anyone else seen Michael Moore's movie?

I just saw "Sicko" with my good buddy Arnie yesterday.

I was a big fan of Michael Moore from his Roger and Me days.
(LOVED that movie)

Sicko was SO moving and enlightening , as well.
The first half, my eyes were so watery. Then the last part of the movie , I felt empowered, like I was really part of the movie, sharing in their emotions.

Michael really brings to light just how our current health care system works; how ever since it became "for profit", that's what it's all about !! ($$$).... lots of "denials" for medical treatments, etc..

He visits other countries to look at their universal health coverage. I was surprised to hear that we are the ONLY country without that system.
(however, I am learning that taxes are also sky high in many cases. I need to learn more)

There are also lifetime "caps" on medical coverage. Good thing Superman, Christopher Reeve had $$$$ , or else he'd be bankrupt, like some of the people in this movie.

I don't want to give away too much about this movie. I recommend you definitely see it, if you have'nt done so already.
And please come back to roadfood.com to give your intake...!!

Were you as moved as I was??!?

ellen

Ellen-
Have not seen it yet, but we plan to go soon. I especially enjoy the way Moore gets my wife so riled up.
Christopher Reeve lived in my town; the scuttlebutt was that Robin Williams had paid for all the extraordinary medical procedures and personal care that Reeve needed. They were old friends from their days at Juilliard.
I know the film SICKO shows that even with insurance, many people are one catastrophic illness away from bankruptcy and worse. It is a great shame.

quote:

Originally posted by rongmtek

Ellen-
Have not seen it yet, but we plan to go soon. I especially enjoy the way Moore gets my wife so riled up.
Christopher Reeve lived in my town; the scuttlebutt was that Robin Williams had paid for all the extraordinary medical procedures and personal care that Reeve needed. They were old friends from their days at Juilliard.
I know the film SICKO shows that even with insurance, many people are one catastrophic illness away from bankruptcy and worse. It is a great shame.

nice "meeting" you on here, Rongmetek...
that Robin Williams tidbit was interesting... did'nt realize he helped out in that way....wow...

I know Chris Reeve was at the Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation in West Orange, NJ for awhile. (near where I grew up). They are known to be about the best there is.

It's like during a few months here and there when I was without insurance. I was busy moving across the country, and in-between poker dealing jobs. I used to tell people I was on the "cross your fingers" plan!

I read in the paper today that there is a new law in Massachusetts that just took effect. Everyone MUST have insurance there now.
Should be interesting to see how that goes.

I lived in Germany for 10 years, seven as a "citzen." Universal health care is not what is is all cracked up to be. Long waits just to get an annual physical, doctors running all sorts of unnecassary tests to bilk the government (see taxpayer) for huge fees. People going to the doctore for every little ailment, the doctor only too willing to give a "sick slip" so that the patient can get full use of thier six weeks paid sick leave each year. Oh yeah, don't forget the 2 weeks at the "Kurbad" (spa) for rejuvination, all paid for by the health care system. (see taxpayer)

It creates an environment that makes you look like a fool if you don't take advantage of the system. My wife had her own business and worked sixty hours a week, while the average employee worked 38 hours a week. She had no time to be sick, and paid more taxes as a small business owner than an hourly wage earner.

She worked up until the day of the birth of our first child, and was back at work 3 days later. An average worker can take off work 3 months before the term date and 2 YEARS after the birth of the child, receiving compensation from the business and government (see taxpayer) the entire time. To boot, the business must hold her position for her until she is ready to come back to work.

In a country of nearly 300 million people, it is easy to find "victims of the system" in this country. These situations are certainly unfortunate and disturbing, and I agree that a "for profit" system is open to decisions being made based on the bottom line...but I would prefer a system such as that (with proper checks and balances) rather than having to trust my government to decide how I should best be taken care of.

The more systems the government gets control of, the more control they have over you. I fear the absolute power of a government way more than having a rare catastrophic accident (like Reeves) or horrible sickness. Don't forget, Reeves pursued radical experimental treatments that did cost a heck of a lot of money. His choice, which ultimately did nothing for him. Do you think the government would have picked up the tab under a universal health care system? Hardly.

Oh yeah, my wife did pay extra for health insurance every month so that if she went to the hospital, she could have a private room and have the top doctors/surgeons caring for her, not interns and those needing time on the knife, which is who you get as an average citizen under universal health care. (I know from personal experience) You want better care than what they offer, you are going to pay for it.

Our current system is not perfect by a long shot. But universal health care will do nothing but raise our taxes and reduce the quality of the health care system.

DD

I strongly recommend reading the current issue of Business Week, a double issue dated July 9 & 16, 2007. It is the annual Retirement Guide issue of BW.

