Michael Moore's SIKCO

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

The best documentry I have ever seen.... A must see for who want to get in to the bussiness of medcine.

Originally Posted by DocHeart

The best documentry I have ever seen.... A must see for who want to get in to the bussiness of medcine.

I deeply respect your well-stated opinion.

Where is armybound's search avatar when you need it.

Originally Posted by midn

Where is armybound's search avatar when you need it.

do a search for it!

Let's keep it civil fellas.

Originally Posted by MassTransport

Let's keep it civil fellas.

who's being uncivil?

FWIW, the movie was horrible, and calling it a documentary is an insult. He didn't document anything other than his ability to show a couple of sob stories and draw illogical conclusions while failing to show things how they really are.

But if you want to discuss it further, there are several threads already made about this film.

Sorry, it was preemptive.

Originally Posted by MassTransport

Sorry, it was preemptive.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/show...ighlight=sicko

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/show...ighlight=sicko

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/show...ighlight=moore


The movie has been discussed many times before.

Originally Posted by Karen12345

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/show...ighlight=sicko

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/show...ighlight=sicko

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/show...ighlight=moore


The movie has been discussed many times before.

and yet it's still a poor movie, go figure

wait a minute! you didn't post any links for previous discussions of "SIKCO"---maybe this is a different movie?

Well regardless of what you think about the film, the things he presents are the facts (even if his film is biased in presenting these things). The fact is that there are people like the ones in the film. Truly something has to be done. I know the resolution is probably not as simple as modeling some other countries healthcare system, but it shows to the public that something is wrong with our system.

I've been reading a book about health policy recently and alot of the examples presented in the movie are presented in the book.

I think it's a good movie in the sense that it is causing this much debate. Something needs to be done. It's our job to think how.

Originally Posted by inaminute

and yet it's still a poor movie, go figure

wait a minute! you didn't post any links for previous discussions of "SIKCO"---maybe this is a different movie?

maybe

Originally Posted by medking

Well regardless of what you think about the film, the things he presents are the facts (even if his film is biased in presenting these things). The fact is that there are people like the ones in the film. Truly something has to be done. I know the resolution is probably not as simple as modeling some other countries healthcare system, but it shows to the public that something is wrong with our system.

I've been reading a book about health policy recently and alot of the examples presented in the movie are presented in the book.

I think it's a good movie in the sense that it is causing this much debate. Something needs to be done. It's our job to think how.

I agree. With a few exceptions, like some cosmetic surgeries, access to medical care should be a right, not a privilege.

edit: even if one in need of such care has no money. For example, a homeless person with a broken leg and no money should be treated.

Originally Posted by Karen12345

I agree. With a few exceptions, like some cosmetic surgeries, medical care should be a right, not a privilege.

Everyone has the right to healthcare. How they pay for it is their own issue.

Originally Posted by armybound

Everyone has the right to healthcare. How they pay for it is their own issue.

That's pretty harsh, lol.

It's getting really technical, but in the US I believe that healthcare is not a right, yet (I think it should be). Well iunno because of the ethical issues about not treating a person who goes to the ER, but I believe healthcare is still not a right in the US. In many other industrialized countries, I believe healthcare is a right.

Well there are so many aspects of the healthcare system that can potentially be changed it's so hard. I think that the "root" of the problems with the healthcare system is the strong sense of individualism, capitalism, and wanting to chase the American Dream (even at the tremendous cost of others) that American people have. I think we're a little too selfish. That is hard to change though, lol.

Originally Posted by armybound

Everyone has the right to healthcare. How they pay for it is their own issue.

You seem to oppose access to free, universal, public health care. How do you feel about access to free, universal, public education? Would you say that these two issues are similar? Why or why not?

Originally Posted by medking

That's pretty harsh, lol.

It's getting really technical, but in the US I believe that healthcare is not a right, yet (I think it should be). Well iunno because of the ethical issues about not treating a person who goes to the ER, but I believe healthcare is still not a right in the US. In many other industrialized countries, I believe healthcare is a right.

