Problems with Sicko

[LiterofCola]

---

Members do not see this ad.

1. Socialized healthcare = "Free" (it's magic)

2. Baby turned away from emergency room with 104 fever?

3. The French are so happy and socialized and free and there is a political riot every couple of weeks because they are so happy, socialized, and free.

4. Moore used a small sample of the worst possible cases he could find

5. Hilary Clinton is sexy?



Moore's valid points:

1. French women doing your laundry = good

 

[doctortobe2012]

oy vey! so many sicko threads!

 

[TheRealMD]

Uhh.. what? Are we suppose to discuss something or put pitchforks to each other's throats like the other Sicko threads? 🙄

 

[armybound]

Same problems I had with the film.

I don't see how people considered it so "convincing." Must be a bunch of sheep.

 

[alwaysaangel]

I'm not even going to see it. I wasn't impressed by his past movies and I doubted his arguments have improved. And reading reviews, I was right.

Pure crap that a bunch of happy sheep will follow when they don't know wtf they're talking about.

 

[maestro1625]

do the words "grain of salt" mean anything to you people?

 

[armybound]

do the words "grain of salt" mean anything to you people?

Looks like those of us who do question the movie took it with a grain of salt. It's the scores of people who take it as the Gospel who can't think critically.

 

[Jolie South]

I haven't seen the film, but the more I think about it the better socialized medicine looks. I have crap insurance right now and just thinking about getting in a serious accident scares me. The fact that we have to pay out the a** for insurance when work doesn't provide it is just ridiculous, not to mention that the coverage sucks. I mean socialized medicine has it's problems too, but seriously we've got to do something. There has to be some kind of in between where the government can provide significant subsidized low cost healthcare options for the rest of us folks that are SOL.

When you pay straight up out of pocket for your healthcare costs, then you can tell me how great our system is.

 

[pguin]

When you pay straight up out of pocket for your healthcare costs, then you can tell me how great our system is.

I do pay for my own healthcare...it sucks...I wish it was free...but in both systems you are still going to be paying that same money for your healthcare...its just that in socialized medicine it will be taken from you without a choice in the matter. I'd prefer to have a choice!

 

[mfpullen]

• Socialized healthcare = “Free”? (it’s magic)

• 
  
  While he does mention higher taxes several times, you're right, he does try to make it sound "free", this was a problem I had with the movie, too. I personally have no problem paying higher taxes, but it should be explained outright.
  
  

  [*]Baby turned away from emergency room with 104 fever?

  
  I've seen cases like this turned away from ERs for purely administrative reasons. Nothing unusual here. Extremely sad and demoralizing, yes, but typical of a capitalism-based system.
  
  

  [*]The French are so happy and socialized and free and there is a political riot every couple of weeks because they are so happy, socialized, and free?

  
  There have been two riots of mention: one was due to low pay for teena nd early twenty workers, and the other was muslim fundamentalists mad about some rational law they miscontrued as an anti-muslim law. Neither of these had anything to do with healthcare nor did they have to do with the general happiness of the nation.
  
  There are riots in the US from time to time. Does that make us a generally unhappy nation?
  
  

  [*]Picking a small sample of the worst possible cases you can find does not constitute a balanced argument.

  
  And giving privatized healthcare to the highest bidder does not constitute a balanced healthcare system.
  
  I agree that Moore's film is obviously biased, just as most things on Faux News and CNN are biased. However, I DO think he raises incredibly important issues. I personally have been on the receiving end of shady insurance tactics. They are a profit gig, and will always be a profit gig. When you allow profit to enter into a field where life and death decisions are made, dollar signs will ALWAYS cloud judgment at some point.
  
  I know this will sound crazy to all the neo-cons and capitalists out there, but, how about we just treat EVERYONE as a fellow human being, regardless of background, finances, ethnicity, etc.? Aren't all humans entitled to even the most basic healthcare?

 

[pennquaker08]

Here's how it goes, for the most part.

Politically liberal/progressive = yay to national healthcare!
Politically conservative = yay to private insurance!

