See "Sicko" & Add Your Comments

WHAT TO DO ABOUT OUR BROKEN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

Michael Moore's latest film targets our broken health care system. He visited England, Canada, Cuba, and France to collect info about socialized medicine. And, while his film is heavily biased in favor of socialized medicine, he demonstrates that we can learn a good deal from the experience of other countries. Why not adopt the successful elements of other national health care programs ? At the very least, Moore's film stirs up long overdue interest. Email your impressions of the film. I'd like to share your personal experiences if you live in a country that provides free medical care. Please try to limit your comments to a max of 2,500 characters so we can accommodate as many comments as possible :)

_____________________________________________________________________

Comments: Patricia Gilliam

I used to watch Michael Moore as a teenager on a show he had called "The Awful Truth." I think he has a funny and creative way of presenting his views on issues, but he does have a tendency to look the other way when it comes to anything that goes against what he want to present to his audience.

I have several friends who are doctors, and they've said the hardest issues facing healthcare here in the U.S. are insurance companies, frivilous lawsuits, and the increase of malpractice insurance (basically lowering the incentive of becoming a doctor after years of hard work and hundreds of thousands of dollars of student loan debt).

Canada's system seems like a good deal for doctors at first--guranteed patients, right? It also means a set wage in a bad way--imagine having your income suddenly capped, no matter if you worked hard or not. There you run into the tendency of some doctors letting things slide--because they have no competition if people are designated to go to them.

I don't know the specific stats, but I've also heard of people in Canada having to come down here to the U.S. to get critical surgeries because the waiting lists up there are too long to the point they could die if they don't do something.

I think there's a lot of promise in things that Wal-Mart is doing (partnering with generic drug companies where a lot of medications are now $4) and things like that. I don't know if I could be convinced that we should go socialized at this point.

________________________________________________________________________

Comments: Destino writing professionally

I just finished watching the movie, and I found the title to be quite appropriate; the movie did make me sick. I have never seen a Michael Moore film before and up until this point I thought him to be biased, liberal and ignorant. Although I agree with Cougar that he did ignore some key facts, Moore did present many valid points in a powerful and very emotional way. However, I remain torn about health care. Both my aunt and uncle work at Cigna writing and selling policies (both refused to watch the film) and I know that they are good people trying to help people. As far as Canada is concerned, the system is not as grand as it may appear. Although I am a citizen, because I am not currently living in the country, I do do see the benefits of "free health care". Even if I did, the empirical system is used to determine who gets treatment first so there is a long waiting period and people still end up in debt. Canada also does not have all the fancy medical technology and therefore treatment can not always be given paid or not. In addition, taxes are ridiculous. Even socialized medicine has it's problems.

As of now I enjoy mediocre health insurance in Texas---Cigna was the best I've ever had. I've actually been told that the only way I'd be able to paid for my meds would be to sell my body to science (ignorant nurse). But it's my mother who is in real trouble. She is very sick and her medication, surgeries, etc have caused much difficulty. Sometimes it's the doctors. Sometimes it's the agency. But it all boils down to a sucky health system.

Congrats on turning blue by the way!Smile
_______________________________________________________________________

Comments:mars

Michael Moore's movie I didn't see, nor do we have a free health care system in Holland, yet I'm much in favour of such a system (eventhough I see its perils, and indeed a lot of thought should be given to how to keep all the doctors motivated).
In Holland we have seen a lot of changes in the insurances in recent years: everybody now has the same basic rights and has to pay the premium to private insurance companies (hundreds of companies jumped in, when this system was created). It didn't solve any problems, rather created new ones: the basic rights are very limited and the premium very high. Meaning that a lot of people can't really afford it and are not insured. The target was that ALL should be insured and rights should be more or less equal, but what is the use of equal rights, when they are so much limited, that many necessary treatments are not available and can only be obtained through expensive extra insurance...Also there is now a lot of bureaucracy for the doctors and hospitals, because the insurance companies want a formidable amount of proof of the necessity of treatments etc. Together these private companies radiate a huge force, thus the medical profession has to comply. I think almost no one is really happy with the new system and I wished all was back in the hands of the public instead of private companies. It needs study and sensible rules, but in the end I think that free health care is the only real solution.

_______________________________________________________________________

Comments: StaiNed

Gee, Gab

I never saw a Michael Moore movie, but as for Canadian Health Care it is a state of turmoil right now, both due to society and the government we choose, as American's chose Bush, and I think alot do not sleep well at night.

We pay high taxes, for what other countries consider free healthcare, but medicines are expensive as are the taxes, and often low income have no healthcare even though it is free.

There are doctor shortages,nurses shortages, equipement,hospitals, and waiting lists that government should be ashamed of. However we should count ourselves lucky for it can always be worse, and one must look at the cup as half full not half empty.

Very interesting article. Ann
____________________________________________________________________
__
Comments:Tmu, W.J. Pitchford

Michael Moore's "Sicko" presented the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth! The USA is NOT the greatest country on mother earth as the film clearly showed. Thank you Micheal Moore

____________________________________________________________________


Comments:Cemetarykat says,Bring it on!

Hi there Gabriella !

Your title caught my attention. I should probably keep my mouth (fingers in this case) shut but once again I will ignore that voice in my head. I live right in the heart of these great UNITED STATES. I have lived in the same county all my life. Our health care system is not the best, we all know this. I have not yet seen Michael Moore' movie, though I hope to soon.

Bluntly I could go on forever to tell my story as I started to. Looking back though it is easier to suggest you take a look at my letter to my local Governor.

ID: 1273004 Invalid Item  This item number is not valid. by Not Available.

I have always paid school taxes (I don't have children), I've never complained. I pay taxes for the benefit of the fire department, police, and emergency vehicles.Yet when in an accident I received two, not one but two, bills from two separate emergency flight companies both over $5,000.00. for using county services that I pay taxes to cover.

I continue my fight to survive. With a head of concrete, and a spine of steel.
(the twin towers episode reminded us all both concrete and steel can and will eventually crumble when battered just right.)

I stand and say my national anthem and continue to say the words our forefathers put upon the simple copper cent. "IN GOD WE TRUST"! AMEN ! Only in God do I trust anymore. When my government refuses to give me the rights than our prisoners of war are given !

cemetarykat's Portfolio!


___________________________________________________________________

Comments:Kenzie

Great idea, to establish a place for comments about the movie Sicko.

Where to start. If you've ever read anything in my port, you know I have fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue. When you have a chronic illness, you look at health care in an entirely different way.

I lived in Florida for years, and perhaps things have changed dramatically in Canada, or perhaps it was just the rich Candians who were "snow birds", but none of them every complained about their health care. I met Candians where I worked, where my parents lived (a retirement mobile home park), at church. They were all happy with their system, especially when they could see ours firsthand. Smile

My cousin has dual citizenship - Canada and U.S. I don't think you can do that anymore, but he received dual citizenship because of his flight to Canada during the Vietnam war and the subsequent pardon. He prefers the Canadian system, having been able to compare the two up close and personal.

I was far more interested in the French part of Michael Moore's film. Imagine having unlimited sick time. And wasn't it in France that the doctors made house calls?

People in countries with socialize health care live longer. I'm not surprised at that. They don't have to worry about being sick!

And...imagine being a visitor to the U.S. and having to go to the hospital. It's certainly not free to visitors, as it appeared to be for those in the film in other countries. (Of course, things could have been staged to make us all want to move, right?)

I don't foresee changes in our system in the U.S. any time soon. Yes, the doctors would have to take a huge cut in pay. Hospitals? Could they still charge $5 for a Tylenol? Probably not. Insurance companies would lose out. And imagine all of the lobbyists who would not be needed by insurance companies, doctors, and drug companies. These will all make sure changes will not happen here. Not in my lifetime.

I think the only way that changes could ever be made is if our government officials were forced to have to deal with having regular insurance or no insurance for a while, so they could find out what it's really like for the little people.

Thanks for letting me vent.

Blessings,
Kenzie
_____________________________________________________________________

Comments: Paige Turner

I thought I already knew how indefensible our healthcare system is until I saw "Sicko." I, too, was sick after I watched it. And yes, Michael Moore showed his bias, but the healthcare industry here has had a platform for a long time. Michael has documentation for the facts he used in the film.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/checkup/


I'm glad that the movie opened some eyes and opened the discussion. I hope we can see some important changes from it. I won't hold my breath, though. Our political system has a lot of problems, too.

__________________________________________________________________

Comments: The StoryMaster

*chuckle* Alright, I'm a sucker, but here's my comments: Bigsmile

Good discussion! Hopefully, people who see this movie realize that it is a "For Profit" enterprise for Michael Moore.