In this issue, there is an excellent article titled The French Lesson in Health Care, subtitled, "The nation's system isn't quite as good as Sicko maintains, but it's pretty good." In the article, one can read some interesting facts, including that while health costs in the US amount to 16.5% of the GDP, in France those costs only total 10.7% of the GDP. Also, French citizens spend far less in out-of-pocket expenses, their life expectancy is longer, and infant mortality is lower in France.

The French system is not perfect, but as the article details, it is a very good system, particularly for people with chronic diseases. I know that the current administration in Washington has made it fashionable to immediately discount any ideas that originate in France, but as the lies and the follies of our current administration are further exposed daily, perhaps Americans can begin to examine foreign ideas with a more open mind.

The French approach to health care would apparently be a better model for us to follow than the systems in other countries that have universal health care and it is obvious that change is needed in the US approach to health care. Do yourself a favor and read the article in Business Week!

DesertDog--i'd rather have "Long waits" then NO HEALTH CARE any day. Its assinine what we let insurance companies get away with!

I haven't seen the movie yet but keep in mind Michael Moore does not make true documentaries. He makes one sided political agenda statements so you don't get both sides of an issue.

quote:

Originally posted by Davydd

I haven't seen the movie yet but keep in mind Michael Moore does not make true documentaries. He makes one sided political agenda statements so you don't get both sides of an issue.

I double agree.

The company I retired from is truly international and I had opportunities to visit most all of Europe. If you do not like our health care system, I think you would believe that theirs stink. There is no urgency and they still have to buy insurance to keep from waiting eons for service. They still pay for health service through taxes and they have to buy additional insurance.

You need to investigate before you criticize and then form your own opinion.

I have a pretty conservative health insurance that my deceased wife had when she was with the federal government. Her cancer treatment ran close to a million at M D Anderson and I think I paid about $5K. I now pay about $200 monthly since she has passed.

Paul E. Smith
Knoxville, TN

Hello All,
I'll wait to see "Sicko," on a paying dish channel. I like Michael Moore because he's willing
to make one-sided agenda statements. Sometimes he's on target, and other times a self-righteous fool.
That's what we all are at times.
Our health care system is out of wack. But it is no wonder.
Look at the revolutionary growth of scientific knowledge, improvement of treatments, the explosion of
technology that has happened in the last 50 to 70 years, and most of it in the last 30. And the dreams
and demand for more miracle cures stares us in the face.
We are fortunate to be living when science and medicine is in the beginning or near middle of a renaissance.
We are unfortunate to be living when science, medicine, and society are in our childhood when it comes to
the business end of the health care system. I am not condemning the whole health care system by making
that comment, nor condoning it.
I just see that in 50 or more years, maturity will set in and cure many of our current problems.
It hurts now. Believe me, I know it. Try raise an autistic son with no insurance, and then when you
get insurance, discover that many things aren't covered for him because it is a pre-existing condition.
You fight and fight, and win some and lose others.
But, our health care system will change, evolve, and hopefully get better.
For some sad reason, it takes good change longer to happen than bad change.
So if you can, help the good change quicken. And be not tempted to aid the bad change.
Take Care,
Fieldthistle

quote:

Originally posted by Tedbear


I strongly recommend reading the current issue of Business Week, a double issue dated July 9 & 16, 2007. It is the annual Retirement Guide issue of BW.

In this issue, there is an excellent article titled The French Lesson in Health Care, subtitled, "The nation's system isn't quite as good as Sicko maintains, but it's pretty good." In the article, one can read some interesting facts, including that while health costs in the US amount to 16.5% of the GDP, in France those costs only total 10.7% of the GDP. Also, French citizens spend far less in out-of-pocket expenses, their life expectancy is longer, and infant mortality is lower in France.

The French system is not perfect, but as the article details, it is a very good system, particularly for people with chronic diseases. I know that the current administration in Washington has made it fashionable to immediately discount any ideas that originate in France, but as the lies and the follies of our current administration are further exposed daily, perhaps Americans can begin to examine foreign ideas with a more open mind.

The French approach to health care would apparently be a better model for us to follow than the systems in other countries that have universal health care and it is obvious that change is needed in the US approach to health care. Do yourself a favor and read the article in Business Week!

How many people died in a heat wave a few years back in French hospitals because there wasn't any Air Conditioning?

"French Parliament released a harshly worded report blaming the deaths on a complex health system, widespread failure among agencies and health services to coordinate efforts, and chronically insufficient care for the elderly...... The heat wave swept across much of Europe, but the death toll was far higher in France than in any other country. " (USA Today)

Nearly 15 THOUSAND people died in France that month due to the heat wave. 15 Thousand! Could you imagine if that happened in this country?

Go there and live, use the system, then come back and tell me it was better there than here. I have, and I know.

DD

such informative info, guys....