 

[Jolie South]

I do pay for my own healthcare...it sucks...I wish it was free...but in both systems you are still going to be paying that same money for your healthcare...its just that in socialized medicine it will be taken from you without a choice in the matter. I'd prefer to have a choice!

well absolutely, but for those that don't have employer offered insurance i think that there should be some lower cost government offered alternative. you decide if you want it and you pay for it.

when you are insured by an employer i think you end up paying the same price as self insured but with super low deductible, low prescription co-pay, no cap on Rx and insurance pays everything up front.

this versus what i have: high deductible, pay everything up front, file claims, $40 Rx copay, cap at $5000 for Rx coverage.

it just makes sense for the government to offer something for the rest of us to have equal coverage as those that get great coverage from their employer and at the same price. the people that work low paying jobs without benefits could also buy into this.

they could fund it with some tax money (cigarettes?), but it wouldn't be nearly as costly or unwieldy as socialized health care.

It would encourage private insurers to keep their costs down to make sure people wouldn't switch to the government programs and cause profit losses.

I'm no expert, just seems like something along those lines is needed.

 

[TheRealMD]

Here's how it goes, for the most part.

Politically liberal/progressive = yay to national healthcare!
Politically conservative = yay to private insurance!

Actually, the more accurate senario is this:

Politically liberal/progressive = we don't trust big business and their agenda to make profits!
Politically conservative = we don't trust the government and what it does with our tax money!

Notice how money plays a part in both...

 

[maestro1625]

do the words "grain of salt" mean anything to you people?

it goes both ways man...

though I haven't seen it myself I normally enjoy Moore's films for the entertainment value... and to see if I can recognize what parts of Flint's north side ghettos he uses in each movie.

 

[Husky85]

Please read...it's long but by the end you'll agree it was worth the read:

My problem with how everyone approaches the problems of the current American healthcare system is that they see it as an issue to which there are two solutions...1) to keep things the way they are...or 2) to go to a universal/single payer nanny-state system

In reality this is not the case...and in reality these are probably the two worst choices. These two choices are both bad for patients and bad for healthcare providers from the hospital directors all the way down to the janitors.

In reality we have several other options, options that you don't hear about and options that the politicians in power and the people who control the media (Moore, the news media, and the rest of the highly liberal body of individuals who control what the average American sees on his/her tv set).

What about a) telling malpractice attorneys and b) insurance companies to take a hike?

a) If healthcare were truly a capitalistic enterprise then everyone could afford the healthcare they need because competition would keep fees down and promote efficiency. Also, every middle man in a system takes a cut of the money. It doesn't matter if that middle man is a government bureau or an insurance company...as they pass the money from the patient to the healthcare provider they take a cut. Why don't we remove the middleman to make heathcare more reasonable for everyone?
And what about the poor you ask...the government can subsidize their care...the less money a person makes the more the government will subsidize their care.

b) The absence of frivolous malpractice suits would allow hospital staff to cut unnecessary documentation, astronomical malpractice insurance, and the practice of defensive medicine. Right now physicians and mid-levels spend at least 50 percent of their time doing paperwork to cover their butt in case a patient decides to sue them even if they did nothing wrong. Most of this paperwork is redundant or unnecessary. And who pays for this extra paperwork: the physicians who have to work longer hours for less pay and the patients who have to have their time with the physician rationed so that the physician will be able to complete his/her daily scut load. Just imagine how much it costs to print and store this paperwork...forget about actually filling it out!
The cost of malpractice insurance is incredible. Doctors have to charge their patients more so they can simply afford it. If frivolous malpractice suits were less widespread this would not be the case and the money that patients shell out for healthcare would actually go toward the healthcare instead of to lawyers and malpractice insurance companies.
And additionally, since doctors must practice defensive medicine in our current litigious society...ordering unnecessary and expensive tests to rule out rare, one-in-a-million type conditions...the kind of conditions where the treatment in that one in a million case is less than the test... just so that they will not be sued. Which costs less, one million chest x-rays or one second doctors visit or hospitalization when the patients cough doesn't go away and turns out to have developed into pneumonia? The patient is fine either way...just slightly more uncomfortable in the second scenario.