Well there are so many aspects of the healthcare system that can potentially be changed it's so hard. I think that the "root" of the problems with the healthcare system is the strong sense of individualism, capitalism, and wanting to chase the American Dream (even at the tremendous cost of others) that American people have. I think we're a little too selfish. That is hard to change though, lol.

I think a big part of the problem is that there are people who just want a handout in life and don't (or don't want to) take responsibility for their lives by either getting health insurance (with few exceptions if you want/need health insurance you can get it, maybe you sacrifice that $80 cell phone plan or $100 a month cable bill, but you can get insurance) or by living at least somewhat of a health lifestyle.

Moore did show some sob stories and there are lots of unfortunate circumstances that occur in this country, as well as in ANY other country in the world. I personally don't believe putting the gov't in control is going to help in that regard.

Originally Posted by Karen12345

You seem to oppose access to free, universal, public health care. How do you feel about access to free, universal, public education? Would you say that these two issues are similar? Why or why not?

Nothing is free.

Do you think public education is as good as private education? College excluded--that's a different beast than elementary, middle, and high school.

Originally Posted by Karen12345

You seem to oppose access to free, universal, public health care. How do you feel about access to free, universal, public education? Do you see any correlations between the two? Why?

well, one huge distinction is that we can come close to uniformity in public schooling, but to have any uniformity in health care is impossible. edited to add second distinction: cost---Minnesota recently calculated the cost of a year's universal health coverage at $15BILLION---and their income in income taxes, sales taxes and corp taxes totals only $13billion a year. Schools don't cost that kind of money.

and I agree with armybound that the gubmint isn't in the business of paying to achieve Americans' "rights" in other ways---when's the last time you heard of the gubmint providing you a gun so you could exercise your right to bear arms, or when has it provided a podium, a venue and a microphone so you could exercise your free speech rights? just like other rights, health care is one you exercise by figuring out for yourself how to pay for it. How many people do you suppose have cable TV and cell phones but claim they are uninsured because they "can't afford it"? Our gubmint shouldn't be in the business of mandating coverage---God knows they screw up everything they manage.

Originally Posted by nlax30

I think a big part of the problem is that there are people who just want a handout in life and don't (or don't want to) take responsibility for their lives by either getting health insurance (with few exceptions if you want/need health insurance you can get it, maybe you sacrifice that $80 cell phone plan or $100 a month cable bill, but you can get insurance) or by living at least somewhat of a health lifestyle.

Moore did show some sob stories and there are lots of unfortunate circumstances that occur in this country, as well as in ANY other country in the world. I personally don't believe putting the gov't in control is going to help in that regard.

Some studies have shown that ones health is most correlated with their socioeconomic status. For people who just dont have the money, sometimes its just hard to live a healthy lifestyle (atleast diet wise). I do agree about people needing to take more initiative in living healthy lives though.

Originally Posted by inaminute

well, one huge distinction is that we can come close to uniformity in public schooling, but do have any uniformity in health care is impossible.

and I agree with armybound that the gubmint isn't in the business of paying to achieve Americans' "rights" in other ways---when's the last time you heard of the gubmint providing you a gun so you could exercise your right to bear arms, or when has it provided a podium, a venue and a microphone so you could exercise your free speech rights? just like other rights, health care is one you exercise by figuring out for yourself how to pay for it. How many people do you suppose have cable TV and cell phones but claim they are uninsured because they "can't afford it"? Our gubmint shouldn't be in the business of mandating coverage---God knows they screw up everything they manage.

Just because someone is able to get insurance and pay the monthly premium (by not having a cell phone or watching cable tv) doesnt mean that they will be able to use their insurance in the right sense. There is so much out-of-pocket money spent even with insurance that alot of people cant afford it. Having insurance does not necessarily mean access to healthcare in this country (very sad).