Appreciate your first hand account in Germany, Desert Dog, and Ted Bear and Fieldthistle's ,etc...

and good point, Tiki, "a long wait is better than NO health care"


I'm definitely printing out this page, for educational purposes. (I learn something new every day!)

quote:

Originally posted by Tedbear


I strongly recommend reading the current issue of Business Week, a double issue dated July 9 & 16, 2007. It is the annual Retirement Guide issue of BW.

In the article, one can read some interesting facts, including that while health costs in the US amount to 16.5% of the GDP, in France those costs only total 10.7% of the GDP.

To wit:

"The French health service does not lack resources—or should not. It is a gold-plated system, but the gold plate is often applied in the wrong places. France spends 9.9 percent of its GDP on health care—in other words, one in every 10 euros that it earns—compared with 7 percent in Britain and the 8.6 percent E.U. average.

The problem is that the system is overgenerous in paying for unnecessarily specialized health care and drugs for a notoriously hypochondriac nation (especially the middle classes)." -Worldpress.org

(BTW, I wonder who pays to have all those burned cars taken off the streets of Paris every night?)

The problem with the "eveything is free" system is that it is in people's nature to take more than what they need, or for those in charge of handing out the freebees, to be corrupt and abuse the very system they are in control of.

This is why communism and socialism will not work. Hey, neat ideas, but it is in our nature to want something more. I have worked hard to give my family a nice life, is it now my responsibility to make sure everyone else on the planet has a nice life,(needy or not) at the expense of my own family?

I agree our current system should be modified. Should there be base health care for children and the elderly? Absolutely. Should those who have life threatening illnesses or injuries be turned away? Absolutely not.

But universal health care, for the vast majority of people in this country would be an unnecessary, bloated government boondoggle. All it will produce is higher taxes and abuse of power. Most of us will still have to pay for enhanced insurance coverage because we would want to maintain the same level of service we recive today, not something less.

One of the greatest men that ever lived once said:

"The government is not a solution to the problem, government IS the problem."

DD

[url='http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1563758/story.jhtml']HERE[/url] is a good review of this movie. Yes I know it is from someone on MTV, but it is quite well done.

Moore is good at informing people who don't know much about a topic. Once you learn more about the subject at hand you'll find his work incredibly slanted and dishonest. If one desired they could make a movie that tells the total opposite of the story Moore relates.

I am also bothered how so much of what Moore says is accepted as fact and spit out again by the press and others. He talks about 18,000 dying because of no health coverage. Where is this from? He talks about "free" care in other countries. Is it really free? He also fails to present any of the negatives of other systems that have attempted to address this problem...and it IS a problem.

[url='http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1563758/story.jhtml']HERE[/url] is another interesting article should you want to read further. David Gratzner, the author of this article, gets my vote as someone who mot only understands the problems, but offers plausible solutions...something Moore doesn't do.

I am fearful this movie will spur people to call for something they THINK they want when they really don't know what they are asking for!

quote:

Originally posted by desertdog

quote:

Originally posted by Tedbear


I strongly recommend reading the current issue of Business Week, a double issue dated July 9 & 16, 2007. It is the annual Retirement Guide issue of BW.

In the article, one can read some interesting facts, including that while health costs in the US amount to 16.5% of the GDP, in France those costs only total 10.7% of the GDP.

To wit:

"The French health service does not lack resources—or should not. It is a gold-plated system, but the gold plate is often applied in the wrong places. France spends 9.9 percent of its GDP on health care—in other words, one in every 10 euros that it earns—compared with 7 percent in Britain and the 8.6 percent E.U. average.

The problem is that the system is overgenerous in paying for unnecessarily specialized health care and drugs for a notoriously hypochondriac nation (especially the middle classes)." -Worldpress.org

(BTW, I wonder who pays to have all those burned cars taken off the streets of Paris every night?)

The problem with the "eveything is free" system is that it is in people's nature to take more than what they need, or for those in charge of handing out the freebees, to be corrupt and abuse the very system they are in control of.

This is why communism and socialism will not work. Hey, neat ideas, but it is in our nature to want something more. I have worked hard to give my family a nice life, is it now my responsibility to make sure everyone else on the planet has a nice life,(needy or not) at the expense of my own family?

I agree our current system should be modified. Should there be base health care for children and the elderly? Absolutely. Should those who have life threatening illnesses or injuries be turned away? Absolutely not.

But universal health care, for the vast majority of people in this country would be an unnecessary, bloated government boondoggle. All it will produce is higher taxes and abuse of power. Most of us will still have to pay for enhanced insurance coverage because we would want to maintain the same level of service we recive today, not something less.

One of the greatest men that ever lived once said:

"The government is not a solution to the problem, government IS the problem."

DD

I really think that you need to read the article in Business Week, as it is hardly a publication that endorses communism, socialism, or "giving away everything for free". By its very nature, Business Week is a somewhat conservative publication, and it tends toward pragmatism. You really owe it to yourself to read that article with an open mind.

