BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
I'd say the creators of that documentary completely missed the real lesson one should learn from Cuba's example. And so, apparently, have you and dann.
And so did Moore.
What if Michael Moore had not made "Sicko"?
- Thread starter Rolfe
- Start date
-
- Tags
- health care
I'd say the creators of that documentary completely missed the real lesson one should learn from Cuba's example. And so, apparently, have you and dann.
And so did Moore.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
It does work. It's one reason our per capita GDP is so much higher than yours.
It was ... until liberals decided government could do it better and started raising taxes higher and higher to meet the *needs* and *injustices* they perceived. Then most people decided to stop being as charitable and simply let the government do it (although conservatives still tend to be much more charitable than liberals). Too bad government has proven it can't really do it better. Poverty is still with us. In fact, now a minimum rate seems built into the system. Now what do we do?
I don't agree. The REAL needs haven't really changed all that much. Just the expectations ... the feeling of *entitlement* by more and more.
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
When you are unemployed, you get money from unemployment insurance fund (and you are covered by Healthcare) and pay incometaxes when they have no kids, and all pay the other non income taxes.
non tax paying people would be Sans Papiers, there i am not sure if they are covered by healthcare or not, its kinda grey area, in switzerland they seem to be covered, im unsure about France.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
I'm wondering if we're done with Cuba, maybe we could get back to the USA.
The very beginning shows two examples of what the film is explicitly not supposed to be about, but by including them, it does become about this to some extent. The uninsured.
Both people had sustained accidental injuries. The first man, Adam, had cut his knee quite badly. It looked as if he'd done it a week or so before the bit shown in the film, suggesting he was hoping it would heal on its own but it didn't. He didn't go anywhere near the healthcare system "because he didn't want to get any further into debt", so he took a needle and thread, and sewed up his own leg.
The second one, Rick, sawed off the tops of two fingers - one completely and one partially. He did go to the hospital. He was offered treatment, and in fact he was offered high quality treatment - microsurgery to reattach the fingers. Unfortunately the treatment had a price ticket he couldn't afford, and he chose not to reattach the completely severed finger.
Neither of these two incidents was life threatening. Adam's knee would heal. It would have healed in the end anyway, although with a much bigger scar without than with the stitches. Rick didn't need these fingers to function.
So does it matter? That in a country like America, with high-quality healthcare available right there, some citizens end up with treatment that would be OK by third world standards?
Rolfe.
The very beginning shows two examples of what the film is explicitly not supposed to be about, but by including them, it does become about this to some extent. The uninsured.
Both people had sustained accidental injuries. The first man, Adam, had cut his knee quite badly. It looked as if he'd done it a week or so before the bit shown in the film, suggesting he was hoping it would heal on its own but it didn't. He didn't go anywhere near the healthcare system "because he didn't want to get any further into debt", so he took a needle and thread, and sewed up his own leg.
The second one, Rick, sawed off the tops of two fingers - one completely and one partially. He did go to the hospital. He was offered treatment, and in fact he was offered high quality treatment - microsurgery to reattach the fingers. Unfortunately the treatment had a price ticket he couldn't afford, and he chose not to reattach the completely severed finger.
Neither of these two incidents was life threatening. Adam's knee would heal. It would have healed in the end anyway, although with a much bigger scar without than with the stitches. Rick didn't need these fingers to function.
So does it matter? That in a country like America, with high-quality healthcare available right there, some citizens end up with treatment that would be OK by third world standards?
Rolfe.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Nobody want to discuss the actual film? The examples used to present the case that the US system leaves a lot of people who think they're covered, still in a very vulnerable position?
Have we decided that it's OK for people to sew up their own wounds, or get by without fingers that were salvageable, if they don't have insurance for some reason? Not life-threatening, so it's OK? And of course they weren't being denied treatment, they just didn't have the money for it and didn't want to take what they couldn't afford and then run off without paying.
It's OK, because it might be their own stupid fault that they didn't have insurance? (And let's not talk about how many people on low pay couldn't even think about purchasing individual health insurance.) Nobody want to talk about it?
But older people are OK, right? Once you're 65, Medicare will look after you. The USA does look after its old folk who have reached retirement age and don't have cover through their jobs or the sort of income that would buy a healthcare plan priced for their level of risk.
