Michael Moore's SiCKO: Contemplating Universal Healthcare

Well, being a healthcare worker, I had a partcular intrest in seeing Michael Moore's SiCKO. The company I work for partners with hospitals to provide healthcare to their patients and we split facility reimbursement. Next year's presidential election holds a lot of meaning for me. With our country likely to elect the first female of African American president, I am seriousluy thinking of not voting at all because both of these candidates are likely to make changes to implemnt universal healthcare and this would dramatically change the way I do business. So on SiCKO's opening weekend, I felt compelled to travel the 50 miles to the nearest theater showing this movie.

We all know the reasons why universal healthcare is not a good thing... awarding government more control over our lives is not good. People in Canada have universal healthcare and many of them come to the US for care because it is so much better... Do we want beaureucrats making decisions that effect my healthcare instead of doctors? Besides, America has the best healthcare in the world, and this is directly due to the free market of the current healthcare industry.

It turns out that all of these are exaggerations.

Michael Moore shows us Canadians fearful to come to the US without purchasing travel insurance and Americans sneaking into Canada seeking affordable healthcare.... These I though were anecdotal instances, but he shows several instances of people living under and practicing in socialized medicine societies and not only happy with it... but condemning capitalized medicine. Doctors vowing that they would never want to practice under our conditions... And some of them were even members of their government's conservative party!

If socialized medicine were really all that good, then there must be some objective, quantifiable way to compare our two systems, right? The World Health Organization recently ranked the healthcare systems of all the contries and surely, The USA finished at the absolute top or near the top, right? Wrong. The US finished 37th. Right after places like Costa Rica and just above Slovenia... WTF???

Well, the WHO must be biased, right? Is there another objective measure we could use? What about life expectancy? The average US citizen can reasonably expect to live to the ages of 75-80... Pretty good... until you consider that the average Canadian can expect to live to the age of 80-85. The Australians, French, Spanish, Germans and Italians all can expect such a life span... Have we been bamboozled?

Time after time, Moore shows us examples of people making healthcare decisions without having to consider the financial aspect of it and as a healthcare worker, this is a scene that I am all too familiar with. I could not even relate to it. While touring a hospital in London, Moore sarcastically ask a couple leaving with a newborn how much did it cost the couple to have a baby and they both laughed at him... and kind of snidely replied "This is not America." Moore goes to France, whom the WHO incidentally awarded the best healthcare in the world moniker to and met Americans living there... They bragged about the 35 hour work week, the government sick leave benifits they enjoy and mandatory 5 weeks a year of vacation... I began to think to myself that the country was obviously lacking in productivity until one of them says that France actually has higher productivity rates than we do in the US... HIGHER!!

At this point, i began to feel like a sucker... Michael Moore must be lying... until I got home and verified these facts with Google. Is there a better way of life than what we have here in America? Are we more intrested in profits for the top earners than we are with our own wellbeing?

What say you?

moore is a fatso commie pinko.

No credibility.

And I have spoken with Canadians who live here (due to work) and describe the Canadian system in horror.
Now why should I not believe them and believe Moore who has a track record of glossing over facts that don't fit his idealogy?

Let's not assume that that the US healthcare system is a capitalistic system, governed by market forces. Until we reconnect the costs of healthcare to a person's budget and the decision process of any other marketable service, how can competition, technology and personal choice truly come together to lower costs over time?

I have an HSA, a high deductible insurance policy, and I paid for Littleflow's birth out of pocket.

^^ DD&B

This is not about Michael Moore. Of course, this being the Red Room, you are free to interject with your opinion on him, but could you at least try to address the issue f universal healthcare in the USA?

And I had surgery and only had to pay a small copay. Go figure.

America equates financial status with worth as a human being. Those who are financially well-to-do are intrinsically more valuable than those who don't. Therefore, they deserve the best medical care possible. Others are left to fend for themselves. The rich deserve health, the middle class and poor don't.

Canadians don't exactly sing the praises of their socialized medical system. I think Moore, like other liberals, think the Canadian system is the answer to all of our problems. Yet they ignore the Canadian criticisms of their own system.