Originally Posted by medking

Some studies have shown that ones health is most correlated with their socioeconomic status. For people who just dont have the money, sometimes its just hard to live a healthy lifestyle (atleast diet wise). I do agree about people needing to take more initiative in living healthy lives though.

actually, it costs more to eat crap, and anyone can go for a walk or jump rope or whatever.

Originally Posted by medking

Just because someone is able to get insurance and pay the monthly premium (by not having a cell phone or watching cable tv) doesnt mean that they will be able to use their insurance in the right sense. There is so much out-of-pocket money spent even with insurance that alot of people cant afford it. Having insurance does not necessarily mean access to healthcare in this country (very sad).

so let's screw it up some more and let the government dictate universal coverage? great idea.

if you have trouble with your copay many providers will work with you. That's just another lame excuse.

Originally Posted by inaminute

actually, it costs more to eat crap, and anyone can go for a walk or jump rope or whatever.

Have you ever thought that maybe they dont have enough money to even eat on a daily basis.

And I totally agree about the exercise part.

Originally Posted by nlax30

I think a big part of the problem is that there are people who just want a handout in life and don't (or don't want to) take responsibility for their lives by either getting health insurance (with few exceptions if you want/need health insurance you can get it, maybe you sacrifice that $80 cell phone plan or $100 a month cable bill, but you can get insurance) or by living at least somewhat of a health lifestyle.

So you're implying (or stating outright) that some people don't have health insurance because they're just being irresponsible.

It may be true that I don't have the most extensive knowledge on our healthcare system, but here's something I'm personally worried about. My brother (13 yr. old) recently was diagnosed with dilated cardiomyopathy - basically his heart was completely unable to function, and he had to get a heart transplant. Although my parents had to fight quite a bit w/ the insurance companies (and are still), they'll probably be able to get it paid for.

However, isn't it possible that once he's off my parents' health insurance, he won't be able to find a company that will give him coverage?

So while before this happened, I wasn't all that into the idea of universal health care, I've started to wonder how some people can get health insurance without some kind of program that guarantees insurance for anyone.

What are people's thoughts on this?

Originally Posted by inaminute

so let's screw it up some more and let the government dictate universal coverage? great idea.

if you have trouble with your copay many providers will work with you. That's just another lame excuse.

Wow, I've never heard of that. That's pretty cool. Quite frankly, I don't think that is true.

As far as stance, I'm still thinking. I believe everyone should receive minimum healthcare when needed. I have yet to determine what minimum means though.

Originally Posted by copingmethods

So you're implying (or stating outright) that some people don't have health insurance because they're just being irresponsible.

It may be true that I don't have the most extensive knowledge on our healthcare system, but here's something I'm personally worried about. My brother (13 yr. old) recently was diagnosed with dilated cardiomyopathy - basically his heart was completely unable to function, and he had to get a heart transplant. Although my parents had to fight quite a bit w/ the insurance companies (and are still), they'll probably be able to get it paid for.

However, isn't it possible that once he's off my parents' health insurance, he won't be able to find a company that will give him coverage?

So while before this happened, I wasn't all that into the idea of universal health care, I've started to wonder how some people can get health insurance without some kind of program that guarantees insurance for anyone.

What are people's thoughts on this?

your brother is obviously an exception for whom coverage will always be available, both govt provided and private---and I know that even "terminal" pre-existing conditions don't preclude coverage, although it's costly. My sister had "terminal" cancer a dozen years ago and she pays a hefty premium but has excellent coverage on a privately purchased policy. Presumably it's still better than what the govt provides.

Originally Posted by medking

Have you ever thought that maybe they dont have enough money to even eat on a daily basis.

And I totally agree about the exercise part.

weird, I thought there was a socialized system (welfare/food stamps) in place to make sure people have something to eat.

how do I always get sucked into talking about this stupid movie?

Originally Posted by medking

Have you ever thought that maybe they dont have enough money to even eat on a daily basis.

And I totally agree about the exercise part.

'

I didn't realize you meant they couldn't afford any food---I thought you meant they were fat because they couldn't afford healthier choices. Two words: food stamps. Two more: food bank.