How can we do this you ask?...
1) Legally sanctioned and supported internal oversight. In order for a case to go to court it must first be briefly reviewed by an impartial review board of physicians who would look at test results and a transcript of the alleged events...no lawyers and no trial...the patient and physician would not even need to show up. If they determine that it was possible that malpractice occurred (not to determine guilt or innocence, but simply to decide if there are any merits to the patient's case) then the physician in question could be officially legally accused. If that board determines the physician could not have been at fault then the patient must relinquish their case. What would have been a million dollar settlement for the patient or cost thousands and thousands of dollars to pay lawyers and months of litigation in court for baseless malpractice cases would become a few hours in a physician review board.
2) Also, the amount of money that can be won in a malpractice case must be capped. I think that a good number would be the physician's income for the previous year...if a doctor made $100,000 one year and at the end of the year they lose a malpractice lawsuit, the most they should be able to lose is $100,000. (This would further eliminate the need for malpractice insurance because the physician could just take out a loan to pay this off or pay it out of their savings).

THE PROBLEMS WITH THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN HEALTHCARE ARE THE POLITICIANS, LAWYERS, AND MEDIA WHO TELL THE SHEEP OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT THERE ARE ONLY TWO CHOICES FOR THE FUTURE OF HEALTHCARE AND HIDE THE FACT THAT UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE (SINGLE PAYER AND OTHERWISE) HAS FAILED MISERABLY IN EVERY COUNTRY THAT HAS HAD THE MISFORTUNE TO ATTEMPT IT!!!

 

[TheRealMD]

well absolutely, but for those that don't have employer offered insurance i think that there should be some lower cost government offered alternative. you decide if you want it and you pay for it.

when you are insured by an employer i think you end up paying the same price as self insured but with super low deductible, low prescription co-pay, no cap on Rx and insurance pays everything up front.

this versus what i have: high deductible, pay everything up front, file claims, $40 Rx copay, cap at $5000 for Rx coverage.

it just makes sense for the government to offer something for the rest of us to have equal coverage as those that get great coverage from their employer and at the same price. the people that work low paying jobs without benefits could also buy into this.

they could fund it with some tax money (cigarettes?), but it wouldn't be nearly as costly or unwieldy as socialized health care.

It would encourage private insurers to keep their costs down to make sure people wouldn't switch to the government programs and cause profit losses.

I'm no expert, just seems like something along those lines is needed.

The thing is that if the government offers the same "equal" benefits to those who have good insurance from their employer as those who don't, what incentive is there for a company TO give out that insurance package? We'll see a slow but massive shift to the government taking on more and more people, and because government plans are more likely than not subsidized by taxpayer money, 10-20 years in the time machine and you've made a not-supposed-to-be-but-really-is-social form of universal healthcare.

In practice, if the government is really going to cover massive amounts of people with healthcare, you're going to have to prevent businesses from offloading their insurance plans onto the government as well.

 

[LiterofCola]

There have been two riots of mention: one was due to low pay for teena nd early twenty workers, and the other was muslim fundamentalists mad about some rational law they miscontrued as an anti-muslim law. Neither of these had anything to do with healthcare nor did they have to do with the general happiness of the nation.

There are riots in the US from time to time. Does that make us a generally unhappy nation?

I was referring to the way Moore used French riots in the film as a example of a politically active culture (it's not because they are unhappy they are just really involved). Nice way to spin a riot don't you think?

And giving privatized healthcare to the highest bidder does not constitute a balanced healthcare system.

It sounds like your saying the problems with our current healthcare system justifiy Moore only showing one side of the story.

I mainly made this post just to point out some issues with the movie that I thought were funny (obviously Hilary Clinton's level of attractiveness has nothing to do with healthcare either).

I actually enjoyed watching Sicko and I think it is great that the film is getting people talking about an important issue. I worry about people blindly following Moore but at least people are getting involved.

Thank you for your opinions

 

[Jolie South]

The thing is that if the government offers the same "equal" benefits to those who have good insurance from their employer as those who don't, what incentive is there for a company TO give out that insurance package? We'll see a slow but massive shift to the government taking on more and more people, and because government plans are more likely than not subsidized by taxpayer money, 10-20 years in the time machine and you've made a not-supposed-to-be-but-really-is-social form of universal healthcare.

In practice, if the government is really going to cover massive amounts of people with healthcare, you're going to have to prevent businesses from offloading their insurance plans onto the government as well.

that's precisely why it will work. insurance providers will have to compete driving down prices for the consumers.

 

[Jolie South]

a big fallacy about insurance is that it is a consumer driven business. if it was consumer driven, there would be more options with competitive pricing. companies would try to offer more and more different options to fit the different needs of different people, but this is not the case at all. everyone has basically the same options for the same money.

getting government into the business would push other companies to cut their fat fees and try to provide better options to get more consumers to "buy" their product. what motivation would they have to stay uncompetitive, zero.