What about other socialized healthcare countries such as France? Why default to Canada? The WHO did rank them as 30th... There are better ways to conduct healthcare than them and Moore sort of shows that.

I saw a snippet of an interview with Michael Moore this morning. I expected to loathe every word coming out of his jowly mouth, but...he actually was quite well-spoken, and tripped up the interviewer quite well.

He came across so well, in fact, that I've actually changed my mind. I was going to avoid Sicko like the plague (ha-ha), but after seeing Moore's presentation this morning, I'm willing to at least give it a try. With all relevant facts, of course, double checked afterwards.

The difference between individual and family coverage? The difference between having an employer covering all or part of your insurance premiums and having to pay often astronomical premiums as an individual and not part of a group plan?

C'mon, you know how the system works better than the layman.

I'm self employed garamet, and not part of a group plan.

On a related note, I'd really like a big plasma screen TV, and a nice Bose sound system. As it is I watch a Wal-Mart special, listen to worn out speakers, funny that.

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm

Overview/Background

It's no secret that health care costs are spiraling out of control in this country. On average, we now spend more per person on health care than both food and housing. Insurance premiums are multiplying much faster than inflation, which prevents economic growth and leaves businesses with less money to give raises or hire more workers. While the quality and availability of medical care in the United States remains among the best in the world, many wonder whether we'd be better off adopting a universal government-controlled health care system like the one used in Canada.
Yes

1. 
   [*]The number of uninsured citizens has grown to over 40 million. Since health care premiums continue to grow at several times the rate of inflation, many businesses are simply choosing to not offer a health plan, or if they do, to pass on more of the cost to employees. Employees facing higher costs themselves are often choosing to go without health coverage. No health insurance doesn't necessarily mean no health care since there are many clinics and services that are free to indigent individuals. However, any costs not covered by insurance must be absorbed by all the rest of us, which means even higher premiums.
   
   
   [*]Health care has become increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals. Businesses and individuals that choose to keep their health plans still must pay a much higher amount. Remember, businesses only have a certain amount of money they can spend on labor. If they must spend more on health insurance premiums, they will have less money to spend on raises, new hires, investment, and so on. Individuals who must pay more for premiums have less money to spend on rent, food, and consumer goods; in other words, less money is pumped back into the economy. Thus, health care prevents the country from making a robust economic recovery. A simpler government-controlled system that reduces costs would go a long way in helping that recovery.
   
   
   [*]We can eliminate wasteful inefficiencies such as duplicate paper work, claim approval, insurance submission, etc. Think back to all the times in your life you've had to fill out a medical history, answering the same questions over and over. Think about all the insurance paperwork you've had to fill out and submit. Our current health care system generates an enormous amount of overhead. Every time we go to the doctor, a claim must be submitted, an approval department has to go over the claim, checks have to be mailed, patients are sent co-pay bills, and so on. The thing that's especially wasteful is that each doctor's office usually maintains their own record-keeping system. A universal healthcare plan would allow us to build one centralized system. There would be no need for maintaining insurance information or wasting time submitting claims. The work savings in the banking and postal areas alone would be worth billions every year.
   
   
   [*]We can develop a centralized national database which makes diagnosis and treatment easier for doctors. Most doctor's offices maintain a separate record-keeping system. This is why you always have to fill out a lengthy health history whenever you go to a new physician. This is a problem for several reasons. First of all, it's wasteful of both time and money. Second of all, patients may lie, forget, or do a poor job of explaining past medical problems. Doctors need accurate information to make a proper diagnosis. Last of all, separate systems means we have a tougher time analyzing data at a national level. For example, are incidents of a certain disease dropping? How often is a certain illness associated with a specific set of symptoms? A centralized national system would allow us to do data analysis that we never dreamed possible, leading to medical advances and increased diagnosis efficiency. The main argument against a centralized database is that certain insurance providers may deny coverage if they find certain past medical problems. However, if the government is paying for everything, that should never be a problem.
   
