Healthcare

[CptSternn]

I thought this topic needed a thread on its own.

To start off, has anyone seen Sicko yet? I thought it was quite good, and had many things in it that most people never think about.

Also, on a side note to this, CNN had an article on it here...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movi...ies&eref=yahoo

The thing that got me was when Moore went on CNN, they attacked him, figuratively, about his 'facts'. Turns out, CNN was wrong on a few facts, and apologises in that link.

Also, the 'facts' they claim Moore got wrong and tried to argue had no bearing on the arguments he put forth. For example Moore said Americans live longer than Cubans - with Cubans living on average 77.2 and Americans 77.3, based on the numbers Moore had from 2006, where as CNN used numbers from 2005 and claimed Americans lived until 77.9 - having no bearing what so ever on the argument or what Moore said, but they claimed that was 'inaccurate reporting' and tried to make viewers think the whole film in some way must have bad facts and information.

There are a few other examples in there, but check the link for details. It's sad to see when CNN had the chance to discuss the subjects Moore brought up in his film, they decided to take the low road and turn the whole segment into a nit-picking event over non-pertinent facts, in which many cases CNN actually had it wrong, instead of actually talking about the subject matter.

[HumanePain]

CNN or any other profitable news corporation would do this despite the accuracy of anyone's movie: they thrive on conflict. So, they take a person who has the masses current focus (Moore) and create some conflict with that person to gain attention, and sell ad time around it. A predictable formula. Could just as easily have been one of the Clinton's after publishing their books or the producer of a 9/11 movie. It does not cost them much to argue inaccuracy with someone and then apologize afterwards. They probably even think the apology will gain attention and help them sell ad time as well.

[CptSternn]

You never know. Hopefully it will help more people to see the film. It was pretty good IMHO.

I don't want to give it away, but they start off interviewing a man with insurance who had a tablesaw accident at home. They goto the hospital and the doctors tell him his HMO only will pay for part of the operation, for only one finger, and he has to choose the finger he wants to have attached. Oh yeah, they then tell him its an extra $60,000 for the reattachment surgery, which isn't covered, only the hospital visit is - sugery is extra.

So the man has to, while bleeding in the emergency room, pick which finger he wants to save, and fill out paperwork for the loan he will need to pay for it before they will work on him.

They contrast this to a man in Canada who had a similar accident, was rushed to the local hospital, where they reattached all of his fingers and sent him on his way.

One of many examples they show that really bring the point home.

Well, that and the dozens of people with insurance he interviews who find out after contracting cancer or other serious illnesses that their insurance policies don't cover terminal illness because of various clauses in small print.

The whole film is worth the watch.

[Saddiction]

I'd like to see that movie. I bet it really does provide some interesting points.

[Aaroneet]

I saw the movie. It definitely provided interesting points. In order for somebody to try to shed light on corruption in bureaucracy, in my opinion, they need to dramatize in order to get others' attention. If anything, Michael Moores' movies inspired me to start forming opinions on current events, so I think he deserves more credit for what he does. Especially in one bit of the movie, in which he discusses the practice of "patient dumping". That in itself was an eyebrow-raiser.

[CptSternn]

The thing that bothers me, which I mentioned in the other thread about the dilapidated schools in America, is the fact Americans pay the same percentage of taxes as socialist countries - 1/3rd.

1/3rd of your paycheck in America, Sweden, Ireland, and pretty much all of the EU goes to taxes.

So why then can all the other countries afford healthcare, proper schools, etc. and America can't?

Two words - defence budget.

Also, don't let the word 'defence' fool you, it really means war. While the rest of the first world builds schools, pays for healthcare, and gives their citizens various other benefits (i.e. prescription medication, natural resources, etc), America chooses to build bigger and more deadly bombs, weapons, plus house and feed more troops than any other country.

It amazes me that a country would spend so little trying to educate its own people, but then spend so much to arm the very same people they deprive of a proper education.

[ArtificialOne]

HAHA!!! More Military Defense complex conspiracy theory BS.... YAWN>>>>>>>

First, the govt is terrible at running things. Do you really want a govt employee to stitch you up or in charge of anything like that? Plus the govt isn't a business, it runs horribly inefficient. True, we need reform, but we don't need bigger got.

