Sicko

[Azure]

Good post Hack.

Interesting viewpoint.

[notoepik]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

That said, the film is based on earnest grains of truth and it is a powerful film indeed. For a population who needs something dumbed down and dramatized like Moore presents it, it is the proper tool to really make people stop and think about how things are being run because there is an essential problem there and I shudder to think what it would be like to exist in the U.S. Health Care system and how people fundamentally treat each other.

How bad do you think it is in the US? Are there no facilities for health care? No docs, no clinics, no hospitals, no surgery, no care? Do you think the average American has no health care?

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

The main problem is that the U.S. system is so broken and the lack of proper medical treatment is so historically engrained that there has been no preventative treatment and there are many, many, many more chronically sick people who were just never able to get help...and it would flood and crush a universal system if they tried to implement it from the start.

What a crock! No preventive health care? Where did you get that idea?

Most Americans have insurance. Much of it is private insurance provided by the companies people work for. Many more people are covered under Medicaid and Medicare--government health care from the State and Federal government. Some people don't have health care, that is true. Those people have fallen through the cracks because they are not poor enough for governement health care, or they simply do not work for a company that provides health care for the worker and the family.

[ericschand]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

This film is complete propaganda like all other films by Moore. It's highly sensationalistic and full of many inconsistencies and glossing over of realities.
His visit to Cuba, for example was highly irregular and there are websites out there that show what the true average Cuban hospitals look like and it can be grim.

Like I said, this part seemed to be setup. I'm sure the Cuban govt
put on a show for them, knowing it would be in the film.

However, his basic premise still stands, Cuba offers universal health
care, USA does not.

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

That said, the film is based on earnest grains of truth and it is a powerful film indeed. For a population who needs something dumbed down and dramatized like Moore presents it, it is the proper tool to really make people stop and think about how things are being run because there is an essential problem there and I shudder to think what it would be like to exist in the U.S. Health Care system and how people fundamentally treat each other.

Some of the stuff in the film is so foreign to me, and I'm sure others.
I can't imagine being asked to leave a hospital because they are not
"authorized" to help. Or having to show insurance or the ability to
pay before treatment. Or having to choose treatments, never mind
the stuff about choosing bankruptcy over living.

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

The U.S. system wastes billions and billions in the accounting, bureaucracy, legal, and infrastructure of maintaining their private system with HMOs and all the red tape. Trim that off, stop making doctors and nurses thinking about being their own bill collectors, feeding lawyers, paying millions of insurance investigators, cutting out trillions of forms, paying astronomical salaries to private companies and medical company CEOs...and you'd probably have a maintainable system after several years.

The main problem is that the U.S. system is so broken and the lack of proper medical treatment is so historically engrained that there has been no preventative treatment and there are many, many, many more chronically sick people who were just never able to get help...and it would flood and crush a universal system if they tried to implement it from the start.

The problem is in the trim. Too many people making too much money to
just let it go. All those insurance companies, lawyers, investigators,
bureaucrats with paperwork, ad nauseum, they all have a lot to lose.
They won't allow it to happen, because they want the "trim" in their
pockets.

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I look at my grandparents who have gotten free preventative medical treatment for decades up here in Canada and I shudder to think what it woudl be like if they could never afford that over all these years and their problems just piled up and got much worse over time. The worse the condition, the more geometric the rate of costs to provide proper treatment.

I know of a family in such a situation. Moved to USA, spent a couple
of years there. 2 youngest have some disease that costs a fortune
in USA, and a lack of adequate care caused by lack of money.
Moved back to Canada to much better care and few costs.

For the person who wondered earlier, my Dad worked most of his
working life in Canada, and has only been in the USA for the past
10 years. So, he's already paid his taxes, in fact he retired in Canada,
before "getting an offer he couldn't refuse" in the USA. He could
be sitting in Canada retired for the past 10 years, but decided to
put it off...for a while. Now contemplating complete retirement.

ers

[Azure]

Yep...and universal health care like it is in Cuba is a hell of a lot better than what the US has.

Come on....

And how many people have gone to the US for health coverage because the waiting lines here in Canada were too long? Both sides have their problems.

[automaton 3]

Sat in on an interesting presentation a year or two ago by the then Minister of Health (IIRC Iris Evans).

At that time the goverment was actively pushing their more privatized model, which fell apart. The interesting part of the presentation was how Alberta ranked among a bunch of jurisdictions (Canada, US, Europe, ect) in terms of heath care spending vs. various measurements of health care performance.