Moore is in line to receive 50% of "Sicko's" gross profits — arguably one of the most lucrative deals on Hollywood's books, richer even than those enjoyed by the likes of Tom Cruise, Julia Roberts and director Peter Jackson.

Source:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-et-moore29jun29,1,61278.stor...

If his motives were as altruistic as the premise of the movie, he really should be donating the profits from the movie to help those who don't currently have health care. If he wanted to help, the millions he will make from this could help hundreds of the poor people he seems to feel so much for.

After all... since Bowling for Columbine and Farenheight 9/11, does he really need to profit from yet another American tragedy? (A tragedy, that is, if you believe his opinion that the American health care system is a tragedy.)

Since he profits more than anyone from the "Sicko" movie, it really is in his best interest to make this movie as divisive as possible. On the merits of that, it makes believing much of what is seen in Sicko.

For the release of Sicko, I saw Michael Moore try to walk into the NYSE in New York City. The cameras followed him to the door, he asked to come in and they said No. Moore went back to the street, stood in front of the cameras and said something of how "they" are scared of my message.

Moore neglected to acknowledge that he was in a t-shirt and jeans, while the NYSE has a well known, well publicized dress code requiring a shirt, tie and dress pants. He also failed to acknowledge that he had not filled out any of the required paperwork needed to enter this high profile building in the heart of NYC's high security financial district.

Moore is a story teller, a movie maker, an entrepreneur. His movies do a wonderful job of making you believe his side is the right one. But it is important to remember that his movies are just that: Movies.
_____________________________________________________________________

Comments: geshultz

Moore is a liberal cry baby. He is easy for me to ignore. Judging by the box office take of only $15 million for four weeks, I'd say the rest of the country feels the same way.

This country is about free enterprise. While we are slowly becoming a socialist country, we are still close enough to being a true market economy that I feel we can stem the evil tide of social liberalism.

Moore should have spent more celluloid on the long waiting lines and the highly inadequate health care in other countries. What about all of those rich Canadians like Michael J. Fox who move here so they can get the best care?

Liberalism created the lower class in this country. It was never designed to move people out of poverty. Doing so does not serve liberal politicians' best interests. I pay through the nose for health insurance and medication like a lot of people do, but I don't want to see national health care in this country. It would hurt the people who work hard and can afford it. The lower class is better served by Medicaid than they would be a disastrous implementation of nationalized health care. Can you imagine how it would be set up? I hate to even think of it.

______________________________________________________________________

Comments:hnameer

I'm actually Canadian from Vancouver, so I've never really had to worry about bad health care system, but after watching the brilliant Michael Moore movie "Sicko," I realize how thankful I am to be a Canadian, living in a country that gives us this wonderful opportunity to be healthy, stay healthy. This film makes me think twice about living in the US because if something bad happens to me, I will not be able to get the attention I need without paying thousands and thousands of dollars. I hope this film will make a difference in which it will change the health care system in USA.

_____________________________________________________________________


Comments:murf

Healthcare should not be market driven. Laissez-faire capitalism is great for toothpaste and automobiles and other modern connivances. The basic needs for healthcare, transportation infrastructure, water resources and the like need strong government oversight and involvement. The US Constitution places the citizenry of United States firmly in control of their government. Any American who surrenders control of our basic needs to private interests imperils this and future generations.

Road and bridge maintenance and construction is a government responsibility. Every American knows this and would not think of changing this arrangement. What would happen if we kept the antiquated notion that private enterprise and the free market should build our roads? After all, this was the way it was first done in our country. The word “turnpike” was first used to describe privately owned roads. Passers-by would have to pay a toll before the owner turned the pike that blocked the road.

If we kept that system we would be paying tolls and subscriptions for every road and bridge we use. With the use of telemetry, we would be billed at the end of every month for street usage by the mile. Conservatives would argue that we do that now with taxes and fees, but at least while taxes are somewhat progressive, that burden is somewhat shared by all.

Prices and services in a private system would be set as high as the market would bear and since transportation is necessary for modern life, prices would be much higher than most American current tax burden for infrastructure maintenance. The DPW in my town gets about 2.5% of our annual budget. So I pay about $65 a year to keep my roads safe and free. If roads were private, I’ll likely pay that or more each month, just look at your cable bill.

A privatized highway system is analogous to the current US healthcare system. If the US government began to sell off our interstate highway system to Bechtel or other competing companies would we stand for it or would there be open revolt? Healthcare is arguably more important than roads but we bend over backwards to keep healthcare services in the hands of private concerns of which we citizens have no control.

I travel to England a lot. They have a socialized, government run healthcare system that everyone I’ve talked to thinks is excellent. However, sometimes there are problems. The treatment at one hospital is sub par or waiting times are long. When the citizens realize any problems, they raise a stink about it and the government quickly remedies the problem. The solutions are implemented far quicker and with better results than any private healthcare provider would consider in the US. The Parliament does it by moving money around from hospital to hospital. Can you imagine two private healthcare companies doing that to equalize care giving throughout the country?

Healthcare needs strong control by the people receiving the services, like all other first world countries. Private hospitals do not respond favorably to customer demands. They see their customers at their most venerable, when demands cannot be made. They understand this and like most private enterprises will make their customer pay through the nose for their services. You don’t have the luxury to shop around for the best deal when you need a heart transplant. This reality alone should mandate citizen control of healthcare.

regards,
murf
_____________________________________________________________________


Comments:Patricia Oshier Bruening

You know, I had never heard of Michael Moore until his last movie created such a controversy. This one is no different. I have not watched either one and don't intend to. The only 'sicko' here is him. I am sick and tired of Bush bashing. It's the Democat liberal congress who controls the purse strings and passes the so-called laws and regulations. These congressman are so busy wanting to portect the healthcare rights of children ( I do not begrudge them healthcare or insurance) and medicare for old people, that they forget about the rest of us--the ones who work and pay taxes to pay for this. I am 43, work my ass off, and have no medical insurance. Can't afford it, even through my employer, but no one cares about that. They just want to scream about how someone should do this. The liberals in congress controlling the purse strings do nothing except vote themselves raises and ignore people like me. I'd love to have medical insurance but if I do that, I don't eat. It makes me sick that a liberal idiot like Michael Moore uses the artistic medium of film to bash the President instead of doing something constructive. He can explore other failing healthcare systems all he wants. But if he is going to badmouth the existing system then what does he propose we replace it with? I will not watch his movies nor will I ever knowingly spend a penny that puts money in his pocket.

______________________________________________________________________


Rebuttal: murf

Some points on Pat's comments:

1- I've seen the movie and the movie is about you, Pat. It highlights the millions of working Americans who have no or poor healthcare coverage because they can't afford it.

2- Liberals do NOT control the purse strings in congress. There have been very, very few since the early '70's. Conservatives have controlled the budget for the past 25 years (Republican and Democrats). The congress had a Republican majority since '94 and in congress the majority is everything. So, it is the Conservatives who control the purse strings. I think Americans feel they are over taxed because the conservatives distain giving the average American their money's worth for the taxes they pay. They'd rather use our money to advance corporate interests and make us believe it is in our own best interest.

3- Moore said many times in the film that we should replace our ailing system with a single payer, universal plan. Here's what the plan and benefits would look like in my mind:

- The taxpayers would fund the country’s medical infrastructure.

- Your current SSI taxes would be something like a health insurance fee (like Great Britain).

- The tax structure would change requiring all citizens to pay in. (currently there is a cap of $92,000 / year for SSI. The "fee" of the lower income folks would be subsidized by the higher income folks).

- There would be no need for Medicare (or Medicaid) because universal health would replace it. Everyone would be covered from birth.

- There would be no need to fill in insurance forms or pay deductibles (like GB). Your universal health number would be all that you need.

- All hospital care, doctors’ visits and medication will not require direct payment.

- No one would worry about the economics of getting sick. Health insurance would not be dependent on keeping your job. If you're laid off, you won’t loose your health insurance.

- Companies would not be spending all the money they do now paying for employee's health coverage (the single largest benefit expenditure by far and one we all pay for anyway in the hidden product costs).

- The for-profit costs of medical services would be eliminated, reducing medical cost considerably.

This is not a liberal idea. The conservatives of Great Britain protect their universal health system along side the liberals. They would never think of going to an individual payer system like ours or there would be blood in the streets.

Moore is just pointing out in his movie that our antiquated system of paying for healthcare is very unbalanced and undemocratic. It favors the wealthy and those lucky enough to work for a prosperous company that can subsidize their employees. By the way, every company that provides health insurance factors that into our total compensation. The company’s cost for health insurance is part of our pay. The raising cost of medical coverage is depressing our raises in weekly take home pay considerably. The 2% or 3% increase we may get a year could easily have been 5% if there was no health insurance to pay and the company would still be doing better.