I heard a few days ago on the radio, then repeated on cnn and fox, that more people <especially expats> living in cannad were much happier with health care in the US than Cannada. Apparently the study was done in all the privinces except quebec. Don't know why..

Here's an old post I came across.
http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/campbell/...oni%20oped.pdf

I couldn't seem to find the info on what I heard on those networks.

If we really want affordable healthcare. Inact tort reform <which leftists hate with a passion> to reduce extremely high lawsuit payouts. These high payouts mean docs have to pay outrageous premiums for insurance which they have to put the cost on you. Reduce the amount of r+d costs drug companies try to pass on. Reduce hours worked by nurses and inact better health programs in schools.

http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...09backlog.html

That's what's going on in texas. Imagine that, tort reform works!!!

Say no to big govt and politicians playing to race and poor people. These politicians are power hungry and trying to play on these things so they can take more money and have more power over everyone.

Here's a good blog that debunks some of the bs that more spews in his film.
http://bresponsible.blogspot.com/

Like his other movies, I could hardly sit through all the BS and talking points from the communists. More doom and gloom bs to anger people and missinform them. It's a shame so many young people buy into it hand and foot.

[ArtificialOne]

whoops, sorry for the spelling, I'm trying to eat...

[Saddiction]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

I heard a few days ago on the radio, then repeated on cnn and fox, that more people <especially expats> living in cannad were much happier with health care in the US than Cannada. Apparently the study was done in all the privinces except quebec. Don't know why..

I'm assuming that said expats make enough money and have decent insurance plans with their job. The advantage to healthcare in the US is that if you have the money and insurance, the aid comes quicker. In Canada, we have to wait months before seeing a specialist. The advantage of Canadian healthcare is that you can go to the hospital after an accident and not worry about your pocket book or how many loans you will need to cover medical expense.

I personally prefer the Canadian system. If I can't wait a few months to see a specialist, I'm sure I can wave my money around in the US to get the attention I need.

As to why Quebec wasn't included, they're never included in anything. I'm not sure the exact reason, but I have a feeling that it's due to the sepratist attitude they have.

[ArtificialOne]

Yeah, I think that's correct. I remember them saying something about median income and such. I heard you have to pay a large copay though to see the doc. Kind of like australia. You get the money back, eventually.

Quebec was quite nice when I visited there a while back. They were pretty pretentious and nationalistic though. Quite french, lol. Everyone dodged my question about them returning to being a french province though.. blamed it on some polititian....

[Saddiction]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

I heard you have to pay a large copay though to see the doc. Kind of like australia. You get the money back, eventually.

Perhaps that depends on the Province. If I want to see a GP in Alberta, all I have to do is show my healthcare card. The cost of the card is $44/month. I pay $22 since my employer pays half. I pay nothing more.

If I want to see an optometrist, dentist or any other doctor that isn't covered under Alberta Health, I have to pay out of my pocket. My company will then reimburse 100%, though not everone is fortunate to have an employer that provides decent benefits.

Most specialists are covered under Alberta Health, we just have to wait longer to see one.

My aunt lived in Washington for roughly 7 years. She had an excellent insurance plan. She was a bit upset when she came back to Canada and couldn't see a cardiologist at her convienience (she is a bit of a hypochondriac).

[Drake Dun]

Medical care here sucks ass. You don't even want to hear my horror story about my appendectomy.

When Asahara hit the subway with sarin gas, many of the people streaming into the hospitals were told to just go home. Some of those people are partially or completely blind and/or have memory problems now.

Drake

[HellforgedX]

Truth is in the eye of the beer holder.

[CptSternn]

People here in Ireland complain about the healthcare as well. Seeing a specialist can take a few weeks, or a couple of months, as some people have said about Canada.

The thing is, in America, you could wait as long as you want, but if you don't have the money, you never get to see the specialist.

I found an article today that I found interesting as well.

U.S. medical students graduate debt-free in Cuba

http://news.**********/s/nm/20070724...4lveghW_Os0NUE

HAVANA (Reuters) - Eight Americans graduated on Tuesday from a Cuban medical school after six years of studies fully funded by Fidel Castro's government.

They plan to return home, take board exams for licenses to practice and provide cheap health care in poor neighborhoods.