Your response would appear to indicate that you are somewhat of a Francophobe. That is certainly your right, but even nations that you do not admire can occasionally come up with practical ideas. Read the article!

Hello All,
Ellen, thanks you for this thread. Blessing to you.
Tony Bad, thanks for those links and I enjoy reading all others comments.
Again, I repeat, the health care system is evolving...perhaps I should say at
war, and we will be paying for that war until a peace of some kind results.
And I truly believe it will all work out...unfortunately, our generation and
our children's are the ones that will have to be a part of the creation of
a final, equitable, good system, which means we will have to sacrifice through
the growing and warring pains.
This movie really is a ...passing gas in the wind...because most of us already
have our horror stories, as well as miracles, that involve the current health-care system.
It is a very difficult topic as health is so individual; one size does not fit all and
the outcomes of our medical experiences vary. Even the billing of medical conditions
vary due to the fact that individuals are ill and respond differently to treatments, and
die in our own way and time. And different regions of the country have their economic
components. I am sure the cost of treating a cancer patient in L.A. or New York is more
expensive than in my home area revolving around Harrisonburg, Va..
I think what we are asking for a little logic, reason, sanity, and uniformity and honesty
in the health-care-system. I pay into an insurance company that services many states and
peoples. One state demands that insurance company cover many things that my state lets
it not, like pre-existing conditions. That is not uniform or reasonable.
The movie, bad or good, will create debate, which is good. The future people: children,
adults, and elderly, cry out for us to keep the good we have, but create something better
where the bad exists and is nothing but a putrid, frustrating and slow form of ignorant
societal suicide of our people.
We can try to improve, we can make mistakes, we can learn and we preserve the good we have.
It will be worked out, but let it happen in a wise, swift way. Frankly, I am surprised that
some talented capitalist has not created a new, economic way. But it is a huge problem that
will take wisdom, compassion and time to realize. First, we must quit using fear and anger as
a weapon. That doesn't help thinking and talking, and listening as part of the answers we need.
Take Care,
Fieldthistle

quote:

Originally posted by Tedbear

I really think that you need to read the article in Business Week, as it is hardly a publication that endorses communism, socialism, or "giving away everything for free". By its very nature, Business Week is a somewhat conservative publication, and it tends toward pragmatism. You really owe it to yourself to read that article with an open mind.

Your response would appear to indicate that you are somewhat of a Francophobe. That is certainly your right, but even nations that you do not admire can occasionally come up with practical ideas. Read the article!

The French system has many good qualities, but sustainability does not appear to be one of them. Recent French elections show that people are becoming aware that their system just simply cannot survive as it is.[url='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3423159.stm']THIS ARTICLE[/url] and many others make this point. Even the business week article you reference (although almost as an afterthought) states

"So far France has been able to hold down the burden on patients through a combination of price controls and increased government spending, but the latter effort has led to higher taxes for both employers and workers. In 1990, 7% of health-care expenditures were financed out of general revenue taxes, and the rest came from mandatory payroll taxes. By 2003, the general revenue figure had grown to 40%, and it's still not enough. The French national insurance system has been running constant deficits since 1985 and has ballooned to $13.5 billion."

With the low birthrates in most European countries, this burden will become unbearable as the French population grays.

The present system is great, for now, but selling out the future for the benefit of those in need today isn't as rosy solution as Moore and others would have us believe.

I won’t give MM one slightly sticky penny from the floor of my 96 Honda. I work in the healthcare system, I work for the government, and for every “sicko” story out there, there are millions more that are wondrous, miraculous, and amazing. I pay a pretty penny for my health insurance, BUT I get to choose where I go, make my own referrals to specialists, and that makes me feel like I have power over my own body. Don’t think for a second, that MM cares about America, or our health. He cares about the dolla-bills coming in and where to stuff his face next, he also care about using shock value to sell his merchandise, much like the horror movies of yesterday, MM is this generations Clive Barker.
Just today my work helped get a new mechanized wheelchair for a child with MD, who couldn’t afford it, and who’s Medicaid/HMO wouldn’t pick up.
We Get FREE HEALTHCARE for sick or injured kids at one of the nations top teaching hospitals everyday!
We pay for room and board for the parents while the child is at the hospital.
I see smiling little faces, I hold tiny broken bodies, and I hug thankful parents everyday, and I am a government worker.

MM can choke on it.

Double AMEN Sushi.

Paul E. Smith
Knoxville, TN

quote:

Frankly, I am surprised that some talented capitalist has not created a new, economic way.