Our current health care system reflects American frontier thinking. Our western frontier has dissolved but our frontier mindset has not. It's no longer every man for himself but a society of people. It's time Americans began thinking like a society and not like a bunch of individuals that just happen to live in the same country.

PS: Just because Moore is politically progressive doesn't mean his isn't a capitalist, which he is, and shouldn't get rich telling the truth - it's a free market. You certainly have the right not to pay to see Moore’s movies, but from my perspective, his message should be appealing to you. It’s the medicine you need to help you get that much more ahead of the game.
_____________________________________________________________________


Comments: Wolfrunner

Keep the input coming. We can still communicate freely. Glad you put this up. Michael Moore uses his methods to shake people up. You love or hate him, but you have thoughts about them.

I am an avid supporter of a socialized healthcare system. I have been since the seventies when the insurance control was first introduced. Unfortunately there are three major reasons why a socialized healthcare system cannot work in America.
1. The United States is a me not we society. 2. We do not have a fair tax system. The wealthy pay little tax, the poor pay little to no tax, and the working poor carry the tax bills. Until there are no longer any loopholes and exemptions in the tax system, where everyone pays according to their income, we do not have a financial support for health and education in the U.S. 3. The corporate lobbyists can no longer control the people of the US. The People of the US need to control their government. Thank you for having a space to share my thoughts.

______________________________________________________________________


Rebuttal: The StoryMaster

Roads are probably not the best example of government at work. My experience with highways include lots of time sitting around in traffic. It takes 2 hours to get somewhere that should be 30 minutes away. The only real innovation in government run toll roads is the electronic toll collectors, like EZPass, Sunpass and the others. These are innovations by private enterprise.

The US postal service, another federally run entity, has had few innovations and run a loss for many years. Stamps.Com is a wonderful, but private innovation. They also brought about Photo Stamps which is a creative way to generate revenue for a government run service.

I'm not sure how many people have tried to get a Passport, but hopefully, you don't need one any time soon. If you've ever had contact with the social security office for a name change, it's far from a pleasant experience. DMV's are local government, not federal, but few can talk of good experiences there.

Currently, when I go to the doctor, the wait is anywhere from an hour to 2+ hours. We haven't been to the emergency room this year, but last year and other times I've been to one, the wait is at least 3 hours.

The discussion of "unlimited" health care scares me in the fact that our system is already overwhelmed. While we may each have our own vision what a good health care system would be, we will have to wait and see the pluses and the minuses of any proposed system. Surely, no one should have illusions or expect a perfect and utopian system to be created.

_____________________________________________________________________

Rebuttal: Voxxylady


I haven't seen Sicko or anything else by Moore because it's well known he ignores facts that don't agree with his agenda and exaggerates everything that does.

However, being retired military, I can say that we do not want socialized medicine. That's what the military has (though it's improved since the Bush admin took over) and I never saw the same doctor once. Even during pregnancy, I switched between whoever was available. Appointments can take 4-6 weeks to get. Emergency room waits are 3-4 hours. Your doctors don't know your name and don't care because they keep getting paid whether you go back to them or not.

Our system has faults, granted, but working at the individual faults, such as HMO policies, is the better option. I have a friend in England who says a friend of hers was diagnosed for cancer and had to wait two months to start being seen because of the waiting list. Is that what we want? When we lived in Germany, we were told we definitely didn't want to try to use the German health system because it was deplorable.

A rebuttal to wolfrunner: the wealthy pay an incredible amount of taxes -- they're already the ones paying for medicaid and everything else the working class can't afford to pay for although they're the ones using it. I used to do taxes. I've seen it. The wealthy are who keep this country running. I'm quite thankful for them, actually.

We have the best medical care available in the world. Do you think if we socialized medicine and lowered doctor fees, they would still be intent on being the best? I doubt it.

____________________________________________________________________


Comments: Neocicero

I used to be undecided on the whole health care issue, but after seeing Michael Moore's film I tend to side with conservatives. His film is ridden with errors and fiction. I have been to Cuba with a diplomatic dispatch, and I can tell you there is nothing good about the Cuban health system. It makes me sick to see so many people side with ignorance. This film is nothing more than propoganda to force one into siding with the leftists. Of course our health care system is flawed, but basing it on socialist programs would destroy it completely. Instead we should provide government coverage for the bottom 15% of the population and add incentives to make insurance companies pick up other people. We could also make it illegal for a hospital to turn down somebody no matter their insurance but instead have a billing program stretched out over several years to make paying the bill off easy.

____________________________________________________________________


Comments: Brian K Miller

There are many approaches I could take to this discussion. I could go into
great detail on Micheal Moore's hypocrisy and greed, the corporate greed of
insurance companies that will go to any length to avoid paying claims, the
elitist sense of self-entitlement that far too many people in the health
profession demonstrate in their work and in their fees, but I think I will
avoid all of that and tell a story.

When I was 19 I lived in Denver. My apartment was in a prohibition-era office
building that had been converted into two-room flats just after World War II.
That building is now gone and a modern office building sits on the site. I
lived three blocks from the corner of Broadway and Colfax. In those days, at
night the corner boasted twenty or thirty prostitutes each with her own
half-dozen squares of sidewalk she considered her turf.

One of those girls lived in the same building I did, just two doors down. As
fate would have it, one night I witnessd her being stabbed, so I loaded her up
in my Pinto and carried her to the nearest hospital, a privately run facility
primarily funded by a well-known charity that I will not name. The first
question we were asked at the emergency room door, "Does she have insurance?"

She did not and we were turned away even though both of us were covered in
blood and blood was still seeping through the towel I had wrapped around her
stomach. I carried her next to a hospital paid for and managed by Denver
County that was 10 or 12 minutes away. They took her right in, no questions
asked, sewed her up and kept her overnight. Eventually, I paid the bill out of
my own pocket. I don't remember now exactly how much it was, somewhere between two and three hundred dollars.

Many of the people who worked at the County-run hospital were kind, courteous,
and expressed genuine concern for the bleeding woman I'd carried into their
emergency room. I will never, ever forget the callous, cold refusal of the
privately run hospital. If her wounds had been more serious, she would have
bleed to death on their emergency room floor without ever being treated.

Now I live in Japan where the health system is completely nationalized.
Although it is inexpensive, many of the doctors are poorly trained,
unmotivated, and display the same callousness that I saw at the private
hospital in Denver. A nationalized health care system does indeed prevent
people from dying due their inability to pay for care, but it also insures that
many people die at the hands of underpaid, poorly trained, and highly
unmotivated professionals.

The problem is not the system. The problem is the people in the system who do
not see patients as people, and the patients who see a trip to the local
hospital as a good opportunity to file a lawsuit and get rich. The real
problem was and remains the huge number of people who are selfish, greedy, and
unable to feel any sympathy for the people around them.

I will not see "Sicko" because I do not believe Micheal Moore himself cares
about anything other than his own ability to turn a profit. Micheal Moore is
part of the problem, not a proponent of a viable solution.

______________________________________________________________________

Rebuttal: murf

Some points on Story Master's comments:

Private companies built the majority of roads and bridges on the taxpayer’s dime and under government control. That is the only way to get equitable distribution of services in both cities and rural areas. The government’s (the people, maybe I'm too liberal or old fashion to feel the government is still the "people") focus is on service. Private enterprise is on profit, which is how it should be.

If the postal system were a private for profit institution, the rural areas of our country would not get the same level of service they do now, if any. Competing private companies like UPS or FedEx don't go there. They leave the unprofitable routes to the US Postal Service because they must go there by law.

As for the DMV, I haven't stepped in one for years. My state provides its citizens with a web site for all transactions, including license renewal. Pretty innovative for a government agency don't you think?

Hospitals are stretched thin for many reasons. One is the lack of funding in areas of low or no profit. Hospitals make most of their money in the surgical suites. That is a large profit center for them. The Emergency rooms are losers. Although they are required to have them by law, they don't sink a lot of money into them in staffing and such to stem the loss of revenue. Private surgical centers are pulling a lot of business from the hospitals where is hurts the most. Hospitals are hurting because they can't make the money they used to and for a nonprofit or for-profit independent enterprise that is a disaster. Many hospitals are closing down, forcing more people to be serviced by fewer hospitals. A government-funded system could deal with this by moving money around according to need. A private system is very limited.