Originally Posted by inaminute

'

I didn't realize you meant they couldn't afford any food---I thought you meant they were fat because they couldn't afford healthier choices. Two words: food stamps. Two more: food bank.

Yea, I understand. But there are those that dont quite fit the circumstances to receive these things and get jipped. Kinda like the whole medicaid thing. The poorest get insurance (which isnt really great insurance but thats a different topic), but the ones right above the poverty level dont get covered by medicaid and end up having to pay for everything.

Originally Posted by copingmethods

So you're implying (or stating outright) that some people don't have health insurance because they're just being irresponsible.

It may be true that I don't have the most extensive knowledge on our healthcare system, but here's something I'm personally worried about. My brother (13 yr. old) recently was diagnosed with dilated cardiomyopathy - basically his heart was completely unable to function, and he had to get a heart transplant. Although my parents had to fight quite a bit w/ the insurance companies (and are still), they'll probably be able to get it paid for.

However, isn't it possible that once he's off my parents' health insurance, he won't be able to find a company that will give him coverage?

So while before this happened, I wasn't all that into the idea of universal health care, I've started to wonder how some people can get health insurance without some kind of program that guarantees insurance for anyone.

What are people's thoughts on this?

The whole experience rating is harsh. I dont think it's valid. People getting rejected for preexisting conditions is ridiculous. Some things you just cant control. Something needs to be done with private insurance companies.

Originally Posted by inaminute

your brother is obviously an exception for whom coverage will always be available, both govt provided and private---and I know that even "terminal" pre-existing conditions don't preclude coverage, although it's costly. My sister had "terminal" cancer a dozen years ago and she pays a hefty premium but has excellent coverage on a privately purchased policy. Presumably it's still better than what the govt provides.

Well, assuming that's true, it would definitely alleviate some of my doubts about the health care industry.

I'm sorry to sound harsh but I've been poor, and I did what I had to do to meet my obligations and take care of myself. I know there are catastrophic exceptions but most of the time, IMO, it all comes down to choices. Letting someone else (the American taxpayer via the govt) take care of me has never been an option. I think when you make it a viable and attractive option, you encourage people to give up on themselves.

Originally Posted by medking

The whole experience rating is harsh. I dont think it's valid. People getting rejected for preexisting conditions is ridiculous. Some things you just cant control. Something needs to be done with private insurance companies.

preexisting condition clauses make perfect sense if you're an insurer. why would anyone pay for health insurance on a month by month basis unless they were actually sick? they wouldn't, they'd just wait until they need it, use it, then drop it.

the idea of government-run healthcare insurance being "free" is stupid too, because you'd pay taxes all of your life to fund it, whether you need it or not.

Originally Posted by medking

The whole experience rating is harsh. I dont think it's valid. People getting rejected for preexisting conditions is ridiculous. Some things you just cant control. Something needs to be done with private insurance companies.

Private insurance companies are businesses that manage risk. If you think you would be more compassionate and still make a profit, please, by all means start a health insurance company.

Originally Posted by inaminute

I'm sorry to sound harsh but I've been poor, and I did what I had to do to meet my obligations and take care of myself. I know there are catastrophic exceptions but most of the time, IMO, it all comes down to choices. Letting someone else (the American taxpayer via the govt) take care of me has never been an option. I think when you make it a viable and attractive option, you encourage people to give up on themselves.

the basic difference between those in favor of and those opposed to socialized medicine.. whether the individual or the government is responsible for someone's well-being.

Originally Posted by inaminute

Private insurance companies are businesses that manage risk. If you think you would be more compassionate and still make a profit, please, by all means start a health insurance company.

Exactly!

I think that's one part of this system that needs to be reevaluated.

Its true that insurance companies are for sharing risk, and from their point of view it makes perfect sense what they are doing. But in this country, insurance = major part in having access to health care. If people are being rejected because of preexisting conditions, then how the heck are they going to get access? Is it really their fault that they got some "bad genes"?