I'm not. Because that's not where the money is. If you take all the emotion out of the issue--you notice you never have somebody say 'well I think our current system is great' who doesn't have health insurance, and that's rapidly getting to be about half of us--you have to follow the money. Sushi, it's great that you do what you do, but you essentially use public money to fill in the gaps where the private sector has failed. The private sector has absolutely no incentive to cover everybody or to make it cheap, because they're attached to the public teat, and the public teat pays well (e.g. the 'drug benefit' that Bush pushed through for Medicare with the generous participation of Big Pharma). MM aside, we need to take this issue seriously, because until employers get out from under the burden of having to provide (and not very efficiently) what is essentially a public basic service, we're hampering their ability to compete in the global marketplace. Employers in other countries don't have the same burden.

quote:

Originally posted by Tedbear

I really think that you need to read the article in Business Week, as it is hardly a publication that endorses communism, socialism, or "giving away everything for free". By its very nature, Business Week is a somewhat conservative publication, and it tends toward pragmatism. You really owe it to yourself to read that article with an open mind.

Your response would appear to indicate that you are somewhat of a Francophobe. That is certainly your right, but even nations that you do not admire can occasionally come up with practical ideas. Read the article!

First off, I look at nearly all situations objectively ( or as you put it - with an open mind.) I really do not understand what the source of the article has to do with anything, though.

I guess you are assuming that I am conservative and therefor I should believe what is written in Business Week just because it seems to you to be a pragmatic publication.

I'm also not sure where you get the idea that I am a Francophobe. Simply because I speak from an informed point of view about the Health Care Systems in Europe does not mean that I dispise the countries and people that use that system. There is much I admire about the French, just not their health care system. T'as pas compris ce que je voulais dire ?

You seem to be the one with a phobia or two, along with an obvious agenda. You might want to check yourself.

DD

The truth is the truth, no matter how many sides you want to "spin" on it.

If your lucky enough to be able to afford decent health care coverage, kudo's to you.
I have to pay every thing out of pocket and I know oh so many that have that same privelege.

Have you ever had to pull your own tooth or have a friend stitch up a wound. How about setting a broken finger. There's a bunch of folks out here that have to because to paraphrase a favorite tune of mine..."I don't ask nobody for nothin', if can't pay for it on my own"!

Prescriptions are for the most part out of the question, even if we could get them written for under a C-note or two. Try a get an antibiotic scrip written and filled for under that. Antibiotics are available to those in third world countries for Christ sake! Over the counter as close as south of the border.

As for who and how would we pay for this...I pay every single damn day!
However it would seem a bunch my tax dollars go to pay for the follies of already rich men and corporations and no matter how much I scream, companies like Haliburton, Brown & Root, and General Dynamics get the cream!
I must learn to get my priorities straight.

Insurance companies no longer just lobby for laws they now write the legislation and control the cash flow (or funnel) where they see fit.
We could almost call this country "USA Inc". That sure isn't what I was taught in American Civics. I'm one of the few that payed attention in that class I guess. I seem to remember a phrase "We the People". I pretty sure it wasn't "We the Board of Directors and Shareholders". Maybe I dozed off and missed that.

I've been busting my butt for most of my life. I've worked since the age of twelve selling candy door to door and then up the blue collar ladder to Drive-In's (the Dent and the Ferguson for you Cincy folks).
My life ain't bad at all, in fact it's pretty good (at least by my standards) but it's alway's on a budget.
My budget will never include a major surgery I may need or any long term health crisis.
Oh well, ya gotta die from something and I take it as a certainty that none of us will get out of here alive. Coach or first class dead is dead.

Any illness and all the injuries I've sustained (and as clumsy as I am, yet to be sustained) I've treated myself or payed in cash and will continue to do so. I did have a doc that bartered at one time (man could Doc Barker eat) but he's long gone as are his breed of healer. He had no sense of entitlement just a sense of compassion you can't hardley find anymore. He knew we're all in this together, not just him and his broker.

Now my Mama is another story and you know what, she's worked and payed longer into this country than most people I know. Worked from the time she was fourteen till she was seventy nine. You'd think she'd deserve a little something! I apologise, S.S. is just that...a little! She'll never get what she payed in but does she complain? No, of course not, that's my job on her behalf!

We pay out the nose for her health insurance as well as that program (or convoluted scam, which ever you prefer) for medications that this administration came up with.
Big Pharma and the Insurance Industry came out ahead on that one didn't they? Somebody sure did because we certainly have not!
Go ahead and try and tell me they didn't. I'll call you delusional!

My favorite girl is 85 and in better health now that we took her away from the clutches of those HMO drug pushing bastards (a drug free America...my azzz)!
If there was a new designer drug being pushed in print or television for anything related to her, you can bet she was given a scrip.
"Oh no, so sorry, this isn't available in the generic form as yet. That'll be $179.95 please".
Over three hundred a month and that was after the co-pay.

They could'nt even remember her name from visit to visit much less tell us why something was prescribed over a similiar medication that had a generic equivalent. For that matter why it was prescribed at all.
Why should they if company X gave away a better junket.
They just push this crap regardless of the consequences.
If you don't believe that, I'll use one of their own lines, "ask your pharmacist".
Who by the way will know something about a particular medicine itself unlike most doctors in HMO's who know primarily what the sales rep tells them.