No one expects utopia. All medical systems, public or private, have more than their share of problems. It just seems to me to be logical to put a necessity such as our healthcare into the hands of the people who receive it. Personally, I have a great health care package from work. However, both of my sons have poor ones. They have to pay a substantial fee for poor coverage, large deductible, poor payments and no preventative care. They're paying the minimum in case of a car accident of something. In my opinion, the system we have is the worst that could have been designed. It's expensive because there are many middlemen grabbing money and bring nothing of value to the system. Get rid of the middlemen and fund it directly through our taxes and existing SSI and Medicare fees. Keep the hospitals in private hands as nonprofit it might be better. It could keep some competition between hospitals for attracting patients and thus more revenue. We'll then have a more equitable, innovative, safer, service orientated system, not perfect but much closer.

Governments as well as private enterprise have their limitations. Would you want Halliburton to run the Pentagon (if anyone says yes to that then go back to 1938 and join the Italian army)? If profit is not, or should not, be the primary focus of a service or market, then private enterprise should not be in the business. You can't serve two masters. A company's focus must be on profit or it's not doing its job for its owners and investors. I don't want my healthcare provider to be looking at the bottom line every time I need a test or surgical procedure. Healthcare is not the right place for the profit motive.
regards,
murf

__________________________________________________________________________


Comments: Stan Stanley


I am not qualified to comment on other countrys' health care systems. However, one thread seems to run through most of the observations made by individuals in other countries, nobody is happy with what they do have. In the state hospitals in South Africa it isn't uncommon to spend up to fourteen hours in out-patient facilities. A friend of mine died in an ambulance after being shunted around from one hospital to another, he was critical. The ambulance attendants only noticed he was dead after arriving at the fourth hospital.

The brain drain isn't helping either, young people opt to study and live overseas.

Private ? $2,500.00 For a heart check up, If you dont have medical aid, you better be healthy or have a healthy bank balance or no limit credit card.

My personal view is all health care world-wide should be standardized and fall under one body, crazy I know, and impossible !

Having worked in health services, I know their manifesto, but what I see and experience are so far apart, I wonder what will make the blueprint a reality.

___________________________________________________________________________


Rebuttal: The StoryMaster

Response to Murf's rebuttal:

We may not like it, but: Profit is what drives the best and brightest minds into a field or service. If the brightest minds see there is a lot of work (8+ years of schooling) and little reward to going into the medical field, they will most likely invest their entire lives somewhere else.

A lack of profit is one the reasons public education in the US is lacking. We do not pay our public school teachers well enough to care. It is impossible to fire the bad ones and there are no incentives given to the good ones. Aside from the good karma they get for teaching our future generations, few teachers have a motivation to "excel". Unfortunately, not everyone does things for the right reasons.

With education, there is the opposite debate going on of what we're having here. People want the right to chose where they send their kids to school. The discussion of charter schools and educational vouchers brings to the forefront the trouble with government-run institutions and a lack of personal choice.

In terms of national defense... defense is one of the things a nation MUST do for its citizens. It is not personal choice. We can not individually shop around for the best defense for the country. We all have to put trust in our government for that one. For example, I can not pick Halliburton to defend "the country" and have you pick "Lockheed martin" to defend the country. That just doesn't work. It's not a personal decision.

My personal security, however, is different. I chose to have ADT protect my home through their alarm service. You may very well choose to have Brinks Home Security monitor your alarm. Or, you may decide that you feel more confortable paying a bit more for a local company in your area, with more personal service, that serves only local costumers. Or you may chose to have no home security at all, either because you don't want it or because you can't afford it. Since it is an individual service that effects you personally, you have the right to make this choice.

Getting back to the roads...
With the bridge disaster in Missouri, it was interesting to learn that the bridge that collapsed had been reviewed by the government and found to be subpar and needing repairs. It was slated for repair in 2020... unfortunately that scheduled repair turned out to be 13 years too late. It is also now coming to light that there are about 6,000 bridges in the Federal road system that are in need of repairs similiar to this bridge.

But I think Brian K Miller 's statement really does state my fears exactly: A nationalized health care system does indeed prevent people from dying due their inability to pay for care, but it also insures that many people die at the hands of underpaid, poorly trained, and highly unmotivated professionals.
________________________________________________________________________

Rebuttal: murf

Response to StoryMaster’s Response

This may seem to be getting off the subject but I think you’ll find it is not. Consider this quote:

"Education is here placed among the articles of public care, not that it would be proposed to take its ordinary branches out of the hands of private enterprise, which manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal; but a public institution can alone supply those sciences which, though rarely called for, are yet necessary to complete the circle, all the parts of which contribute to the improvement of the country, and some of them to its preservation." --Thomas Jefferson

I believe Jefferson was echoing my previous points, or more rightly I was echoing his, that there are some things that should not be left to private enterprise. Important basic necessities such as a well rounded, democratically distributed education, in Jefferson’s time, or the equitable distribution of healthcare 207 years later, cannot be left to private for profit intentions.

Jefferson says that all things being equal, private enterprise is superior. But the vital goals of educating all children or providing healthcare for all citizens may not be economically viable for commerce. Should we allow private healthcare providers and educators to select or place only those services with which they can maintain a profit and disregard those they can’t? That is what any sound business strategy must do. Education, even more than healthcare unless for children, is too important to our future to leave up to the selective nature of profit making enterprise.

Our educational system is suffering, but it is not because the basic premise of a publicly funded education is wrong. It is because we the citizens have abandoned our responsibility to govern. We squabble over paying taxes to fund our society like it is an unreasonable burden and hand over our law making responsibilities to private concerns. Many of us feel that if a family can’t afford to educate their children or provide the cost of healthcare then that’s too bad but no skin off my nose. I feel that’s wrong-headed thinking and Jefferson agrees.

Jefferson’s public education law was reacting to the British form of education where only the wealthy had the opportunity to educate their children. We’re now debating the equally absurd notion that only those with money should have access to healthcare. I think Thomas Jefferson would side with Michael Moore on this one.

It’s not inevitable that modern public schools should be inferior. Our public colleges are as good and innovative as much of the world’s private schools. Why can’t our lower institutions of learning boast the same? Maybe how they’re funded, by regressive property taxes as opposed to progressive income taxes? Regardless, our high quality public institutions of higher learning are testimony to the superiority of U.S publicly funded education. Publicly funded U.S. hospitals could also be among the worlds best instead of settling for the 37th ranking our private system now provides.

The bridge disaster in Missouri should not be expanded into an indictment of the general worthiness of government to oversee transportation safety. Is it fair to question the competence of all toy manufacturers for the lead paint found in Fisher-Price toys or all Pharmaceutical companies for Merck’s Vioxx recall? People screw up. Government screw-ups are or should be transparent and easily seen and dealt with. Private screw-ups are kept hidden until it becomes too obvious to hide. That’s a risk we all take in our system. Freedom is worth that risk and more. It’s tolerable for toys or drugs or cars or even airplanes but with our children’s education and our healthcare we need total transparency and citizen authority. Then it’s up to our desire to govern.

I admit I’m an optimist and StoryMaster seems more pragmatic but our country was built on both ideals. It’s a symbiosis of the optimistic idea that we all share in government and equally reap the benefits of our society and the pragmatic understanding that we don’t all have the same abilities. But with that realization, we should strive to provide the equitable distribution of some of the basic needs for all. Public funding of our countries needs is an American tradition that goes back to our founding. It should not be considered un-American to create a publicly funded healthcare system. On the contrary, it’s a very democratic thing to do and worthy of Jefferson’s legacy.

Regards,
murf
________________________________________________________________________


Rebuttal:Paige Turner

I can't resist a rebuttal about the "underpaid, poorly trained, and highly unmotivated professionals" that would come from a different health care system. I worked for years in the health care field, several in an upscale, wealthy cardiology practice. There were some very wealthy physicians practicing that were so incompetent that I wouldn't have let them touch my dog! Many of their support staff, not so well paid, were much more competent. Being motivated by money does NOT insure qualifications (or ethics) in any field.

We do, however, also have another problem with professionals coming out of college (or medical school) with huge debts to pay off.

I'll resist getting into a discussion on our infrastructure problems, but I say again that a country like this should not have this ridiculous health care system.

____________________________________________________________________________


Comments: Mansour

The crux of the matter is thus:
1. Michael Moore is human, and therefore, often a bastard and liar.
2. Statistics lie.
3. Everyone has an agenda.
4. There is always room to improve.

That being said, I would like to make several points.

Primarily, regardless of any of the above factors, no system is perfect, healthcare or otherwise. Our system is far from it. Therefore, we could only benefit from critical analysis, and we would likely benefit from enacting calculated changes. Those who turn a blind eye from the situation (or the movie itself, for that matter) are inherently claiming that the status quo is without flaw, which is a serious flaw in judgement.
This is not to say that the film is of merit, only that this is a matter worth contemplating, and that every American could potentially benefit from doing so.
As for the film itself, it seems quite ethnocentric. A great deal of time in the film is spent examining other nations and their policies, outcomes, and flaws. There is no harm in this, only the possibility of improvement. A debatable point the film makes is that these other countries are doing something right that we are doing wrong.