"Cuba offered us full scholarships to study medicine here. In exchange, we commit ourselves to go back to our communities to provide health care to underserved people," said Carmen Landau, 30, of Oakland, California.

The program is part of Castro's pet project to send thousands of Cuban doctors abroad to tend to the poor in developing countries, such as Venezuela and Bolivia, and train tens of thousand of medical students from developing countries in Cuba.

Officials in Cuba's communist government relish the idea of training doctors for the United States, its arch-enemy since Castro took power in a leftist revolution in 1959.

The ailing Cuban leader, 80, did not attend the graduation for 850 students from 25 countries at Havana's Karl Marx theater. He has not appeared in public since intestinal surgery forced him to hand over power to his brother Raul Castro a year ago.

There are 88 Americans studying medicine in Cuba. The first to graduate two years ago was Cedric Edwards, who is now working at Montefiore Hospital in New York City's Bronx borough.

The U.S. students praised Cuba's universal, free health-care system, which is community based and focuses on preventing illness before it becomes more serious and costly, in contrast to the U.S. health industry indicted for being profit-based in Michael Moore's recent film "SiCKO."

It's not just healthcare costs for patients that we are talking about here. Most countries with national healthcare also give breaks to doctors on school loans, if they charge at all, and offer more incentives to nursing staff.

The people who always defend the American healthcare system, are always Americans. They have never had the opportunity to experience anything else, which is all the more ironic that they try and argue against something they never had to begin with.

It doesn't end with just healthcare doctor visits.

Here in Ireland, when you have a child, ALL fees are paid by the government. On top of this, you get €1500 from the government when the child is born to cover the costs of the crib, stroller/buggy, clothes, diapers, etc. Every month until the child is 18 you get €250 a month (that number goes up each year).

My wife thinks its ironic when we watch US telly here and they fight over custody for children (i.e. Maury, Judge Judy, etc) - people fighting over child support and even more distrubing people fighting over paterntity tests.

Here, people fight in court to prove the child is thier own, as it means many benefits, monthly checks, and of cours tax breaks.

You have to admit - when a country forces its citizens to fight among themselves to keep a child out of their life, something is wrong. When people have to battle in court to get rid of the responsibility of raising a child, something is very wrong with their way of life.

[ArtificialOne]

Yeah... people keep citing cuba this, cuba that. Pretty good propaganda. Especially if you get killed and imprisoned if your view differs from the govts. Not to mention the numerous other no-freedom things that goes on like extreme food rashioning. There's also different services for foriegners than locals.. I don't know.. the place must be pretty good for people to make home made boats and flock off the mainland in groups of 50... Geuss those people had it so well they had to flee and get a break from all the palm leaves and grapes they're apparently fed...

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

Yeah... people keep citing cuba this, cuba that. Pretty good propaganda. Especially if you get killed and imprisoned if your view differs from the govts. Not to mention the numerous other no-freedom things that goes on like extreme food rashioning. There's also different services for foriegners than locals.. I don't know.. the place must be pretty good for people to make home made boats and flock off the mainland in groups of 50... Geuss those people had it so well they had to flee and get a break from all the palm leaves and grapes they're apparently fed...

What you might fail to realise is that America is the only country with a ban on traveling and dealing with Cuba. The rest of the world goes there all the time. Cuba is a hot destination for Ireland and UK travelers. My in-laws go there often and love it. I have home videos of the place. I have friends here who are from Cuba, and fly back once a year for holiday. It's a resort country, like the Bahamas or Jamaica.

Speaking of 'propoganda' - poeple killed for their views? Long lines of food rationing? Your thinking of the USSR in 1980. Life in Cuba couldn't be any more different. I'd say before you start trying to claim that its 'propaganda', you might want to visit, or meet someone who has, instead of spreading US propaganda.

Better yet, google it mate. These days with YouTube and Flickr and the internet, you can check out other peoples first hand accounts. Don't take my word for it, or the US governments for that matter...