Alberta was among the top spenders per capita, but had consistantly low results in the performance indicators. Apparently we're not getting a very good "bang for our buck".

When current spending levels and the aging demographics were compared, it looked like our system will be pretty much unsustainable in the near future and subject to some pretty significant cutbacks.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by notoepik

How bad do you think it is in the US? Are there no facilities for health care? No docs, no clinics, no hospitals, no surgery, no care? Do you think the average American has no health care?

What a crock! No preventive health care? Where did you get that idea?

Most Americans have insurance. Much of it is private insurance provided by the companies people work for. Many more people are covered under Medicaid and Medicare--government health care from the State and Federal government. Some people don't have health care, that is true. Those people have fallen through the cracks because they are not poor enough for governement health care, or they simply do not work for a company that provides health care for the worker and the family.

Do us a favor and watch the film first and the post may make more sense to you. The film has nothing to do with the people without insurance but rather, those that do. The film is a propaganda tool and disingenously presented but it has a point that at it's core is very true of a endemically sick system even for those who are insured.

[notoepik]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Do us a favor and watch the film first and the post may make more sense to you. The film has nothing to do with the people without insurance but rather, those that do. The film is a propaganda tool and disingenously presented but it has a point that at it's core is very true of a endemically sick system even for those who are insured.

I have not watched the film, and I probably won't. However, you said

The main problem is that the U.S. system is so broken and the lack of proper medical treatment is so historically engrained that there has been no preventative treatment and there are many, many, many more chronically sick people who were just never able to get help...

That is simply not true. There are tons of preventative medical treatments and tests done for Americans with and without health insurance.

I won't argue that the American insurance system, and health care adminstration associated with it, is flawed, but it has good points, just as the Canadian system has good points. It has bad points, just as your system does. If I were to choose what the US has now, as opposed to a Universal Heath Care System, I would stick with what we have in the US. Having been a heavy user of the system for the last 7 years I can definitely say I am glad I had the insurance coverage I did, provided by my employer. I am also grateful I could choose to go where I wanted to go for the treatment I needed. I have no doubt I am alive today for that reason.

[guzzy]

The one thing that surprised me is that the US spends more on health care than Canada and still doesn't have universal health care. That is proof of capitalism at its worst.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by notoepik

I have not watched the film, and I probably won't. However, you said

That is simply not true. There are tons of preventative medical treatments and tests done for Americans with and without health insurance.

I won't argue that the American insurance system, and health care adminstration associated with it, is flawed, but it has good points, just as the Canadian system has good points. It has bad points, just as your system does. If I were to choose what the US has now, as opposed to a Universal Heath Care System, I would stick with what we have in the US. Having been a heavy user of the system for the last 7 years I can definitely say I am glad I had the insurance coverage I did, provided by my employer. I am also grateful I could choose to go where I wanted to go for the treatment I needed. I have no doubt I am alive today for that reason.

My point was that there are many people who choose to avoid proper medical care to save money rather than getting the regular care that they should, ie: preventative treatment. Even for those with insurance, there are many people who have to pick and choose between medications and treatments because they could not afford them even when insured...especially seniors who decide they have to live without a certain pill or cut them in half because they can't afford them all. Ultimately, it comes down to that choice that is what makes the system ill -> that it forces people to perform triage on their own medical needs by the size of their wallets. Have you ever had something wrong and you decided that instead of paying out your deductable or spending on extra costs, that you would just sit and hope the problem goes away? My point was that this kind of engrained behavior can build up in the population (whether rich/poor/insured/uninsured) and the reason that other societies may be healthier in general (another theory the film posits) is that there are less chronically ill people since they have all sought treatment early or to the full extent on a regular basis. My own family, for whatever the slightest thing will visit the doctor without hesitation.

The Canadian system is not great, you have to wait for months to get certain tests or surgeries...but if you have a critical need, you can go anywhere and you will be taken care of immediately. The movie showcases the story of a mother with a sick child. Her insurance would not allow her child to be treated at the hospital nearest to her and her daughter was rejected from that hospital. She had to wait for proper authorization with a hospital affilitated with her insurance company and then go to that farther hospital -> by which time her child had died.

I am curious to know why you would choose your current system vs. that of universal health care? Care to let us know your thoughts on that? Personally I can't see any advantages other than decreased wait times (for basic, non-critical needs), and also lower taxes. How is a universal health care system any different from that of something like social security -> the idea that the young workforce will pay for the needs of aging retirees who cannot work or are otherwise infirm?