Well, and this was a bit of a shock to me, apparently not. The next example was Frank Cardell, who is 78, and covered by Medicare, but this doesn't cover the cost of the drugs he and his wife need. He has a job as a cleaner in a supermarket, to secure the necessary healthcare coverage. He believes he will never be able to give up work.
Is this common? It seems so. Many people on Medicare seem to have a lot of difficulty finding the money for their prescriptions. Older people often have quite a lot of prescriptions, too. How long are people expected to work in the US? What if Frank just gets too frail to hold down that cleaning job any more? How will he and his wife get their medication? Are there enough jobs to keep people like Frank in ace inhibitors?
Rolfe.
Have we decided that it's OK for people to sew up their own wounds, or get by without fingers that were salvageable, if they don't have insurance for some reason? Not life-threatening, so it's OK? And of course they weren't being denied treatment, they just didn't have the money for it and didn't want to take what they couldn't afford and then run off without paying.
It's OK, because it might be their own stupid fault that they didn't have insurance? (And let's not talk about how many people on low pay couldn't even think about purchasing individual health insurance.) Nobody want to talk about it?
But older people are OK, right? Once you're 65, Medicare will look after you. The USA does look after its old folk who have reached retirement age and don't have cover through their jobs or the sort of income that would buy a healthcare plan priced for their level of risk.
Well, and this was a bit of a shock to me, apparently not. The next example was Frank Cardell, who is 78, and covered by Medicare, but this doesn't cover the cost of the drugs he and his wife need. He has a job as a cleaner in a supermarket, to secure the necessary healthcare coverage. He believes he will never be able to give up work.
Is this common? It seems so. Many people on Medicare seem to have a lot of difficulty finding the money for their prescriptions. Older people often have quite a lot of prescriptions, too. How long are people expected to work in the US? What if Frank just gets too frail to hold down that cleaning job any more? How will he and his wife get their medication? Are there enough jobs to keep people like Frank in ace inhibitors?
Rolfe.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Of course I missed out Larry and Donna Smith, because we talked about them earlier. Larry had three heart attacks, then Donna got cancer. They had insurance, but the "co-pays and deductibles" were so expensive they couldn't keep up with them and had to declare bankruptcy. They lost their home and had to move into a single room in their daughter's house.
Well, I say we talked about them, but actually, all anyone said to defend this was that it didn't matter because the film showed a crying child, which meant that Larry and Donna's situation was magically not there any more, and didn't have to be considered.
I think this example is an extremely important one, because "high deductible" insurance policies are being promoted by people like Stossel as the panacea for extending cover to people who can't afford the gold plated version that might actually come through for them when they need it.
Larry and Donna seem to be exactly where that strategy will end up for a substantial proportion of people forced to go that route.
Rolfe.
Well, I say we talked about them, but actually, all anyone said to defend this was that it didn't matter because the film showed a crying child, which meant that Larry and Donna's situation was magically not there any more, and didn't have to be considered.
I think this example is an extremely important one, because "high deductible" insurance policies are being promoted by people like Stossel as the panacea for extending cover to people who can't afford the gold plated version that might actually come through for them when they need it.
Larry and Donna seem to be exactly where that strategy will end up for a substantial proportion of people forced to go that route.
Rolfe.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
Laura Burnham. She was in a car accident, and her insurance company refused to pay for the ambulance that took her to hospital because it hadn't been pre-approved.
Is this likely? Is it possible she's making it up? Could she have misunderstood something that was said to her? Surely it can't be true that an insured person injured in a car accident is required to get pre-approval from the insurance company before she can allow an ambulance to take her to hospital?
Rolfe.
Is this likely? Is it possible she's making it up? Could she have misunderstood something that was said to her? Surely it can't be true that an insured person injured in a car accident is required to get pre-approval from the insurance company before she can allow an ambulance to take her to hospital?
Rolfe.
Rolfe
Adult human female
A couple of examples where people couldn't get insurance because of weight issues. Jason is a teenager who is tall and gangly. He has a BMI of 17.9.
The lower limit of optimum (WHO) is 18.5, so he's underweight by that figure. However, these limits are for use in adults, and Jason isn't an adult. He's actually normal for his age, though right on the bottom edge.