Better yet, pay attention to all the law suits over medications that have occurd since this pharmaceutical gorilla marketing frenzy began a few years back. Cheap to pay out a law suit considering the profits incurred by sales at the hands of the dealers...uh doctors. Smart business is good business aay? Got to love those bean counters working in the legal departments.

Since Mama has quit taking all these highly advertised "magic bullets" she feels better than she has in years. Her general practioner (in private practice) see's no need for the "pharmachopia" of meds the corporate drug pushers shoved down her gullet.
I'm not sure as yet if it's his overall philosophy or if my "talking points" regarding Mama's care, may have helped him take a stronger interest in her care.
Time will tell. He seems to be genuine!

There are comments that socialized medicine doesn't work or at least doesn't work well.
I know of a gal up near Vancouver who's awaiting a double lung transplant. She's got her beeper and is just a matter of time (hopefully) before a suitable donor is available.

Tell Her That!!! Tell her children and husband that socialized medicine is a bad idea, a joke, a boondoggle, whatever negative thought pervades your grey matter!

I'll give you her E-mail if you'd like. She's a pistol so choose your words wisely.
In the states she'd be totally screwed!

They'll still need financial help for her rehap and recovery.
The travel to another city and living expenses they have to come up with on their own. Still, it's way better than our current system!

Socialized medicine a bad idea huh? Yeah, if you think that your most likly right (and insured), 'cause this captialistic medicine thing seems to be working out beautifully!
That is for those that profit from it and or can pay into it...Oh wait a minute, I'm pretty sure I do pay something!

I'm pretty sure at least a little of my tax dollar goes into research funding (oh my, where to begin), the FDA, medical schools, tuitions, various industry tax breaks (bunches of those), building facility's, grants (lots and lots of grants), contracts of all shapes, sizes, and flavors of the month, not to mention the graft, swindles, oversights and just plain good 'ol fashioned stealing. Seem to me the American taxpayer that gets the least out of it helps pay for the very things that puts the profit into it.

It sure isn't going into that pothole in front of my drive way.
Right across the road from my house is a medical professional building and a private country club. They get new blacktop every year (and high speed internet, I don't yet?), it's a county not a private road, hmmmm.
Well as long as my taxes are going to the truly needy, that my friends is the important thing.

How much was that aspirin and band-aid again? I'm certain I've paid for at least that.

Never mind, they can keep it for a crybaby with the little boo-boo who can afford to pay that nut.
I buy and have my own supply plus I have an extra suture kit just in case my big knife slips again (ouch)!
Oh, and if anyone needs a tooth pulled, I'm a whiz!

quote:

Originally posted by desertdog

quote:

Originally posted by Tedbear

I really think that you need to read the article in Business Week, as it is hardly a publication that endorses communism, socialism, or "giving away everything for free". By its very nature, Business Week is a somewhat conservative publication, and it tends toward pragmatism. You really owe it to yourself to read that article with an open mind.

Your response would appear to indicate that you are somewhat of a Francophobe. That is certainly your right, but even nations that you do not admire can occasionally come up with practical ideas. Read the article!

First off, I look at nearly all situations objectively ( or as you put it - with an open mind.) I really do not understand what the source of the article has to do with anything, though.

I guess you are assuming that I am conservative and therefor I should believe what is written in Business Week just because it seems to you to be a pragmatic publication.

I'm also not sure where you get the idea that I am a Francophobe. Simply because I speak from an informed point of view about the Health Care Systems in Europe does not mean that I dispise the countries and people that use that system. There is much I admire about the French, just not their health care system. T'as pas compris ce que je voulais dire ?

You seem to be the one with a phobia or two, along with an obvious agenda. You might want to check yourself.

DD

From your statement about removing burning cars from the streets of Paris, and your comment about a lack of air-conditioning in many French homes, neither of which have anything to do with a system of health insurance, I deduced that you may be a Francophobe. I may have erred, but I fail to see the relevance of those statements to a discussion of health care in France--or in any other country. Many elderly people in Chicago died in the midst of a heat wave a few years ago, and I don't recall anyone relating that event to US health insurance programs. Could you kindly explain what those comments had to do with the issue of health insurance?

quote:

Originally posted by Sushi_Girl

Don’t think for a second, that MM cares about America, or our health.

Not only do I think Michael Moore cares deeply about America, I happen to think he is a Patriot of the highest order, and an American hero.

quote:

Originally posted by Tedbear

quote:

Originally posted by desertdog

quote:

Originally posted by Tedbear

I really think that you need to read the article in Business Week, as it is hardly a publication that endorses communism, socialism, or "giving away everything for free". By its very nature, Business Week is a somewhat conservative publication, and it tends toward pragmatism. You really owe it to yourself to read that article with an open mind.