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

My point was that there are many people who choose to avoid proper medical care to save money rather than getting the regular care that they should, ie: preventative treatment. Even for those with insurance, there are many people who have to pick and choose between medications and treatments because they could not afford them even when insured...especially seniors who decide they have to live without a certain pill or cut them in half because they can't afford them all. Ultimately, it comes down to that choice that is what makes the system ill -> that it forces people to perform triage on their own medical needs by the size of their wallets. Have you ever had something wrong and you decided that instead of paying out your deductable or spending on extra costs, that you would just sit and hope the problem goes away? My point was that this kind of engrained behavior can build up in the population (whether rich/poor/insured/uninsured) and the reason that other societies may be healthier in general (another theory the film posits) is that there are less chronically ill people since they have all sought treatment early or to the full extent on a regular basis. My own family, for whatever the slightest thing will visit the doctor without hesitation.

The Canadian system is not great, you have to wait for months to get certain tests or surgeries...but if you have a critical need, you can go anywhere and you will be taken care of immediately. The movie showcases the story of a mother with a sick child. Her insurance would not allow her child to be treated at the hospital nearest to her and her daughter was rejected from that hospital. She had to wait for proper authorization with a hospital affilitated with her insurance company and then go to that farther hospital -> by which time her child had died.

I am curious to know why you would choose your current system vs. that of universal health care? Care to let us know your thoughts on that?

There is something about these stories that simply don't add up.

In the USA if you go to any hospital, they HAVE TO TREAT you (as long as they have the facilities to do so), period. No general hospital, by law, can turn away a patient!

The problem comes when the payment is needed.

You have to pay!

Her problem, if I read correctly, stems from insurance. Now this women had a dying child and she waits for the insurance to come through? Hmmm....Stick the VISA card on the table and go into debt.

It is a Human Right!
Wikipedia
federal law ensures public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay.[36] However, hospitals can still attempt to collect the unpaid bills, often damaging the uninsured patient's credit.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by HOZ

There is something about these stories that simply don't add up.

In the USA if you go to any hospital, they HAVE TO TREAT you (as long as they have the facilities to do so), period. No general hospital, by law, can turn away a patient!

The problem comes when the payment is needed.

You have to pay!

Her problem, if I read correctly, stems from insurance. Now this women had a dying child and she waits for the insurance to come through? Hmmm....Stick the VISA card on the table and go into debt.

It is a Human Right!
Wikipedia
federal law ensures public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay.[36] However, hospitals can still attempt to collect the unpaid bills, often damaging the uninsured patient's credit.

The lady in the interview said that the security guards in the first hospital she visited escorted her out as a security threat. Certainly, she was probably hysterical at hearing her medical insurance was not approved for treatment for her daughter at that hospital. Also... Well, there was that guy who cut off two fingers in an accident. When he arrived, the hospital gave him a choice of which finger to sow back on and he could only afford one of them since the other finger was going to cost him $60,000. To me, that is just sick and wrong.

[notoepik]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Well, there was that guy who cut off two fingers in an accident. When he arrived, the hospital gave him a choice of which finger to sow back on and he could only afford one of them since the other finger was going to cost him $60,000. To me, that is just sick and wrong.

I thought someone said that was an example from the UK ?

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by notoepik

I thought someone said that was an example from the UK ?

No, that was from the beginning of the film in the U.S. The UK has the NHS which is also universal health care (you pay nothing in the hospital except maybe for candy bars and the NHS dispensing fee for medications - 6.95 flat for any amount you need). Michael Moore asked Doctors from other countries throughout the film of what they thought about turning patients away or giving them the choice of what finger to sow back on due to the bill and they were all horrified.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

There is something about these stories that simply don't add up.

In the USA if you go to any hospital, they HAVE TO TREAT you (as long as they have the facilities to do so), period. No general hospital, by law, can turn away a patient!

The problem comes when the payment is needed.

You have to pay!

Her problem, if I read correctly, stems from insurance. Now this women had a dying child and she waits for the insurance to come through? Hmmm....Stick the VISA card on the table and go into debt.

It is a Human Right!
Wikipedia
federal law ensures public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay.[36] However, hospitals can still attempt to collect the unpaid bills, often damaging the uninsured patient's credit.

Is that really true in reality though? I don't know but that's not how they make it out to be on medical dramas on the television. Also, what is the definition of "general hospital".