The other person was a short, plump lady with a BMI of 33.6. This is "obese class 2" according to the WHO.
Neither person looked exceptionally abnormal for the cross-section of people you'd see on an American street. Are they telling the truth?
Jason only had to put on a few pounds and apply again - on the other hand, that can take a while for a growing adolescent who is very physically active. What if he'd had an accident during that time, and been seriously injured while he had no insurance?
The lady was plump, but far from morbidly obese. Is it true that Americans can't get health insurance if they have a BMI of 33 or over? Wouldn't that leave about 30% of the population uninsured? Sure, it sounds like good incentive to lose weight. Which makes me wonder why we see so many fat Americans. But again, what if she had a non-weight-related health issue while she was dieting? It's expensive to be uninsured.
I feel that there has to be a reporting problem with these cases. I can't believe that only Americans with "normal" BMI can get health insurance. But I really wish Americans who know about the system would explain what's wrong here. Wouldn't that be more constructive than complaining about the sound track of the film, or that some footage of a crying child was included?
Rolfe.
The lower limit of optimum (WHO) is 18.5, so he's underweight by that figure. However, these limits are for use in adults, and Jason isn't an adult. He's actually normal for his age, though right on the bottom edge.
The other person was a short, plump lady with a BMI of 33.6. This is "obese class 2" according to the WHO.
Neither person looked exceptionally abnormal for the cross-section of people you'd see on an American street. Are they telling the truth?
Jason only had to put on a few pounds and apply again - on the other hand, that can take a while for a growing adolescent who is very physically active. What if he'd had an accident during that time, and been seriously injured while he had no insurance?
The lady was plump, but far from morbidly obese. Is it true that Americans can't get health insurance if they have a BMI of 33 or over? Wouldn't that leave about 30% of the population uninsured? Sure, it sounds like good incentive to lose weight. Which makes me wonder why we see so many fat Americans. But again, what if she had a non-weight-related health issue while she was dieting? It's expensive to be uninsured.
I feel that there has to be a reporting problem with these cases. I can't believe that only Americans with "normal" BMI can get health insurance. But I really wish Americans who know about the system would explain what's wrong here. Wouldn't that be more constructive than complaining about the sound track of the film, or that some footage of a crying child was included?
Rolfe.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
Oh dear, couldn't we talk about the film? I waited till I thought the OT-ish stuff had tailed off, and posted lots of stuff about the actual content of the actual film....
Rolfe.
Rolfe.
Rolfe
Adult human female
'S OK. Nobody's coming to discuss the actual film anyway.
I don't understand how those of us who are in favour of universal healthcare can painstakingly examine every scare story and horror story promoted by the opponents (and find them gross misrepresentations if not downright lies), and yet it seems to be sufficient to say of Sicko - "He showed a crying child! He used emotional music! Cuba is a hellhole!" and that's it. Never mind the actual case he's making, we dismiss the film on these grounds.
Well, in other news, opponents of universal healthcare also use footage of crying children, and emotional music, and questionable analogies, and frail old ladies lying in hospital beds looking vulnerable as well. But we still look at the actual facts they present.
I think they know that the essential argument of Sicko is only too accurate, hence the diversions.
Rolfe.
I don't understand how those of us who are in favour of universal healthcare can painstakingly examine every scare story and horror story promoted by the opponents (and find them gross misrepresentations if not downright lies), and yet it seems to be sufficient to say of Sicko - "He showed a crying child! He used emotional music! Cuba is a hellhole!" and that's it. Never mind the actual case he's making, we dismiss the film on these grounds.
Well, in other news, opponents of universal healthcare also use footage of crying children, and emotional music, and questionable analogies, and frail old ladies lying in hospital beds looking vulnerable as well. But we still look at the actual facts they present.
I think they know that the essential argument of Sicko is only too accurate, hence the diversions.
Rolfe.
You didn't mention one of the most important points made in Sicko.
Half of all the bankruptcies in the Unite States are due to medical bills.
Three quarters of all those bankrupted by medical bills had health insurance at the onset of illness.
Half of all the bankruptcies in the Unite States are due to medical bills.
