were no increases asked for, it was widely supported by both parties, and he just 'decided' that the colleges would get *zero* percent of their health insurance funds for the next two years (156 million dollars; individual colleges are losing in the 2-3 million dollar range and larger districts in the 10-15 million dollar range). His 'rationale' was that the state, despite having done so for decades, 'should not have to pay insurance costs for employees who are paid for with local funds' (which many are as community colleges are currently only renumerated at 52% of their instructional costs (and only 31.1% of their total operating costs, down from 65% in the mid 1980s); the rest is paid for via tuition and local taxes). This is another clear case of Gov. Perry's office trying to shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the poor (as he advocates local CC boards raise taxes and tuition as a solution).

Letter from the president of Kilgore College here:

http://www.news-journal.com/opin/content/news/community_college_healthcare/local_response.html

The lack of funding issue is serious enough that at least three colleges
in East and West Texas may be forced to close if funds aren't found for them, and options including taking the money out of *Medicare* funding for the poor and disabled in the state of Texas are being looked at, just putting the results of the punitive action on those even less able to defend themselves. Wasn't the whole *purpose* of community college education to provide opportunities for people in working class and rural areas to have access to higher education so that they might be able to improve the prospects not only for their own lives, but for their communities? You know, so they'll pay more taxes? What possible sense does this action make? And who 'gets' the 156 million that will be taken from Community Colleges, whose employees are already poorly paid (MS level comm. college instructors make up to 20% *less* than K-12 schoolteachers in many parts of Texas)? Whom does this action 'serve'?

Regards,
Nydia

People with chronic Debilitation Conditions can get health Insurance. I was fully insured when I was had my accident. Sure they took care of me to the point I got out of rehab but once I was released they dropped me. I have a condition that is with me for the rest of my life, under their watch. I have medical expenses that run about 2k or more a year, above "normal" Expenses that anyone else that doesn't have my condition has to bare. That is cheap, I know others that it's like 2k a month. Now shouldn't the original insurer be covering the expenses? No because to them I am completely cured.

If you look at the way hospitals are designed here in the states. 25% of the hospital space is used for Billing. My numbers are from many years ago but my point is that we pay for all that extra space and equipment that has nothing to do with your general care. All the FUD that we fear about universal health care is already here in some shape of form and we are paying extra for it.

We have to stop thinking of health care as a previlge instead of a right. As long was we do this, we have given the power to the providers. We are also are under the mistaken belief that we are the customer of insurance company. You are the commodity of the insurance company and the shareholders are the customers.

We have to get past the illusion of the US system. that's what it is and I think that's what Moore was trying to show in his movie.

One thing I thought was politically bias was the Hillary segment. Why she failed was because she was trying to come up with a whole sale approach that would of scraped our system in place. Think about all the people that have been paying 10, 20 years into a health plan suddenly get shafted because those companies no longer have value. She saw them the industry as the enemy and didn't invite them to help reform the system. She was also given a post in the administration without getting comfirmed. I think she would of been given a fair shake if they didn't played fast and loose with their new power.

I think she would of been given a fair shake if they didn't played fast and loose with their new power.Hillary's plan (even if it had been a fine one) never had a chance to be given "a fair shake" with Republicans in control of Congress.

You are the commodity of the insurance company and the shareholders are the customers.


Welcome to the Grand Illusion!

Hillary's "plan" was dead before Republicans took control of Congress. It was presented in September 1993, well before Republicans took control in '95. You can credit her "plan" for helping Republicans get majority control though.

even Cubans have lower infant mortality

Aside from the quality of care, I wonder what percentage of infant mortality can be ceded to the differences in various cultures willingness to save the child at the cost of the mother's life.

Hillary's "plan" was dead before Republicans took control of Congress. It was presented in September 1993, well before Republicans took control in '95. You can credit her "plan" for helping Republicans get majority control though.

Yes, she didn't have the backing of the Voters. The movie points out that some vague coffee meeting was the cause of the public not supporting the plan. My parent never attented these meeting and they didn't think it was a good idea. It was the fact that government programs are seen to have no customer service. That people would be treated as impersonal numbers. The images of the lunch line in public schools or ones experiance with the DMV, projected to universal health care as to why people didn't really embrace the idea.

""People have access to health care in America," [President Bush] told an audience in Cleveland. "After all, you just go to an emergency room." (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/4989306.html)"

/head-desk

Spoken like someone with no practical experience in using general health care.

Spoken like someone with no practical experience in using general health care.


Spoken like someone with a silver foot in his mouth; of course he has never had to experience the trials of the common man.

I do believe the day will come when if you want "quality" health care you better have the cash upfront to pay. You will just get "standard" health care if you have insurance which is different than quality.

Having money will always improve your situation. So long as "standard" health care includes a healthy dose of prevention, it's a start.