Left-wing, right-wing, conservative, liberal, moderate, red, blue, purple, and polka-dotted are all entirely irrelevant labels here. They don't matter. The system could definitely be improved, and looking around at our neighbors just may benefit us.

Go see Sicko. It's quite possible that you may strongly disagree with Mr. Moore. You just may be an expert in the subject and can debunk every argument he makes. You may hate the man and all he stands for.

BUT - if the least that film provokes you to do is to critically look at the American health care system with an eye toward improvement with benefits for all, then do not decry it as evil, bunk, or otherwise flawed.

This is an epic film with the capability to revolutionize the future of America, and I believe it already has. We're talking about it, are we not?


________________________________________________________________________

Comments: Deelyte- Chillin'


I haven't seen the film, but I've no doubt it's slanted, as most everything is slanted in the media to drive a point home. I don't know the solution to the medical problem in the United States, but it is getting way out of hand. There is indigent care for those extremely poor who can't afford insurance, and there is excellent care for those wealthy enough to pay for it, but those in the middle struggle to live with whatever medical coverage they can afford.

For example, when my son hurt his leg in sports three surgeries were needed to fully repair his leg. I had insurance through work. The company I work for takes about $400 out of my check each month toward health insurance. He was mostly covered for the surgeries. One surgery cost $14,000 ! Our insurance covered 80% of the costs. I'm struggling to make payments on the rest, which doesn't include two other surgeries he had.

After spending nearly a year in a cast, my son needed almost a year's worth of physical therapy to get back at least 95% of the range of motion in his ankle and foot. My insurance covers up to $1000 a year for physical therapy. No more than that, ever. The initial visit with the physical therapist was $380.00 and his treatment plan included therapy twice a week at a cost of $150.00 a week. The $ 1000 allowed wasn't going to do the trick for one year's worth of therapy. We robbed Peter to pay Paul, and with the help of loans and family, did what was needed to make sure he received therapy. But my point is this. Yes, he was covered by insurance and were his life in danger, he would have been treated. However, there should be more to insurance than preventing death.

How many people in the same situation have no way to come up with the money
needed for physical therapy? How many injuries remain untreated (and how many lose most of the use of their legs, etc) because even with insurance, they cannot come up with the money needed to recover fully ?

If we had reached a point where I might have had to choose between putting food on the table to feed him and my other children or providing physical therapy, of course, he'd be limping around with only a partial use of his leg. No, most people in this country do not die from lack of emergency medical treatment, but I think a lot of people suffer more and do without medications because they can't fill the gap between what insurance providers will pay and the money needed to fully recover from illness and injuries. The people in the middle class who make do with the coverage provided by their workplace are often worse off than if they had no insurance at all. It almost makes sense to place $400 a month into a fund that will earn interest toward treatments such as physical therapy. I know that’s not the answer. I don’t know if there is an answer, but I think middle-income people in
the US are possibly in a worse position than the poor.

Excellent way to stimulate the sharing of ideas and opinions.

peace

dee
_____________________________________________________________________


Comments: AL

Ok, I saw Sicko yesterday, so I think I can offer a comment now.

First, the movie really shocked me, it even made me cry. Now, I know that it could very well be slanted, and probably is, but I doubt that it is based on nothing but lies.

If even only a portion of it was true, it would still be sick.

Since I don't live in America, I live in Sweden, and have no experience with the health care system there (well, I have been to doctors there when I lived there when I was a child, and as far as I remember only twice, but I can't base any opinion on that), all I can really do is say the way things work here.

We don't have completely free health care here. We pay very high taxes. 31% of
my salary is taxed.

All medical and dental help is completely free for children under 18.

After that a visit to a regular doctor costs about 100 kronor. That is about 7 dollars, and if you are referred to a specialist it's costs between 200 and 300 kronor.

There is a limit to how much you have to pay: 900 kronor within a 12 month period. If you pass this limit, your medical care is free for one year.

There is a limit on the cost of medicine as well. After you pay out 1800 kronor, all medication is totally free.

Operations, having babies, any kind of emergency care, any kind of drugs they give you, any kind of procedures they do, all fall into the same category.

You never pay anything over the above mentioned prices.

And if you are in a position that you can't pay that, the "Social" thing pays it for you.

I don't like doctors in general, but to put personal observations aside, we do have very good, competent doctors here, they are no less competent than American doctors, just because they don't make as much money. And doctors here do make more money than a lot of other people here.

Dental care for adults is quite expensive, but it seems like the government is working on that one.

All education is completely free. All the way through college.

______________________________________________________________________

Comments: Galdus

In April 2003 I received a quadruple heart bypass. This year I had a malignant tumor removed from my lip, followed by facial reconstruction.

How much would this cost stateside?
I live in the UK and it cost me nothing.

Never mind if Michael Moore is biased - the facts speak for themselves.

acerman

______________________________________________________________________


Comments: mastery

It's about time this subject is moved to the front burner rather than the back where it seems to remain. It amazes me that the richest country in the world has the worst health care programs in place. We have the money to wage a war in Iraq but not the funds needed to take care of our own. Bob

__________________________________________________________________________

Comments: Cynical Coz

It is somewhat sickening to read some of the comments from members about socialism and healthcare. Socialism is about equality, I am not a socialist, but I do see a lot of merit within the system and sufficient evils in our own Capitalist system to realize that the best system is somewhere between the two. I have read a lot of comments in a number of different articles, not to mention conversations, where people are upset or scared of enacting a system of socialized medicine because it means they will pay more to help the less fortunate. That is the most despicable response I have ever heard. True Americans believe in equality, equality of oppurtunity and equality of basic human rights and needs, meaning everyone has an equal share in those rights and needs (HEALTHCARE IS ONE OF THESE BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS).

One of the comments in this group included a question as to why a rich Canadian like Michael J. Fox would move to the US to get our Healthcare if Canada has such a great one. What an excellent question, let me put it simply, America is NOT an nation of equal opportunity. In America, if you are born into a wealthy aristocratic family then you get top class everything, including healthcare. If you are poor and black you have a 25% chance of going to jail and about a 95% chance of staying poor. If you are poor and white you have a 90% chance of staying poor and white. This is not a country of opportunity, it is a country with a CASTE SYSTEM. JUST A FEW people get MOST of the benefits. The large middle class gets whatever is left over. They live their lives voting for the rich aristocrats who assure them they won't raise taxes, and promise that their lives will not be interferred with too greatly because they like the "statas quo"--they have no real drive for anything more. The lowest class is made up of single mothers, immigrants, and even some white people. These people don't vote as often. When they do, they are voting for the rich aristocrat who prefers to send the children of the lowest classes to die on the battlefield to defend his buisness interests in other countries. Meanwhile, the rich get richer while the poor get poorer and the middle class turns a blind eye to it all. Welcome to America, land of the free.

________________________________________________________________________

Rebuttal:murf

Response to aceman's question:

I found a web site for comparison shopping for procedures: http://www.vimo.com/hospital/cost.php

I looked up “coronary by pass operations”: the average list price for this procedure is $94,000 and the average negotiated price is $27,300. The negotiated price is the price an insurance company could pay due to its size. No single payer can pay this price. If you walked, or were driven by ambulance, off the street without insurance you can expect to be charged $94,000 (plus or minus) for your life.

I looked up "plastic surgery on the face". Of course this could vary greatly due to the complexity of the surgery but it listed an average at $30,000 with a negotiated price of $9,200. For the sake of argument we'll say your surgery was half the average.

Your bill in total would be about $109,000 or about 54,000 GBP. This is a real bargain since the dollar is so week now. Depending on where you got your surgery the cost could vary greatly. High costs could be maybe another 25 - 50%.

If you were indigent you would likely pay nothing but only a few hospitals have that policy. The indigent hospital costs are absorbed into the system and raises everyone's costs. If you own a home or other assets then say bye-bye to them because the hospital will have something to go after to settle its bill.

In reality, this bill would likely have cost you your house, or at best, a hefty 2nd or 3rd mortgage and the rest of your life in debt. If you're lucky enough to have a job with health insurance then pray for no redundancies and do what ever you can to keep it. Americans are slaves to their jobs for more than a paycheck. Many insured people have policies that will pay only up to some limit or 50 – 80%. Even the insured could end up with a considerable bill to pay along with their monthly insurance payment.

There is little profit in catastrophic health insurance, so many insurers limit their liability by putting limits on the high end of medical payments. In fact they are lobbying the government to cover catastrophic conditions to take some of the risk out of their business. Nice to see our tax money going to help insurance companies perpetuate this inefficient system we have (I read that the administrative costs of the US private healthcare system is twice that of the Canadian universal system and I thought private enterprise was more efficient than government).