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=cuba&w=all

http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...oliday&search=

[ArtificialOne]

No, I'm taking the word of the still hundreds of boat people that every day, try to escape Havannah. Because as you say, they have it sooo great there. How about this stern, go to Miami and have some conversations with some recent refuges and tell me what you think. Haiti is another one of those "Holiday" places that people like to go to. Same thing, boat people and people flee. Want to mention russia? Sure seems like Putin is doing away with a free economy and killing of journalists. What's it been this year? Nearly 3?

As I said, I wouldn't give up my freedoms to get a free flu shot (which you can get free vacinations in the US if you know where to get them)

[Saddiction]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

As I said, I wouldn't give up my freedoms to get a free flu shot

I get them for free every year

[CptSternn]

Ditto!

Three cheers to government sponsored heath care!

Also A1, which 'freedoms' would you be giving up if you moved to say Canada or Ireland in efforts to get a free flu shot?

Name a 'freedom' listed on the bill of rights or promised in the US Constitution, and I'll show you a new law bush has enacted to strip you of that right.

Looks like you got no freedoms and no health care.

*Cue sad trombone

Waaah, waah, waaaaaah

[ArtificialOne]

I laugh at you stern, you must have failed so miserably here in the states. See it's more difficult to succeed here, than say in massive welfare states such as the UK territories. You want to argue symantics and try to say we have no freedoms and Bush has taken them all. What a load of BS. More laws regulating everything from trade to speech have been written from Liberal and Democratic pollies than any right wing pollie in history.

Maybe you didn't have any freedoms here because you couldn't hold a job and make your way. So go ahead and use the race and inequality thing to try and further your goals. Use your left spin and key words to inflame the people and play to their emotions. You can't name a single, single, solitary law which bush has taken away from use. I can still say whatever I want, I can still have a gun, I can still walk accross the street at any time of day. I can still own property and not pay out the nose for it. I'm not penalized for having my own beliefs (except by people like you). So Sturn? any laws? Or will you try to make an emotional inflamitory arguement over some obsure peace of legistlation that has no bearing on me or my rights at all?

[delicti]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

The thing is, in America, you could wait as long as you want, but if you don't have the money, you never get to see the specialist.

Well, I might as well get my feet wet here as well.

The thing is, for me to see a specialist, it cost me $25. Of course, my health case plan is more expensive than most, and partially subsidized by my employer. For that matter, I had a choice of about 5 health plans I could have my employer subsidize.

I specifically chose the most expensive one because I've chosen to go without health care for about 4 years while I battled dodgey employment thanks to the dot-com economy, and I figured I needed it. Now that I'm caught up, I'm going to change to a less expensive program next quarter (under which specialist visits will go up to $50), because I don't need the extra care.

Problem #1

Now, at the same time, they're mandating that people have health care in the State in which I live. The people who can't afford it get stuck with only one choice of health care, and it's not a particularly good one. In fact, for the people who end up on this health care, expensive surgeries will still be very likely prohibitive in cost. So what we're doing in this scenario essentially is taking away money from higher-wage earners, and instead giving it to rich corporations to provide services which have little to no actual value.

Problem #2

People going though hard economic times (like I did) but still able to pay for health care based on arbitrary government guidelines (under which I would have fallen under) would have simply had to deal with the loss of $5000 of income a year. The major difference is, of course, than now instead of not having health care being a risky choice, it's now going to be a crime. So essentially, we're taking money away from those in high-risk economic situations, and criminalizing failure of these lower-income citizens to pad the pockets of already rich corporations.

Are we starting to see a pattern with the way American government works?

There are also problems about how do we ensure quality of service when governmental care is likely to be less regulated than private care and a myriad of other reasons why this is a very bad idea. It's interesting to put out on the table, but I don't see how we could possibly implement it without minimum ally decreasing quality as well as destroying the competitiveness our healthcare industries. Murphy's law is always in full effect; doubly when dealing with the government.

[Saddiction]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

See it's more difficult to succeed here, than say in massive welfare states such as the UK territories.

So difficult infact, that in 2004, 35.9 million people in the US lived below the poverty line. In 2006, poverty rated for minors in the US was over 21.9% which was noted to be the highest rate of child poverty in the developed world.

The percentage of poverty in the US exceeds the percentage of poverty in both Canada and UK... unless of course I'm being fed misinformation, in which case, I'd like to see more accurate statistics.