   
   [*]Medical professionals can concentrate on healing the patient rather than on insurance procedures, malpractice liability, etc. Doctors have to take classes now simply to understand all the insurance plans out there; they are often restricted by insurance practices, such as what tests can be ordered. Doctors must practice defensive medicine to avoid getting sued. Some physicians are even leaving the profession rather than deal with all these non-medical headaches. A simplified universal health system would allow doctors, nurses, and other medical professions to simply focus on doing what's best for the patient. Medicine is a complex enough subject as it is. Our current system just adds to an already mentally-draining profession.
   
   
   [*]Free medical services would encourage patients to practice preventive medicine and inquire about problems early when treatment will be light; currently, patients often avoid physicals and other preventive measures because of the costs. Because many people are uninsured and those that do have insurance face high deductibles, Americans often forego doctor visits for minor health problems or for preventive medicine. Thus, health problems that could be caught at an early stage or prevented altogether become major illnesses. Things like routine physicals, mammograms, and HIV tests could prevent major problems. This not only affects the health of the patient but the overall cost of the system, since preventive medicine costs only a small fraction of a full blown disease. A government-provided system would remove the disincentive patients have for visiting a medical professional.

No

1. 
   [*]There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care? Quick, try to think of one government office that runs efficiently. The Department of Transportation? Social Security Administration? Department of Education? There isn't a single government office that squeezes efficiency out of every dollar the way the private sector can. We've all heard stories of government waste such as million-dollar cow flatulence studies or the Pentagon's 14 billion dollar Bradley design project that resulted in a vehicle which when struck by a mortar produced a gas that killed every man inside. How about the U.S. income tax system? When originally implemented, it collected 1 percent from the highest income citizens. Look at it today. A few years back to government published a "Tax Simplification Guide", and the guide itself was over 1,000 pages long! This is what happens when politicians mess with something that should be simple. Think about the Department of Motor Vehicles. This isn't rocket science--they have to keep track of licenses and basic database information for state residents. However, the costs to support the department are enormous, and when was the last time you went to the DMV and didn't have to stand in a long line? If it can't handle things this simple, how can we expect the government to handle all the complex nuances of the medical system?
   
   
   [*]"Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc. There's an entitlement mentality in this country that believes the government should give us a number of benefits such as "free" health care. But the government must pay for this somehow. What good would it do to wipe out a few hundred dollars of monthly health insurance premiums if our taxes go up by that much or more? If we have to cut AIDS research or education spending, is it worth it?
   
   
   [*]Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness. Government workers have fewer incentives to do well. They have a set hourly schedule, cost-of-living raises, and few promotion opportunities. Compare this to private sector workers who can receive large raises, earn promotions, and work overtime. Government workers have iron-clad job security; private sector workers must always worry about keeping their jobs, and private businesses must always worry about cutting costs enough to survive.
   
   
   [*]Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility. At first glance, it would appear universal health care would increase flexibility. After all, if government paid for everything under one plan, you could in theory go to any doctor. However, some controls are going to have to be put in to keep costs from exploding. For example, would "elective" surgeries such as breast implants, wart removal, hair restoration, and lasik eye surgery be covered? Then you may say, that's easy, make patients pay for elective surgery. Although some procedures are obviously not needed, who decides what is elective and what is required? What about a breast reduction for back problems? What about a hysterectomy for fibroid problems? What about a nose job to fix a septum problem caused in an accident? Whenever you have government control of something, you have one item added to the equation that will most definitely screw things up--politics. Suddenly, every medical procedure and situation is going to come down to a political battle. The compromises that result will put in controls that limit patient options. The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get their health care needs taken care of.
   
   
   [*]Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now. Co-pays and deductibles were put in place because there are medical problems that are more minor annoyances than anything else. Sure, it would be nice if we had the medical staff and resources to treat every ache and pain experienced by an American, but we don't. For example, what if a patient is having trouble sleeping? What if a patient has a minor cold, flu, or headache? There are scores of problems that we wouldn't go to a doctor to solve if he had to pay for it; however, if everything is free, why not go? The result is that doctors must spend more time on non-critical care, and the patients that really need immediate help must wait. In fact, for a number of problems, it's better if no medical care is given whatsoever. The body's immune system is designed to fight off infections and other illnesses. It becomes stronger when it can fight things off on its own. Treating the symptoms can prolong the underlying problem, in addition to the societal side effects such as the growing antibiotic resistance of certain infections.
   