I hope you’re doing well despite the inferior work your British surgeons must have done, being low paid and all, as many Americans think.

Regards,
murf

_______________________________________________________________________


Comments: Gabriella

New York Times article, Tuesday, August 14:

In politics, every serious candidate for the White House has a health care plan. So too in business, where there are two leading candidates competing for Web supremacy, Google and Microsoft, are working up their plans to improve the nation’s health care.

By combining better Internet search tools, the vast resources of the Web and online personal health records, both companies are betting they can enable people to make smarter choices about their health habits and medical care.

“What’s behind this is the mass consumerization of health information,” said Dr. David J. Brailer, the former health information technology coordinator in the Bush administration, who now heads a firm that invests in health ventures.

It is too soon to know whether either Google or Microsoft will make real headway. Health care, experts note, is a field where policy, regulation and entrenched interests tend to slow the pace of change, and technology companies have a history of losing patience.

And for most people, typing an ailment into a Web search engine is very different from entrusting a corporate titan with personal information about their health.

Google and Microsoft recognize the obstacles, and they concede that changing health care will take time. But the companies see the potential in attracting a large audience for health-related advertising and services. And both companies bring formidable advantages to the consumer market for such technology.

Microsoft’s software animates more than 90 percent of all personal computers, while Google is the default starting point for most health searches. And people are increasingly turning to their computers and the Web for health information and advice. A Harris poll, published last month, found that 52 percent of adults sometimes or frequently go to the Web for health information, up from 29 percent in 2001.

If the efforts of the two big companies gain momentum over time, that promises to accelerate a shift in power to consumers in health care, just as Internet technology has done in other industries.

Today, about 20 percent of the nation’s patient population have computerized records — rather than paper ones — and the Bush administration has pushed the health care industry to speed up the switch to electronic formats. But these records still tend to be controlled by doctors, hospitals or insurers. A patient moves to another state, for example, but the record usually stays.

The Google and Microsoft initiatives would give much more control to individuals, a trend many health experts see as inevitable. “Patients will ultimately be the stewards of their own information,” said John D. Halamka, a doctor and the chief information officer of the Harvard Medical School.

Already the Web is allowing people to take a more activist approach to health. According to the Harris survey, 58 percent of people who look online for health information discussed what they found with their doctors in the last year.

It is common these days, Dr. Halamka said, for a patient to come in carrying a pile of Web page printouts. “The doctor is becoming a knowledge navigator,” he said. “In the future, health care will be a much more collaborative process between patients and doctors.”

Microsoft and Google are hoping this will lead people to seek more control over their own health records, using tools the companies will provide. Neither company will discuss their plans in detail. But Microsoft’s consumer-oriented effort is scheduled to be announced this fall, while Google’s has been delayed and will probably not be introduced until next year, according to people who have been briefed on the companies’ plans.

A prototype of Google Health, which the company has shown to health professionals and advisers, makes the consumer focus clear. The welcome page reads, “At Google, we feel patients should be in charge of their health information, and they should be able to grant their health care providers, family members, or whomever they choose, access to this information. Google Health was developed to meet this need.”

A presentation of screen images from the prototype — which two people who received it showed to a reporter — then has 17 other Web pages including a “health profile” for medications, conditions and allergies; a personalized “health guide” for suggested treatments, drug interactions and diet and exercise regimens; pages for receiving reminder messages to get prescription refills or visit a doctor; and directories of nearby doctors.

________________________________________________________________________


Comments: Auntynae

Good Forum.

In Minnesota we have Minnesota care. It is a State insurance. You pay according to your earnings. I like that very much. I just wish that it didn't 'cap' and that everyone could choose to qualify.

I believe that though socialized medicine does have some pluses to it, it is not the answer in the United States. I do think that an 'state' or 'government' insurance that is income based would go a long way to solving some of our problems. I am not talking medicare. I am talking a real insurance that is affordable to the public.

My dream is for there to be a program out there where the 'bottom' line for the investors doesn't take away from the service they are supposed to provide.

__________________________________________________________________________

Comments: katherine76

I haven't seen the movie yet but I hear the same thing, that he can have a very biased view. I live in Australia. We have free hospital and medical services here for everyone. I just couldn't imagine in my wildest dreams ever having to pay for something as basic as healthcare. It makes me realise how lucky we are here.

_________________________________________________________________________


Comments: MadMan at Large

I believe everything I see on TV and in the movies. I also feel that I have way too much money going to me out of my paycheck, and not near enough going to the government. When I consider how much it costs to run my local hospital every month, and then multiply that by the number of hospitals in the United States (hundreds of thousands) I realize that it would cost the government trillions of dollars per year to operate a socialized health care system. This should require at least 50% of my monthly income alone, on top of federal and state taxes, social security, and other deductions (work uniforms and such). That should only leave me with 25% of my gross earnings at best, which greatly relieves me. The thought of waiting six or eight months, or even a year to see my doctor is also comforting. That pesky flu or cold or whatever it is really doesn't have a chance to turn into pneumonia or bronchitis by then, right? Also, this will really help out the immigration problem. Who wants to sneak into a country that has free health care? Great Britain is a fine example. Their first-generation immigrant population is still less than 70% of the total population of the country. That's good, right? Really though, my main concern is money. Right now 9% of my gross pay goes to health insurance for family coverage, and we get in to see the doctor within a few days, or a week or two at most ($20 co-pay, $500 deductible on major surgeries or procedures). I would much rather pay 50% of my gross income and wait nine months. It just makes sense.

All of the above was written with tongue firmly implanted in cheek, just in case it didn't come across that way.

MadMan at Large

P.S. When Michael Moore finally has a heart attack, do you think he will go to Cuba for treatment?

_________________________________________________________________________


Rebuttal:murf

Reply to MadMan's comments and other thoughts,

MadMan -The satirical hyperbolae aside, I think your numbers are wrong. We are currently financing the entire US healthcare system. The money taken from us in medicare tax and our own health insurance pays for the entire system. We also pay for the hundreds of thousands of insurance company employees who process. and many times reject, our claims, as well as the very healthy profits that are skimmed off the top. Insurance companies add no value to the our fragile healthcare system. They only decrease the system's efficiency by making it more expensive to deliver services. Insurance companies take money from their customers on one side and squeeze the healthcare providers on the other. The amount we pay into our healthcare will not raise if we go to a single payer system. It will likely drop due to the improved efficiency.

Universal healthcare does not mean that the government will be providing healthcare services. Hospitals and doctors will still be private. Their revenue will come from the taxpayer instead of insurance companies. The system will work like the current medicare system. Fees will be set by the government negotiated by medical interests. Currently, fees are set by insurance companies who make sure they get their profit. There is nothing wrong with profit of course but removing it from the healthcare delivery system can only improve efficiencies and lower costs. Most hospitals are nonprofit now. Profit is not a motivation for healthcare service innovations since it is almost nonexistent. Insurance company profits do not inspire any innovations in healthcare delivery. It adds no value at all as far as I can see.

********************************

People often refer to universal healthcare as "socialized medicine" implying that it has roots in Socialism. I don't consider universal healthcare a socialist idea. Hospitals and companies who supply them, such as Johnson & Johnson or Medtronics, would not not be owned by the government. As I said above, funding for our healthcare would be subsidized by the taxpayers. The means of medical "production" will still be privitly owned. The use of the term "socialized medicine" is a propaganda tool to evoke Socialism used by the oposistion to universal healthcare and should not be used by ordinary citizens. I don't think any health distrubution system on the planet today is socialistic (wholly government owned).

I'm a manager for a large multinational medical device manufacturer (not one of the ones listed above). It is a Fortune 100 company with annual sales of over $5 billion. Most of our revenue comes from the US taxpayer and governments around the world. When a sale is made to a country with government sponsored healthcare we receive money from their treasury. The same goes for the millions spent on Medicare paid services. Can the entire medical device and pharmaceutical industry be called socialist organizations? Is my CEO a commie? Hospitals, nurses and doctors paid from the same revenue stream are no less capitalistic.

Universal healthcare should be seen as a way for citizens to get back some of their tax value. Those that are in the middle class or below will get more subsidy relative to what they pay in. The wealthy and corporations in effect will subsidize those that don't make much income through the proportion of their taxes that are allocated to the healthcare system. Of course that is seen as socialism by the media and since people don't think much deeper than the words in print or the images that hit their retina, they believe it.