With that being said, only those who do succeed are provided with proper healthcare, while the less fortunate get the shitty end of the stick.

Land of the free you say? Only to those who can afford it.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by Saddiction

So difficult infact, that in 2004, 35.9 million people in the US lived below the poverty line. In 2006, poverty rated for minors in the US was over 21.9% which was noted to be the highest rate of child poverty in the developed world.

The percentage of poverty in the US exceeds the percentage of poverty in both Canada and UK... unless of course I'm being fed misinformation, in which case, I'd like to see more accurate statistics.

There's definitely a problem with trying to get reliable information. The CIA fact book, which relies on the US Census Bureau for US statistics, puts the impoverished number at the number you're quoting, but that puts the US poverty rate at 12%. That actually puts the US in better seating than both the UK and Canada for % living in poverty.

To further complicate matters, the US Federal Poverty guidelines put single-person households at the poverty level at income that is below $9,310; for each further member in the household it adds another $3,180 to the household income. I'm not sure of the economic mechanics of this equation, but from what I can remember from my collegiate economics course, this seems to make some sense.

Now, taken into global perspective, it seems very likely that this number could change remarkably from nation to nation, and there's no real documentation that I can find quickly that says what this means in relation to other countries. China is listed at having 10% living in poverty, but I don't think it's going to take any major knowledge of world markets to know that the average income in China is likely to be $9,310 annually or greater. It ultimately becomes a large mess when trying to compare nations to each other.

As far as people being able to afford it are concerned, the average income in the US is $43,500, which is well within the reasonable level of being able to afford health care. Of course averages are poor statistics, but it's likely to be a good guess that the majority of people who aren't living in poverty in the US can afford health care, especially since most full-time employers help pay for health care.

Perhaps it's the US's addiction to shopping and consumer culture that prevents people from budgeting properly to pay for health care; who knows? Ultimately though, it seems like if there is problems with health care in the US, it's with a relatively small percentage of the population, and that percentage may already have some amount of government health care to begin with. Medicare, Medicaid, and SSA are all programs that provide health care to the impoverished and disabled here.

What it really comes down to though, is whether or not health care is always necessary (in most cases of young, healthy adults, it is not), and whether or not having the choice of having health care is worth the risk. Government-mandated health care removes this choice; further more, it deregulates an industry that is making large percentage profits and is already largely unaccountable for its actions.

Taking this system and putting into the government will only exacerbate is problem, and pass the added cost of governmental administration as well the already high costs, and put the burden on everyone, including those who need cheap health care the most.

What the US health care system really needs is good external auditing and reform, not further corruption and unaccountability. We've all heard stories of $500 screw drivers and $5000 toilet seats that US military contracts had before they were privatized; those type of costs within the health care system would make the US tax burden greater to an extent that it would further prevent those who couldn't afford to get ahead now, from getting ahead in the future.

Apparently I can't post links because my account is too new, so here's the data I'm drawing off as text. The Wikipedia chart is based off of CIA factbook data:

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/04poverty.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:P...verty_line.png
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/pover...edpovtabs.html
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ec...w-poverty-line

[Saddiction]

Originally Posted by delicti

There's definitely a problem with trying to get reliable information. The CIA fact book, which relies on the US Census Bureau for US statistics, puts the impoverished number at the number you're quoting, but that puts the US poverty rate at 12%. That actually puts the US in better seating than both the UK and Canada for % living in poverty.

It's also hard to find up-to-date information. Comparing America's 12% in 2006 to Canada's 15.9% in 2003 is inaccurate as well. Over the years our economy has strenghthened and poverty has been on the decline. Thanks for the insight, though. I really appreciate it.

I'm not dismissing US healthcare as being shitty. I think that the US has great doctors and excellent hospitals. It's just unfortunate that not everyone can afford it.

Also, I seem to be getting this vibe that if you live outside of America, you're considered welfare... or was that just a personal insult from AO (the more likely of the two)? If so, that is completely uneccessary. If not, I say think again.

[ArtificialOne]

Great post delicti! I'm all for a better auditing of the healthcare system along with tort reform.

I think you've also proven a point I've been trying to make for ages. Statistical data is almost as hard to decrypt as an alien language and can be twisted <and often is> to further whomever goals or views they wish to espouse.