   
   [*]Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. While uninsured Americans are a problem in regards to total system cost, it doesn't mean health care isn't available. This issue shouldn't be as emotional since there are plenty of government and private medical practices designed to help the uninsured. It is illegal to refuse emergency treatment, even if the patient is an illegal immigrant.
   
   
   [*]Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. When government controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making. Steps will have to be taken to keep costs under control. Rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain expensive tests or when drugs can be given. Insurance companies are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government influence will only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor flexibility and poor patient care.
   
   
   [*]Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc. Universal health care means the costs will be spread to all Americans, regardless of your health or your need for medical care, which is fundamentally unfair. Your health is greatly determined by your lifestyle. Those who exercise, eat right, don't smoke, don't drink, etc. have far fewer health problems than the smoking couch potatoes. Some healthy people don't even feel the need for health insurance since they never go to the doctor. Why should we punish those that live a healthy lifestyle and reward the ones who don't?
   
   
   [*]A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation. A universal health plan means the entire health insurance industry would be unnecessary. All companies in that area would have to go out of business, meaning all people employed in the industry would be out of work. A number of hospital record clerks that dealt with insurance would also be out of work. A number of these unemployed would be able to get jobs in the new government bureaucracy, but it would still be a long, painful transition. We'd also have to once again go through a whole new round of patient record creation and database construction, which would cost huge amounts of both time and money.
   
   
   [*]Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. Government jobs currently have statute-mandated salaries and civil service tests required for getting hired. There isn't a lot of flexibility built in to reward the best performing workers. Imagine how this would limit the options of medical professionals. Doctors who attract scores of patients and do the best work would likely be paid the same as those that perform poorly and drive patients away. The private practice options and flexibility of specialties is one of things that attracts students to the profession. If you take that away, you may discourage would-be students from putting themselves through the torture of medical school and residency.

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm

Yep...up here in the upper Midwest our hospitals are teeming with Canadians patients.

I read about one lawyer too busy to see Sicko because she's filing suit against Ontario about it's heath system. it seems her client would have had to wait 4 months for an MRI and than months more to see a neurologist for his malignant brain tumor. So the guy traveled to Buffalo for the surgery and now is suing for the right to opt out of Canada's government-run health care, which he considers dangerous.

She thinks she has a case since the Supreme Court of Canada decided in 2005 that "access to wait lists is not access to health care" in when it struck down laws that Quebec shoved down people's throats that wouldn't let them use private health care and private insurance.

Opting out of a socialized system?

Your friends are full of it. The Canadian system has problems, yes, but at least it never bankrupted anybody for having the audacity of getting sick or becoming disabled.

We may have criticisms of it, but most of us think it's better than the US system.

Because we all know a television is equivalent to someone's life/health in the Libertarian dreamworld.

Actually, given the amount I spend on insurance premiums annually, it is.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070701..._fact_check;_ylt=AlTivDVWKdztf42xQGq16aTMWM0F

Canada ranking at 30 is better than 37. Not that much better but.
When that fatass Moore needs a triple bypass from all those big macs he stuffs his face with, I'm willing to bet he wont choose Canada or Cuba for it, he'll have it done here in a hospital of his choice by a doctor of his choice.

Sure they are...

I wasn't talking about monetarily.

You also watch curling. Your health care sucks. I can't begin to describe how horrible it is. It approaches dangerous levels. The fact is, all along the border US hospitals are choked with Canadians who cannot get timely care in their own country. I hope you don't blow out your ACL and spend 6 six months trying to get around on a bad knee while you wait for an MRI.

Warning: The rebuttal to this paragraph may not be Politically Correct(tm).

For the price of the TV of my dreams, I'm able to provide for my family and pay for my child's birth.

Why such venom?

I'm also sure we could trade health-care horror stories all day long. That there are problems in and of itself does not make the US system superior.

You call that venom? Is this your first time in the red room?

You just seem awful defensive at the sight of anyone who chooses not to see the merits of the Canuck system. It's not like we're trying to take it away form you.

For those of you who want the government to provide all your health care I have two words for you:

Walter Reed