The way it's portrayed, the uninsured or poorly insured people go to a pretty dodgy looking hospital. The rich people don't. It is of course make-believe so maybe poor people can, as you suggest, get treatment anywhere. My television set has lied to me in the past so I could be wrong.

Homeless Bob with a bullet in his neck or a tumor in his tailpipe can't just walk into Johns Hopkins and demand treatment, can he?

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Is that really true in reality though? I don't know but that's not how they make it out to be on medical dramas on the television. Also, what is the definition of "general hospital".


The way it's portrayed, the uninsured or poorly insured people go to a pretty dodgy looking hospital. The rich people don't. It is of course make-believe so maybe poor people can, as you suggest, get treatment anywhere. My television set has lied to me in the past so I could be wrong.

Homeless Bob with a bullet in his neck or a tumor in his tailpipe can't just walk into Johns Hopkins and demand treatment, can he?

The movie featured that community (I believe church funded clinic) where the rich hospitals would taxi their patients who couldn't pay (usually poor or homeless) and dump them off on the street corner by themselves and then drive off leaving them wandering in a daze.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Is that really true in reality though? I don't know but that's not how they make it out to be on medical dramas on the television. Also, what is the definition of "general hospital".


The way it's portrayed, the uninsured or poorly insured people go to a pretty dodgy looking hospital. The rich people don't. It is of course make-believe so maybe poor people can, as you suggest, get treatment anywhere. My television set has lied to me in the past so I could be wrong.

Homeless Bob with a bullet in his neck or a tumor in his tailpipe can't just walk into Johns Hopkins and demand treatment, can he?

The last part no they can't. Get into a car accident you are rushed to the nearest ER and treated.

But...I believe that since the woman's child's case was life or death they hospital was obligated to treat that child.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by HOZ

The last part no they can't. Get into a car accident you are rushed to the nearest ER and treated.

But...I believe that since the woman's child's case was life or death they hospital was obligated to treat that child.

I believe that is correct, the hospital is required to stabilize the patient so they can be transfered to a different facility which best fits the circumstances of the patients. I don't know the story of the guy who had to decide which finger but what I will say is that I don't know how much faith I would put in Moore's films though... he has been known to take liberties with the truth in the past and well fool me once....

[notoepik]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

My own family, for whatever the slightest thing will visit the doctor without hesitation..................

The Canadian system is not great, you have to wait for months to get certain tests or surgeries...

I am curious to know why you would choose your current system vs. that of universal health care? Care to let us know your thoughts on that?

Pretty much you said it for me. Add 2 and 2 and you get why I would prefer to have people have to think about why they are going to the doctor rather than run in for every sniffle or hangnail.

I see it everyday.

There is a part of the American population that has free medical coverage provided by the government. The abuse of such *free* medical care is to me absolutely astounding. I can't imagine the clog in the clinics and hospitals if everyone had the opportunity to run to the doctor because their skin was dry and itchy or their child woke up with a slight fever. (teething)

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by notoepik

Pretty much you said it for me. Add 2 and 2 and you get why I would prefer to have people have to think about why they are going to the doctor rather than run in for every sniffle or hangnail.

And for me part of what I see is people seeing their monthly health care bill, and deciding that they are going to get "value" for their money. If they just took the health care costs and added them to the provincial taxes; we wouldn't see that one expense coming off, and wouldn't feel that we are "owed" something for the money we pay.

And because there's already a system in place where low income earners pay less taxes, we could do away with the subsidy system in place for Alberta Health- once less level of administration.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by notoepik

Pretty much you said it for me. Add 2 and 2 and you get why I would prefer to have people have to think about why they are going to the doctor rather than run in for every sniffle or hangnail.

I see it everyday.

There is a part of the American population that has free medical coverage provided by the government. The abuse of such *free* medical care is to me absolutely astounding. I can't imagine the clog in the clinics and hospitals if everyone had the opportunity to run to the doctor because their skin was dry and itchy or their child woke up with a slight fever. (teething)

But the thing is, there is no "clog" for clinics or family Doctors in Canada. Wait times in clinics and emergency rooms are very fast I think in Canada. The long wait times in the system are all for things that you book appointments for (like an MRI) so you really don't have the giant dirty horde of a traffic jam that you would expect. Maybe it's because Canada has fewer large urban centers and less than the population of California...but I definetely am no expert on the issue. I just think it's a good thing that people don't need to hesitate when they think they have a medical problem.