Michael Moore's SICKO

[Mr_Cheeze]

I am curious if anybody has seen or is planning to see Moore's new documentary. I find it interesting that it seems to be getting positive reviews from even those on the right.

Whether or not you plan on seeing Sicko, how do you feel about the concept or issue of socialized medicine. Personally I am dead set against it. I've seen and heard Moore on several interviews and he is obviously for national healthcare. But like the typical liberal, his stance on the issue takes absolutely no consideration for the "personal responsibility" aspect of this issue. I have a problem when so many people live their lives with little to no regard for their own long term health, resulting in what has become an obesity epidemic in this country. Cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, cholesterolemia, arteriosclerosis... ALL preventable. So yes, I have a huge problem when 265 pound, smoker, Joe Schmoe with no health insurance needs my help to get medical care for his bad choices which resulted in his condition.

Ideally, socialized medicine would only be for those who literally met with bad luck. But how do you judge that? Certainly there are teams of lawyers who would be frothing at the mouth at the prospect of challenging such judgements. This is why it cannot and will not work. Michael Moore misses this point, which is not surprising considering he's just another of the hundreds of millions of obese people who care not about what they eat and how little they exercise. I have no pity.

[xcslowpoke]

I remember first seeing Roger and Me then some of his follow on films. The problem with all of his films are they take a POV and push it to one side. So his films are not for perspective but for pushing his ideals. Interesting sometimes but not true documentaries.

As for socialized medicine, have to agree with you on the self responsibility. Read an interesting article on innovation recently and where Canada fell amongst the top 20 industrialized nations. I believe their rank was 17th or 18th while the US was 4th. One of the biggest knocks, a Canadian article, was their socialized medicine. It did a good job at preventing the cold and treating other short term situations but did a poor job at advancing medicine or treating complicated diseases. The US is always doing longterm research to treat the most complicated diseases but does a poor job of treating issues before they become complicated issues. There has to be some middle ground, not sure socialized medicine is that middle ground.

I road the Harpoon Brewery to Brewery ride this weekend. I was a ride leader and the other ride leader was a Doctor. He specialized in ankle and knee injuries. I asked him if he ever told someone that came in with knee and ankle pain if they took off the 30 pounds the situation would resolve itself. He said if it were their first visit he would recommend physical therapy with an emphasis on cardio. This way the physical therapist would know what kind of routine. He did mention that its tough because someone may be too heavy to excercise and thats what they need most. Lifestyle is a huge thing which can prevent a number of our medical issues. Although we have to stop worrying if someone is going to be offended. I'd rather be offened than dead! Problem is that it typically takes a long time for lifestyle or any choice to catch up with us.

Oh one last thing. Recently one of the women at work said she started doing the excercises from HS Gym Class and she has noticed a difference. Hello it was called Physical Education (PE) not recess. Wow pushups, situps, and jumping jacks actually do something.

Society wants a quick fix and socialized medicine is a bandaid not a solution.

[Mr_Cheeze]

In 1977, Dr. John Knowles, an influential doctor and then president of the Rockefeller Foundation, wrote an essay titled "The Responsibility of the Individual" in a book he also edited (Doing Better And Feeling Worse). Ok, so this is 30 years ago, now. In it he argued that individuals need to take more responsibility for their health: "the idea of a 'right' to health should be replaced by the idea of an individual moral obligation to preserve one's health--a public duty." I challenge anyone to disagree.

Ironically, the libertarian minded Dr. Knowles was at that time considered a liberal Democrat. I wonder how fatso Moore would counter Dr. Knowles contentions.

And lest anyone think Dr. Knowles was a hypocrite like Dr. Robert Atkins, who died from complications resulting from his obesity, Dr. Knowles died from pancreatic cancer, an unpreventable and uncurable disease.

[noreaster]

A lot of people seem to equate health care for all with "big gov't" or "big brother taking care of you" or "poor people sucking from the teet of society" or "the lazy get lazier."

I contend that national health care would be a major boost to business.

First, it encourages entrepreneurship. I'm much more likely to start my own business if I know it doesn't risk the health of me and my family. Also, it's just plain wrong that if I get laid off at work (for no fault of my own - let's say the company sends my job to India) that suddenly my sick child can't keep seeing his doctor. How cruel is that in the richest nation in the world? I'm much more likely to start my own business and hire others, if I don't have to worry about health care. I've had two personal experiences with this.

First, last October I took a new job. The first week of the job I had a reoccurrence of a medical condition I had had an operation for about 2 years prior. It required visiting my specialist, who isn't cheap. Had my new employer had the practice I've seen elsewhere that benefits don't start for 90 days, I would have been out a lot of money. Possibly a lot more had this reoccurrence been as bad as the last. The medicine I take right now is insanely expensive. I would have been punished to accept a new and better job. I was lucky I have a very progressive employer (with 100% coverage).

Everyone who opposes nationalized health care likes to claim that its a bad idea because "if gov't worked like a business everything would be better" Two tenets of business are 1) buy in bulk. 2) cut out the middle man.