 

[BlackSails]

do the words "grain of salt" mean anything to you people?

Not for something advertised as a documentary. The movie was full of crap, just like every other movie Moore has made.

 

[maestro1625]

Not for something advertised as a documentary. The movie was full of crap, just like every other movie Moore has made.

yes, and if you knew it was Michael Moore, you knew what caveats to expect while watching it...

^ see armybound... this was my point. 🙄

 

[NCF145]

getting government into the business would push other companies to cut their fat fees and try to provide better options to get more consumers to "buy" their product. what motivation would they have to stay uncompetitive, zero.

Oh yeah, the government is great at curbing high costs and greedy businessmen. Can anyone say Exxon Mobile?

 

[armybound]

Social security...

social security.

 

[LifetimeDoc]

Oh yeah, the government is great at curbing high costs and greedy businessmen. Can anyone say Exxon Mobile?

That's why we should get rid of the government and go to a totally capitalistic society. We can trust the corporations to take care of the masses as governments are wasteful and evil! 🙄 ENRON forever!

 

[Jacks Mannequin]

Don't support national healthcare or the terrorists win.
/per foxnews. (see sig)

 

[imamom]

Haven't seen the movie yet, but if it promotes discussion, I'm all for it because it's needed.

Try turning 50 & self-employed & being turned down by several insurance companies for ANY kind of health insurance because your husband has hypertension & you saw a doctor for a-fib 6 years previously, but have never missed a day of work in 5 years due to illness. That's what happened to us after our COBRA ran out. Finally did find a company that excluded several things from our coverage but agreed to cover us--catastrophic coverage (meaning high premiums, high deductibles & 80/20 coverage--no Rx,etc.).

Flash forward 7 years. After continuing (annual) increases, company's switch to United Healthcare (we didn't have a say), we upped our deductible to $5000 PER person; and tho it's a PPO, my gyne & derm got excluded from their plan, so I pay oop for them. God forbid one of us gets cancer. The drug costs alone will bankrupt us (no Rx coverage!). BTW, our monthly premium is $680 (2 adults & 22-year-old student).

Daughter worked for BC/BS right out of college for 18 months handling individual applications. Don't ever get sick or have some kind of chronic condition or be overweight, etc. and go looking for health insurance--little 22-year-old will stamp you "rejected!" The stories she could tell about this industry--couldn't wait to to get a new job--she thought she was working for satan.

40% of your or employer's premiums pay insurance admin. costs (oh, that's certainly efficient!) Have you ever seen an insurance building that is NOT a Taj Mahal? Who do you think is making the $$?? How do you spell "medicare prescription plan?"

30 years ago, as a person your age, I had sudden horrific headaches. Was hospitalized (they did that back then) for 1 week, had all kinds of tests--CT scans, etc., neuro consult and....had no health insurance (kind of didn't need it as a young person). The bills came, I talked to the providers involved (hospital, docs, etc.), told them I was just a sub. teacher/part-time student. We agreed on a payment plan & in 6 months I had them all paid off and it was not an onerous amount. Something not very pretty has happened to health care in the last 30 years.

Discussion is good and something absolutely needs to be done about health coverage in this country or the lawyers & insurance companies will be the only ones who get any love! The economic costs to our society (employers, individuals, etc.) are going to cripple this country for your generation & those to come!

 

[Gut Shot]

In practice, if the government is really going to cover massive amounts of people with healthcare, you're going to have to prevent businesses from offloading their insurance plans onto the government as well.

There was an interesting piece in Slate not long ago about the John Edwards healthcare plan (and, to a lesser extent, Obama's). You can find it here. Your point is absolutely correct, if the government offers healthcare to the population at large, employers will have no incentive to provide coverage any longer. It will come down to the government program vs. the private insurers, and in all honesty the private insurers probably won't be able to compete. It would be fun to watch them try, though. Eventually it would probably evolve into a single-payer system.

My problem with such a system is mainly that providers get leveraged by a single entity. On the other hand, if everyone in the country has their healthcare provided via taxation, it creates a strong incentive for politicians to keep the system flush and their voters happy. How this would play out is anyone's guess.

Personally, I would advocate a last ditch effort to make private insurance actually work, as suggested in this 2005 WSJ piece Cheaper Health Insurance - A little competition can go a long way.