Your response would appear to indicate that you are somewhat of a Francophobe. That is certainly your right, but even nations that you do not admire can occasionally come up with practical ideas. Read the article!

First off, I look at nearly all situations objectively ( or as you put it - with an open mind.) I really do not understand what the source of the article has to do with anything, though.

I guess you are assuming that I am conservative and therefor I should believe what is written in Business Week just because it seems to you to be a pragmatic publication.

I'm also not sure where you get the idea that I am a Francophobe. Simply because I speak from an informed point of view about the Health Care Systems in Europe does not mean that I dispise the countries and people that use that system. There is much I admire about the French, just not their health care system. T'as pas compris ce que je voulais dire ?

You seem to be the one with a phobia or two, along with an obvious agenda. You might want to check yourself.

DD

From your statement about removing burning cars from the streets of Paris, and your comment about a lack of air-conditioning in many French homes, neither of which have anything to do with a system of health insurance, I deduced that you may be a Francophobe. I may have erred, but I fail to see the relevance of those statements to a discussion of health care in France--or in any other country. Many elderly people in Chicago died in the midst of a heat wave a few years ago, and I don't recall anyone relating that event to US health insurance programs. Could you kindly explain what those comments had to do with the issue of health insurance?

The deaths of thousands of people in France the Summer of 2003 are directly attributed to a health care system that was woefully equipped to handle such a thing. The hospitals were incredibly understaffed, largely due to the social system that was in place at the time (and still is.)

I recommend you do a little homework (as anyone would do if they were objective) on the issue first, instead of pointing out one article and saying, "Look everyone! it says here in a conservative magazine that the French (or German, or Cuban, or or or) system is better than ours! Let's do it that way, come'on!" (Hence the burned car comment; contrary to your tone, all is not rosy in gay Paris')

When I read or see something that could easly have two sides to it, I seek out the other viewpoint from several sources. Someone may come along and change my mind with a good enough argument, but up to now, yours hasn't.

America's Health Care System must be improved, (Pat-t-Hat is an excellent example) but forcing the entire population into Socialized Health Care is not the answer. Anytime your Government wants to take over an entire industry, very undesireable consequences are sure to follow.

It's OK if you want to believe it's a good thing, and I understand it really comes down to compassion for our fellow man, but there has got to be a better way through the system we currently have in place.

Otherwise, all we would be doing is trading one pain for another.

DD

quote:

Originally posted by desertdog

quote:

Originally posted by Tedbear


I strongly recommend reading the current issue of Business Week, a double issue dated July 9 & 16, 2007. It is the annual Retirement Guide issue of BW.

In this issue, there is an excellent article titled The French Lesson in Health Care, subtitled, "The nation's system isn't quite as good as Sicko maintains, but it's pretty good." In the article, one can read some interesting facts, including that while health costs in the US amount to 16.5% of the GDP, in France those costs only total 10.7% of the GDP. Also, French citizens spend far less in out-of-pocket expenses, their life expectancy is longer, and infant mortality is lower in France.

The French system is not perfect, but as the article details, it is a very good system, particularly for people with chronic diseases. I know that the current administration in Washington has made it fashionable to immediately discount any ideas that originate in France, but as the lies and the follies of our current administration are further exposed daily, perhaps Americans can begin to examine foreign ideas with a more open mind.

The French approach to health care would apparently be a better model for us to follow than the systems in other countries that have universal health care and it is obvious that change is needed in the US approach to health care. Do yourself a favor and read the article in Business Week!

How many people died in a heat wave a few years back in French hospitals because there wasn't any Air Conditioning?

"French Parliament released a harshly worded report blaming the deaths on a complex health system, widespread failure among agencies and health services to coordinate efforts, and chronically insufficient care for the elderly...... The heat wave swept across much of Europe, but the death toll was far higher in France than in any other country. " (USA Today)

Nearly 15 THOUSAND people died in France that month due to the heat wave. 15 Thousand! Could you imagine if that happened in this country?

Go there and live, use the system, then come back and tell me it was better there than here. I have, and I know.

DD

I saw that USA Today article as well. Although France's response to this problem was slow and weak (and it didn't help that a lot of doctors were on vacation in August, just like everybody else), it's inaccurate to say that all those people died because the hospitals were not air conditioned.

You have to take into account that a lot of these people were left at home by their vacationing relatives/children (something that happens every year in Paris), and the great majority of them died there, because apartment buildings in Paris are very old and due to obvious climate reasons, were never built to have air conditioning, and their families weren't around to help them French hospitals ARE air conditioned in summer.

Does that excuse the French response to what was happening? Nope.

And yes, I have lived in France. There are plusses and minuses to each system.