The distribution of healthcare should be a basic function of government, like road building and mail delivery. The government collects and distributes the money and private providers deliver the services. Competition comes from the quality of healthcare delivery. Those that provide the best services get the most customers and a bigger slice of the pie and since it will be much easier to switch doctors and hospitals under a single payer system, people will be able to vote their preferences by switching. Most insurance policies are limited.

________________________________________________________________________



Questions for Murf from:The StoryMaster

Will there be "any" accountability for patients? Some people may not run to the doctor now with the sniffles because they don't want to pay for it. Under the Gov't plan, will everyone be able to go to the doctor for the sniffles and have the gov't pay? If so, how will those costs be controlled? If not, how would the government decide what types of doctor visits were allowable? If some are not allowable, what if the person disagrees with the government's decision? Is there no worry of a future and growing bureaucracy here?

If there is a government body that decides what is allowed and what is not, how and who will set those standards? If there is no government body to approve or decline procedures, how is the system protected from abuses and skyrocketing costs?

Are you talking about only providing basic and emergency coverage for people? If so, who determines which procedures are basic or emergency? If someone deems my procedure not covered, what is the process to appeal?

If you are talking about complete coverage, what types of elective procedures would be covered? Who will determine what is elective and what is not? (This type of job is currently done by the insurance company. If I don't like what they say, I can change insurance.)

If no procedures are declined and everything is allowed, how will costs for the enomorous amount of procedures being done be controlled? (You know, since all those things previously declined by the "money hungry" insurance companies would now be getting done...)

How about prescription drugs? What type of prescriptions for the newer category of "lifestyle" drugs like Propecia and Viagra, would be allowed? Again, this is something determined by the insurance companies. If all prescriptions are allowed, aside from negotiation with the drug companies, how are costs controlled? If negotiation with drug companies is the only way, how do we ensure there is still enough profit for the drug companies to make the brightest minds continue in this field and keep their excessive risks feasible so we do not stop future drugs from coming to market?

If we look at Social Security, which started as a great idea with good intentions and we look at it now and see an underfunded liability that may plague our country, how do we prevent "universal health care" from becoming the same thing? How can we truly estimate the costs of allowing truely universal health care?


___________________________________________________________________________


Comments: Scribbler Erased

I saw Sicko. As always, Mike brought a very impassioned, one-sided view. He show-cased the evilest ills of our healthcare system, and showed only the over-blown best from the systems of other countries. He’s trying to drive his own agenda. Of course it’s skewed. Isn’t everything?

On a personal level, I’m quite satisfied with MY healthcare. I have health insurance coverage through an employer, for which my family pays just under $200 a month. Our co-pays and deductibles are more than reasonable, in my opinion. When I call to see the doctor, I usually get in the same day, regardless of my complaint. If my doctor refers me to a specialist, I seldom wait longer than a few days. My family has visited the emergency room twice in the past three years, and we waited no more than five minutes on each occasion after flashing our insurance card to receive excellent care.

And that’s wonderful. For me. Even so, the idea that nearly 50 million of my countrymen have no health insurance whatsoever makes me, well, sick (and you don’t have to take Mike’s word for it. Look it up). The idea that people in MY country die everyday after being turned away from emergency rooms for inability to pay makes me sick. Supposedly, I live in the greatest country in the world. Tell me, what is great about a country where it’s much too common a practice to deny a readily available lifesaving need simply because its citizen is poor? If you want to know the measure of a man, you look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals. I’d say the same should be said of a nation.

Therefore, I’m a big proponent of National Healthcare.

National Healthcare, not socialized medicine. There is a difference. Please consider:

http://www.pnhp.org/

To get right to the nitty gritty:

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php


Some pertinent points from the faq:

* Socialized healthcare works like our current VA medical: doctors and hospitals work for the government and draw salaries from the government. In a national, single-payer healthcare system which would cover everyone, doctors are in private practice and are paid on a fee-for-service basis out of government funds. The government would not own or manage their practices or hospitals.

* Currently, 60% of total healthcare is financed by public money. Estimated personal income tax increase to establish National Healthcare? 2%

* 18,000 people die in this country every year because they don’t have health insurance and can’t afford to seek medical care (**personal note—or are DENIED treatment when they are desperate enough to seek it).

* The United States has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. Over 24% of every health care dollar goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, and other non-clinical costs.

Personal comments: Yes, a single-payer National Healthcare system would have some definite disadvantages . . . for example, in 2005, President and Chief Executive of Humana, Michael B. McCallister, received total compensation of about $2.6 million. A single-payer system would really suck for him, because he’d be out of a job. Guess he’ll have to find another way to make money other than reaping profits by denying the claims of the sick and dying.

And if that sounds angry and bitter, it’s because it is. I think it’s sick that anyone, but especially any one person should become so incredibly wealthy from what comes down to the suffering of fellow human beings. I’m all for free enterprise. But get obscenely rich by some other means. At least pretend you have a conscience.

As far as how horrible Canada’s Healthcare system is, or the UK’s or Spain’s . . . yeah, of course we hear horror stories. Because these healthcare systems are publicly accountable. When things go wrong, those people have a voice, and they yell. Our healthcare system isn’t publicly accountable. Don’t think the same things don’t happen here, because they do---unless, of course, you have money. If you have money, you jump the queue. Those without wait longer. The down-fallings of our healthcare system aren’t anywhere near as publicized because it’s privatized.

And being more rational and realistic, I do realize a single-payer system will bring along with it a whole new set of problems. Will we have to wait longer to see a doctor, or have a surgery? Yeah. We’re going giving access to about 50 million people who currently don’t spend a whole lot of time in the system. Demand is definitely going to increase even above these 50 mil, because many us who currently have health insurance don’t seek treatment for problems immediately because of high co-payments and deductibles, and sometimes, by the time we do seek treatment, the problem requires a more intense level of treatment. Being extremely pessimistic, I’d say the first decade of such a plan wouldn’t be pretty. But if we all just sucked it up, we could be the healthiest country in the world. We should be. And yeah, that will require making allowances for the welfare of our neighbors, rather than just ourselves. Having a hard time with that? Yeah, well, me too. Of course we’re going to be concerned about “me and mine” above “them and theirs”. It’s ugly, but it’s life, so let’s just admit it and get it out of the way. Then consider the idea that someone you care about might be one of the 18,000 of us who die next year because we can’t afford to seek medical care. If you can’t feel it by looking at the big picture, then take a moment to make it personal.

Thanks.

_______________________________________________________________________



Comments:oscarcat02


I have seen Michael Moore's movie, "Sicko," and I think he brings up many very pertinent problems. However, as a physician myself, I know that at least ninety percent of the health problems that I see in my patients are directly a result of poor personal choices. Heart disease, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are the greatest causes of illness and death in this country and, in most cases, preventable.

When I pick up fast food because I'm in a hurry, or avoid exercising because I'm "too busy," or when I deal with stress in dysfunctional ways, it is no longer a matter of if I will develop health problems, it's a matter of when.

No health care system is perfect, whether it be managed care, fee-for-service, Medicare/Medicaid, or socialized medicine. However, the ultimate responsibility for my health is not the government, the insurance company, my employer, or even my doctor. They are only resources to help me. Ultimately I am responsible for my own health.

Although I absolutely agree that changes need to be made in our health care delivery system, I think that our anger is somewhat displaced. If I really want to improve my health and that of my patients, I need to start making personal changes that really count, and I challenge all my patients to do the same!

_________________________________________________________________________


Rebuttal: The StoryMaster


A few comments about the executive's salary for Humana:

Source: http://apps.humana.com/marketing/documents.asp?file=844740

While this is really a whole different topic, Humana employees 22,000 people. Michael B. McCallister didn't receive $2.6m for "denying claims", he earned that much managing a massive company that employees 22,000 people. In 2006, the company spent $21 billion dollar.

Humana provides services to 11.3 million members. Thusly, if McCallister decided to work for free and forego his $2.6m in compensation, then each of the 11.3 million Humana members would save $0.23 per year... yes, that's 23 cents a year.

Or, if he worked for free, he could pay the 22,000 employees each roughly $100 per year more. But as President and CEO, he's fully responsible for everything each of those employees do. Personally running what amounts to a tinee-tiny-little company comparatively, I'd imagine his stress level is quite high and he never really "leaves work".

Anyway... Don't "worry" about what will happen to McCallister if insurance companies are eliminated. As a wonderful executive leading his company very well, he'll have no trouble moving to a new company. Instead, it would make more sense to worry about the few hundred thousand employees of the various companies that would lose their jobs.

(Not that I think this should be a major issue in the discussion of health care, but since executive salary was brought up, I figured I would acknowledge it.)

______________________________________________________________________


Observations:murf

The rhetoric has begun to fly. The Republicans, including ironically Mitt Romney (which I will explain later), have been calling the very modest health care proposals by the Democratic presidential contenders “Socialize Medicine”. They are anything but that.