Three quarters of all those bankrupted by medical bills had health insurance at the onset of illness.
easycruise
Muse
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2004
- Messages
- 725
There are so many "isolated" disasters about the NHS that makes one seriously wonder if they really arn't that isolated. Yet another one just yesterday...
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...lieve-that-the-nhs-is-sacrosanct-1775088.html
More like sixty percent, actually, a claim which can be backed by evidence.
To be honest, I don't remember that from Sicko, but that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't in there (my memory's good, but it's short).
Another interesting snippet from that study:
"Many families with continuous coverage found themselves under-insured, responsible for thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs. Others had private coverage but lost it when they became too sick to work. Nationally, a quarter of firms cancel coverage immediately when an employee suffers a disabling illness; another quarter do so within a year."
Rolfe
Adult human female
Oh, I've barely started! The film is two hours long after all.
The stock answer to the bankruptcy thing seems to be that only a minority of these bankruptcies are solely due to medical bills. So it wasn't the medical bills at all! If these spendthrifts hadn't been wallowing in debt already, they'd have been fine!
However, that makes no sense. How many people have no debts as a matter of course? Many people live with a degree of manageable debt - credit cards, automobile finance, mortgage and so on. If a medical need pushes them over the edge, of course you can say that the bankruptcy wasn't solely due to the medical bills, but if they were managing the debt beforehand then yes, of course the medical bills were the cause.
It's the part about so many of the bankruptcies involving people who had insurance that's the real killer in fact. This is why I think the Larry and Donna case is so important. It was the deductibles and the co-pays that buried them. And yet "high-deductible" insurance policies are touted as the solution to healthcare for the less well off.
It seems to me that it's people with low incomes who are forced to consider these high deductible policies, because the premiums are lower. But then these are the very people who are unlikely to have the spare capital to pay the deductibles when they have a claim.
How is this a good idea?
Rolfe.
The stock answer to the bankruptcy thing seems to be that only a minority of these bankruptcies are solely due to medical bills. So it wasn't the medical bills at all! If these spendthrifts hadn't been wallowing in debt already, they'd have been fine!
However, that makes no sense. How many people have no debts as a matter of course? Many people live with a degree of manageable debt - credit cards, automobile finance, mortgage and so on. If a medical need pushes them over the edge, of course you can say that the bankruptcy wasn't solely due to the medical bills, but if they were managing the debt beforehand then yes, of course the medical bills were the cause.
It's the part about so many of the bankruptcies involving people who had insurance that's the real killer in fact. This is why I think the Larry and Donna case is so important. It was the deductibles and the co-pays that buried them. And yet "high-deductible" insurance policies are touted as the solution to healthcare for the less well off.
It seems to me that it's people with low incomes who are forced to consider these high deductible policies, because the premiums are lower. But then these are the very people who are unlikely to have the spare capital to pay the deductibles when they have a claim.
How is this a good idea?
Rolfe.
GreNME
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 8,276
Honestly, I have no love of Moore and his smug presentation of what are otherwise very important issues that deserve serious attention in the public sphere. He has a presentation style that, when trying to look at an issue as objectively as possible, can very seriously tend to poison the well.
However...
I would not be opposed to having Moore's "Sicko" played on one or several television stations across the nations. The well is already poisoned, so to speak, so I wouldn't fear this film causing more damage on a net basis (though I do recognize it would drive FOX News rabid). Instead of causing an increase in the dissonance of the public discourse, my estimation (based on having watched it and admittedly not agreeing with all of its presentation) is that instead of adding to the dissonance it would most likely cancel out the stupidity on the other extreme of the political spectrum, sort of an opposite frequency causing the both to level out, at which point more informative and serious presentations could be given to the public for consumption.
You know, I do have what could be called a "success story" of our current healthcare where not only my life was saved, but I actually got treatment that prevented me from having life-long detrimental effects (to a degree) due to the damage my body took. My healthcare, while admittedly taking some wrangling on my end after the initial trauma care, kept me mostly covered meeting follow-up doctors and getting physical therapy, getting me back to what most estimates would consider about a 90 to 95 percent recovery (100% would have been impossible... I was effed up pretty badly). What would seem to be a bombshell is that the insurance coverage I was under was given to me even though I was a temporary contracted employee. So, obviously, while it should be noted that anecdotes could be found where there are massive failures in healthcare in the US and abroad, there are also resounding successes. The question is which would be most likely for the average citizen (depending on the country one lives in). My estimation, not based on Moore's film but in the details and fact-based arguments out there, is that a nationalized healthcare system will have a higher likelihood of successes than the current privatized healthcare in the US.