But for those who talk about who it's great to be able to choose your own doctor, how do you explain the fact that on Christmas Eve a few years ago, my HMO told me that the only specialist who was covered to put a cast on my broken wrist was 60 miles away since the three who lived in town were all out on vacation. Sound familiar? And they refused to cover treatment by out of network specialists. Not too helpful when I didn't have a car.

But again, I have Canadian friends who are unhappy with their long wait times in ER. Like I said, every system has its ups and downs.

Probably the most controversial part of Sicko will be the Cuban part. I understand Moore thinks their health care is better than ours. If so, why is that island still emptying out with every chance for Florida? Seems a lot of people want to come here but no one seems to want to leave including Alec Baldwin after so many threats to do so.

quote:

Originally posted by Pigiron

Not only do I think Michael Moore cares deeply about America, I happen to think he is a Patriot of the highest order, and an American hero.

I don't count people who distort the truth this way as "heroes". The subject of the movie is an important one, but much of what is presented is a con job used to put people in movie seats, not solve any real problems.

quote:

Originally posted by spicoli

I saw that USA Today article as well. Although France's response to this problem was slow and weak (and it didn't help that a lot of doctors were on vacation in August, just like everybody else), it's inaccurate to say that all those people died because the hospitals were not air conditioned.

You have to take into account that a lot of these people were left at home by their vacationing relatives/children (something that happens every year in Paris), and the great majority of them died there, because apartment buildings in Paris are very old and due to obvious climate reasons, were never built to have air conditioning, and their families weren't around to help them French hospitals ARE air conditioned in summer.

Does that excuse the French response to what was happening? Nope.

And yes, I have lived in France. There are plusses and minuses to each system.

But for those who talk about who it's great to be able to choose your own doctor, how do you explain the fact that on Christmas Eve a few years ago, my HMO told me that the only specialist who was covered to put a cast on my broken wrist was 60 miles away since the three who lived in town were all out on vacation. Sound familiar? And they refused to cover treatment by out of network specialists. Not too helpful when I didn't have a car.

But again, I have Canadian friends who are unhappy with their long wait times in ER. Like I said, every system has its ups and downs.

One example:

"Some patients brought from their homes to casualty units in Paris had a central body heat of over 42 degrees Celsius [107.6 F]. There was nowhere to put them, other than the hospital corridors where the temperatures were also over 40 degrees Celsius. With the ward equipment locked away, there was not enough staff to keep the patients cool with basic methods such as damp sheets and cold drinks." - Worldpress.org


To reiterate...can you imagine such a thing happening here?

Spicoli, You hit the nail on the head. Every system has it's ups and downs. No system is perfect. But the United States has an excellent health care system and it works most of the time. There are thousands of examples of where it didn't work right and that is where the improvements must be made.

I think everyone would agree that quality health care should be available to every American Citizen. If someone can come up with a solution that doesn't raise my taxes or change the way I am treated when I go to the doctor or dentist, and the solution is VOLUNTARY in nature, I am all for it.

BTW, I did not say that 15,000 people died because the hospitals were not air-conditioned. Please read my posts again.

quote:

Originally posted by Pat T Hat

The truth is the truth, no matter how many sides you want to "spin" on it.

Much of your post rails against the inefficiencies and downright dishonesty of the government, yet these are the same people you seem to favor putting in charge of your healthcare. You appear unhappy about your tax burden. Are you ready to pay 15%, 20% or 30% more? I agree there any many issues that need fixing, I just don't think we see eye to eye on the fix.

I am looking forward to seeing MM movie at some point. Look at all the controversy this post is raising here!!!!.

As a health care "provider" myself (how I hate that term, sounds like a drink machine dispenser!) I have had to deal with the current health care system (business) from both sides, and I am angry from both sides.

I distinctly remember a long article in the Sunday New York Times Magagzine in the early 90's. It was on the insurance "crisis" - about how general insurance companies were losing profits because of increased general claims (auto, fire, theft, etc.) and so as a consortium decided to go into the managed health care business. Remember, before the early 90's insurance was basically a claims processing service only. Seeing a financial opportunity, they offered to "manage" health care rather than just process claims. Remember also that this was a business system, not a medical system, run by business people, not medical people. They said: We are not "providing" medical care, you ("physician/provider") are - we are only deciding (in whatever - usually secretive - way) what we will pay for.

At the time I was totally against government run health care, as a "provider". But, now, I am instead in a for-profit (profit of the insurance plan, not my own profit) system which is not at all for the benefit of patients or health care professionals.

First they said "We will negotiate rates with MD's, but "negotiate" meant: "Here is our set fee, take it or leave it." The fees were quite low, have not been raised in 10 years, and 20-30% of the expenditures are for marketing, executive salaries, etc.

I could tell story after story but it would probably bore you. Again, I am not really "in favor" of a gov't plan, but I am definitely not in favor of for-profit plan that exists today.