Clinton’s and Obama’s proposals are nothing more than using the power of the law to regulate how insurance companies conduct their business. None of them are proposing building any regulatory bodies, which by the way is not socialism. All businesses are regulated in this country in some form or another by the laws that protect consumers, business partners, citizens and the environment. Some are more heavily regulated by government agencies such as the FDA, which I know a lot about. There is no prospect of a FDA like agency watching over the conduct of medical service delivery unless chronic abuses happen in the future. Then they can only blame themselves for that.

The proposals I’ve read about will require all businesses to offer health plans to their employees. Small businesses will be subsidized through tax credits. They will offer more choices than currently offered. Those that can’t afford the premiums will be compensated through tax credits. All the plans work well within the capitalist framework. There will be no direct ownership of hospitals or other medical delivery services by the government other than what we have today (i.e. the VA or city hospitals).

These Democratic proposals are quite modest and, although I feel they don’t go far enough, are decent starts to the fair and equitable delivery of health care with ample room for profit making and good old capitalist competitiveness. The irony with Mitt’s statements is that they are also very similar to the same law he enacted last year in my home state of Massachusetts.

Romney’s plan requires all Mass residents to buy insurance, through their employers if they can or through private providers if it not offered. To make it palatable, he expanded the Mass Medicaid program to take care of the poor and the government sponsored MassHealth program for small businesses and for the unemployed. This program is 100% government funded and so is closer to “socialized medicine” than any of the Dem’s proposals. In effect, Romney has created a government sponsored health care system for the poor and lower middle class. This conservative Republican sounds more progressive than the Democrats.

He claims it is a conservative idea to require individuals to be responsible for their own health care but he doesn’t tell you that he couldn’t do it with out government subsidies. Those in Mass that can afford health care have it because they have good jobs with employers that offer health insurance. Those that can’t afford health care or are employed by small businesses that don’t offer a plan will be members of a government sponsored program.

The Republican rhetoric over this issue is twisted and untrue. They are all smart people and know something has to be done to improve health care affordability in America. However, they are walking a fine line between doing what is right and not rocking the corporate money boat. The real solution to our social, environmental and economic problems is drastic campaign finance reform. Getting our representatives out of the pockets of corporations, the wealthy and other special interests will reset their moral compasses to point at their real bosses the American people.
______________________________________________________________________


Comment:KateD

Great discussion. :)

Germany has, as the USA, a privately run health care system. Only here the government regulates their fees and if you can't afford health care, you still won't be without it, because the state will pay for it. You simly aren't allowed to quit health insurance.

Here you pay between 13 and 15% of your monthly salary for public health insurance. What they cover depends on the insurance company and you're able to choose your company. You can also get additional packages that cover the costs for new teeth etc.
Basically, public health insurance ensures that you get all the medical attention you need to be healthy - not just to survive.

For those rich enough there's also the private insurance, which is quite a bit more expensive than the public one, but you get better treatment.

With my public insurance I won't have to worry about what happens if I need a doctor when I'm in any other country of the EU, if I feel sick, I go see a doctor that same day - even without appointment and if I need to see a specialist it won't take much more than a few days, depending on how busy he/she is.

Although our system needs a lot of improvement - for example getting rid of at least half the insurance companies and this entire private stuff and replacing it with some more governmental 'interferance' - it is quite a nice system that doesn't leave the entire load on the state's doorstep but still makes sure that no one is turned away when they have a knife sticking in their chest.
What certainly has to be changed is the fact that insurance companies make huge profits - ours just did this year - but there's little to nothing poured back into the system to make improvements. You're lucky if they don't raise the fees...
________________________________________________________________________


Comment:Gunny

Interesting to see so many different points of views. I have never seen Moore's liberal propaganda movies. Logic should tell anyone that nationalizing anything other than the military is just not what the government is designed to do, nor has it ever done a good job at anything is has ever taken over. Beauracracies are inefficient, non-responsive, and arrogant. They seldom remain static, they grow and as a result, they become even more ungainly.

I don't know how the Canadian system works, but I used to live on the border (in Michigan) and I know that when the government runs out of the budgeted money for health care, it comes to a halt. I've seen too many Canadians come to the states for heart and other serious operations, and gladly pay for it.

What happened to the old family doctor system? GP doctors were motivated by a desire to heal people regardless of their income level. I understand there is a gradual return to that system cropping up around the country. Someone has to pay for nationalizing health care and that would be the tax payer because the government doesn't create it's own revenue. There are only two ways: 1) Big raises in taxes or
2)Cut expenses from other benefits programs. We all know that isn't going to happen.

The best method for medical care is to turn it over to the private companies and let the market determine prices. Presently, people are making medical decisions that have no medical training. If the government takes it over, this trend will be the norm.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________


Comment:Doug Rainbow

We have a real live model of a "public option" medical system right here in the U.S. I refer to the Veterans' Administration health care system.

Based on my personal experience I think it is a wonderful system. I had private insurance for many years. My premiums kept rising, as did my share of my health care costs. If we could freeze all costs right now we might not need the public option. But we can't, and we do need the public option.

When I was 63 I registered for the VA system, with four years of active duty including Viet Nam service. My income had shrunk dramatically. I had a major, life-threatening health episode. Three VA operations later I came home alive and healthy. My medical bill: $00.00.

Is it any wonder I love this system?

__________________________________________________________________________________________


Comment:CaptainMidnight

A great forum - very glad to have stumbled upon this.
I've lived in Canada all my life - and consequently health care has never been any kind of issue for me personally...not one single day of my life. Now, that means whatever it means, and can be taken in any way whatsoever by anyone else, in comparison with their reality.

It strikes me as odd, strange, ironic and perhaps paradoxical.....when considering this ponderous amount of wealth. I keep coming back to that. A place which produces all these things....that money pays for. That money came from somewhere. In my little country, which likes to imitate America in a gazzillion ways, a professional football stadium does not have the seating capacity of an average American college town venue.
My greater metropolitan city of roughly six million does not have the highway infrastructure of Memphis, Tennessee.
I could go on and on, but the point should be clear. All this generated wealth, that pays for everything under the sun...........except one of the things that is most critical to the well-being of the people.
This is a crap-shoot. Become wealthy enough yourself, and it is a non-issue.

The people who are in complete control of making critical health care decisions in America are wealthy. How they got that way is germain to the issue.
Why would they have a problem with commodification of health care?
When health care follows the same economic model as the rest of the economy (all that which has produced great wealth, and all that which has mismanaged it into debt, default and bankruptcy) then of course, why shouldn't profit margins marginalize the unfortunate bottom 40%?

Mr. Moore is a populist, no doubt about it. But what of it? What if he did, in fact, set out to shame a great power publically, for its collective stinginess, greed and ineptitude when it comes to obligations to its own citizenry?
Moore doesn't live or film in a vaccum, and if you view his body of work (including his books!) then you know that health care is only one of many connected issues adding up to a much greater social malaise.

I just don't get it. This great shreiking, shrinking paranoia, this absolute hand-wringing quaking paralysis surrounding the notion ----of transferring some of that wealth into the fund that would pay to help people, take care of people, spend 500 bucks on a health condition now so that it doesn't turn into a 50,000 dollar chronic mess down the line.

Millions dismiss the notion - how can it be so hard to maintain health?
Millions of others know that those millions haven't got a clue.

Quite a few European nations are wealthy too - nowhere near as wealthy as America.
The people who produce that wealth benefit directly in many ways, from social programs that are civilized, realistic, and the product of social evolution beyond this singular obsession with profit margins.
The greatest lie of the century: "We can't afford it." (oh yes, we can!)

But that's what is so weird to me....I don't think it was ever a matter of affordability, but instead, an act of public will.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Comment:Starting over...!

Lots of ideas here, but NOW, take it me, one who has given his entire life caring for people in hospitals: included is research that blatantly depicts what happens when you combine Socialism and Health Care:


A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very
interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations
International Health Organization.

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years
after diagnosis:

U.S. 65%

England 46%

Canada 42%

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received
treatment within six months:

U.S. 93%

England 15%

Canada 43%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it
within six months:

U.S. 90%

England 15%

Canada 43%

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who saw one within
one month:

U.S. 77%

England 40%

Canada 43%

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:

U.S. 71

England 14

Canada 18

Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in
"excellent health":

U.S. 12%

England 2%

Canada 6%


I don't know about you, but I don't want "Universal Healthcare"
comparable to England or Canada .

Moreover, it was Sen. Harry Reid who said, "Elderly Americans
must learn to accept the inconveniences of old age."

SHIP HIM TO CANADA OR ENGLAND !