We all get sick at some point in our life. Is it really necessary for people to try to make money in this sector?

Originally Posted by armybound

the basic difference between those in favor of and those opposed to socialized medicine.. whether the individual or the government is responsible for someone's well-being.

yep, and it scares me to see how many people want to have big daddy govt take care of so much that we ought to take care of ourselves---govt isn't an efficient manager of much that's important in our lives.

"K" before "C" except after "E"?

Originally Posted by medking

Exactly!

I think that's one part of this system that needs to be reevaluated.

Its true that insurance companies are for sharing risk, and from their point of view it makes perfect sense what they are doing. But in this country, insurance = major part in having access to health care. If people are being rejected because of preexisting conditions, then how the heck are they going to get access? Is it really their fault that they got some "bad genes"?

We all get sick at some point in our life. Is it really necessary for people to try to make money in this sector?

as I said before, you CAN get coverage with a pre-existing condition, but you may have to pay more. That's life, hon.

Originally Posted by inaminute

as I said before, you CAN get coverage with a pre-existing condition, but you may have to pay more. That's life, hon.

I guess if that's how you wanna solve things, that's cool with me.

please tell me that someone didn't just bring up public education as a reason why we should have free healthcare...

/thanks god every day I didn't have to go to the public school in my district.

Originally Posted by maestro1625

please tell me that someone didn't just bring up public education as a reason why we should have free healthcare...

QFT
(quoted for truth)

Originally Posted by armybound

Nothing is free.

Do you think public education is as good as private education? College excluded--that's a different beast than elementary, middle, and high school.

Probably not in texas, but in states where they adequetely fund the school system, yes, public schools are every bit as good as, and usually better, than private schools

I thought the government provided cheap healthcare for those near the poverty line.... and free healthcare for those below it? anyone ever hear of IEHP? Its local to me, but thats what they do.

Originally Posted by inaminute

so let's screw it up some more and let the government dictate universal coverage? great idea.

if you have trouble with your copay many providers will work with you. That's just another lame excuse.

Thats compleate b.s. providers are in it for the profit. Goverment is not. And as for providers working with you? Did you know that companies have entire department dedicated to rejecting coverage on tecnicalities?

Originally Posted by copingmethods

So you're implying (or stating outright) that some people don't have health insurance because they're just being irresponsible.

It may be true that I don't have the most extensive knowledge on our healthcare system, but here's something I'm personally worried about. My brother (13 yr. old) recently was diagnosed with dilated cardiomyopathy - basically his heart was completely unable to function, and he had to get a heart transplant. Although my parents had to fight quite a bit w/ the insurance companies (and are still), they'll probably be able to get it paid for.

However, isn't it possible that once he's off my parents' health insurance, he won't be able to find a company that will give him coverage?

So while before this happened, I wasn't all that into the idea of universal health care, I've started to wonder how some people can get health insurance without some kind of program that guarantees insurance for anyone.

What are people's thoughts on this?

Thats a very sad situation. hopefully we can get universal care for every one before your brother get off your parents insurence.

I have question for you though. Will you be willing to take a cut on how much you will make as a doctor so people like your brother can have access to medical care if they need it?

Originally Posted by maestro1625

please tell me that someone didn't just bring up public education as a reason why we should have free healthcare...

/thanks god every day I didn't have to go to the public school in my district.

Haha, i loved public school and it kicked the crap out of any private school nearby. Of course we normally graduate our entire 5% of our school to ivy or schools like MIT. Guess it is pretty odd though. So glad I didnt go to private school. Oh and reading over this makes me think that most of your families made 50K+ per year when you were growing up...since I have lived basically on the poverty line a couple of times, it makes me laugh at some of the arguments. I have been really lucky that while growing up my parents have worked for some companies with fantastic health plans.

Originally Posted by armybound

Everyone has the right to healthcare. How they pay for it is their own issue.

WOW. And YOU Want become a doctor? Hopefully the med-school will recondnize you for who you are, camapasion is a part of job description. Clearly you lack it.