Moore's film is fine at displaying the drama and emotional aspects of the issue that exists in spades. Unfortunately, it's very scarce on providing actionable facts and explanations for the general public on the issue (though in a few parts it comes close to touching on them). I'm unsure on what kind of point-by-point of the film could be presented, because there aren't many separate points to be filtered out and addressed separately-- in actuality, the film consists of a few stark emotionally-based points and appeals to ridicule throughout, and it all boils down to the last few minutes of the film where Moore poses the question of why we oppose national healthcare since it (obviously, according to the film) is the more efficient and effective system. The real answer to such a question is pretty plain and apparent: not everyone is convinced it's a better system.
However...
I would not be opposed to having Moore's "Sicko" played on one or several television stations across the nations. The well is already poisoned, so to speak, so I wouldn't fear this film causing more damage on a net basis (though I do recognize it would drive FOX News rabid). Instead of causing an increase in the dissonance of the public discourse, my estimation (based on having watched it and admittedly not agreeing with all of its presentation) is that instead of adding to the dissonance it would most likely cancel out the stupidity on the other extreme of the political spectrum, sort of an opposite frequency causing the both to level out, at which point more informative and serious presentations could be given to the public for consumption.
You know, I do have what could be called a "success story" of our current healthcare where not only my life was saved, but I actually got treatment that prevented me from having life-long detrimental effects (to a degree) due to the damage my body took. My healthcare, while admittedly taking some wrangling on my end after the initial trauma care, kept me mostly covered meeting follow-up doctors and getting physical therapy, getting me back to what most estimates would consider about a 90 to 95 percent recovery (100% would have been impossible... I was effed up pretty badly). What would seem to be a bombshell is that the insurance coverage I was under was given to me even though I was a temporary contracted employee. So, obviously, while it should be noted that anecdotes could be found where there are massive failures in healthcare in the US and abroad, there are also resounding successes. The question is which would be most likely for the average citizen (depending on the country one lives in). My estimation, not based on Moore's film but in the details and fact-based arguments out there, is that a nationalized healthcare system will have a higher likelihood of successes than the current privatized healthcare in the US.
Moore's film is fine at displaying the drama and emotional aspects of the issue that exists in spades. Unfortunately, it's very scarce on providing actionable facts and explanations for the general public on the issue (though in a few parts it comes close to touching on them). I'm unsure on what kind of point-by-point of the film could be presented, because there aren't many separate points to be filtered out and addressed separately-- in actuality, the film consists of a few stark emotionally-based points and appeals to ridicule throughout, and it all boils down to the last few minutes of the film where Moore poses the question of why we oppose national healthcare since it (obviously, according to the film) is the more efficient and effective system. The real answer to such a question is pretty plain and apparent: not everyone is convinced it's a better system.
Policenaut
Infidel Defiler
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 2,191
I've never watched it but did he comment on our massively in debt and inefficient medicare which is universal health care for all over 65? The same system that is going to be insolvent in 8 years. I think this is just one of the many reasons why many people are skeptical that our government can do magic aka "lower costs and expand coverage".
Rolfe
Adult human female
That simply raises the question of how come your politicians seem to be the only ones in the free world who can't manage to deliver universal healthcare at a reasonable cost. And if so, why don't you elect yourselves a new lot?
Oh wait you already did....
Rolfe.
Oh wait you already did....
Rolfe.
GreNME
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 8,276
Well, since your descriptions of what Medicare actually is shows you really don't know anything about it in the first place (hint: it isn't for people over 65, for starters), I'm not sure what your questions are trying to highlight.
Read what I posted. I'm skeptical of Moore's presentation, even after having watched the film. However, as I also pointed out the well has been poisoned already and misleading statements like yours are a perfect example of what's wrong with the discussion about healthcare.