The rest of the industrialized world pays significantly less for medicine because their gov'ts negotiate purchases much larger than any health care company could. Big companies like GM and Ford are drowning under the weight of health care - that their Japanese counterparts don't have to pay. The pharma industry states that meds are so expensive because you have to pay for the R&D for all the failed meds that lead to the ones that work. So what benefit are we in the U.S. getting for paying so much more? Nothing. We're picking up the tab for everyone else who was smart enough to negotiate nationally. Pharma's sticking it to us because they can.

Look at the profits of the health care companies. In the last 20 years they've gone up nearly as much as the profits in the oil industry. And how about about your insurance costs? They've skyrocketed too. Coincidence? NO. It's time to cut out the minute man when he starts gauging you. The health insurance industry is a lumbering dinosaur designed to suck the maximum buck out of people while surrendering the minimum benefit. That's business. But should they give you lesser treatments just so they can line their pockets? Should people profit for illness and disease? I think that's exploitive. Pooling all the nation's health care dollars can make purchasing more efficient.

Lastly, people say we shouldn't nationalize medicine because it will lower the quality. Well, medicine advances are occurring in Europe and Asia now that used to happen in the US. Leadership is starting to slip, and privatization is not helping the matter. I've yet to meet anyone from Europe or Canada who would give up their national healthcare. And believe it or not Cuba has some fantastic doctors, so much so that the US has actually discusses AIDS research with them. We barely want to play baseball with them, so that has to say something. Money isn't everything.

And people won't be any more or less self-responsible for their health if it goes through a company or a gov't. The only thing that will help us reduce what we pay for the people who don't take care of themselves, is to start providing services that encourage them to take care of themselves. Most health insurance providers only give preventative care coverage to the ritziest plans. If we could get everyone on preventative care, it would reduce costs, and reduce the crisis-level crowding in ERs. The private industry is failing miserably at this now.

I continue to contend that not nationalizing health care is punishing the rest of the US economy for the benefit of just a few in the medical business. It's time to change that.

I contend there's nothing political or partisan about a human right to health care. That's why MM's movie is getting such acclaim from both sides. Everyone's starting to see: it's just not worth it.

[kernel crash]

Yes you paint an optimistic picture but lets face it, when the government gets their hands on something like this... well let's just say if there's a way to screw it up, that's probably just what will happen.

[noreaster]

When's enough? Can it get any worse? Why don't any of the world's other industrialized democratic nations go in the private direction? You'd think that if our option was so much better, they'd flock to it, right? That's what market economics say: "if you build the better mouse trap, the world will beat a path to your door." There's no path outside our door… because our system is beyond repair.

[Mr_Cheeze]

You have to ask yourself if government programs designed to help drug addicts is successful. Based on what seems to be an ever growing epidemic, I think it's fair to say that the "war on drugs" is almost a complete failure.

What makes you think government created incentives for responsibility and health would be any more successful? First off, not only are you asking for an increase in tax revenue just to cover such a program - and don't go fooling yourself by believing that it can be done without new taxes - now you're asking for even more revenue to cover your "preventative care for everyone" program. This is the same government, by the way, that cannot come to agreement on what constitutes a healthy diet with lobbyists for beef, sugar, corn, et. al. all using their political powers to "convince" the USDA that their products aren't really all that bad.

Sorry, but we're nowhere close to this utopian idea ever coming to fruition. Politics will not change, and neither will the poor American diets until laws are forged which do the following: deny coverage or charge penalties to those ignorant of prevention principals; and heavily tax unhealthy foods, as is done with tobacco products. What do you think is the main reason behind the reduction in smoking nationally? Successful public service ad campaigns or the fact that a smoking habit is budget busting. I choose the latter.

The cost of healthcare is directly proportional to the public's state of health, and I'm not interested in financing a boondoggle.

[noreaster]

Hey, I agree with you wholeheartedly on the "war" on drugs. That was my favorite "small government Republican" initiative.

I don't think the government can force lazy people to not be lazy. I said that in my last post, but they can increase funding for things like cycling. Your insurance company can't do that.

Second, don't throw that stupid "can't be done without new taxes" out. You don't pay for health insurance, you pay that money to the gov't instead. The idea is that you're directing that money to an organization that doesn't have shareholders expecting profits, and CEOs expecting yachts. An organization where you elect the governance. Thus, that money, plus the savings from better efficiency pay for better coverage that saves money in the long run (a theory unfamiliar to Wall Street). You are currently paying HUGE here for every uninsured person because they get charged enormous amounts when they go to outrageously expensive ERs. This gets paid by you today, indirectly, through inflated prices. If everyone has coverage and preventative care, there is huge potential for savings. Penny of prevention vs. Pound of cure.

You also ignore a couple of other things. It's so simple to just say "gov't sucks." But, there are things the gov't does well. For example, NOAA is the best organization of its kind. CDC is well respected. NPS does a good job, despite being terribly underfunded. NASA put a man on the moon with computers that had less power that your standard pocket calculator. Your Congress critters enjoy a very comprehensive health care plan and a much better version of social security! The rest of us should get in on that!

No one thinks universal coverage is a utopian thing. It's just a step better than what we have now. All progress proceeds slowly. One small improvement at a time.

It's not a fantasy, it's something that's happening in every industrialized nation except for ours. It's time to catch up.

It's also a chance, a chance to put a whole lot of health care industry lobbyists out of business.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Typical liberal socialist blather. The United States needs to catch up with the rest of the civilized world. I don't think so. Socialized medicine is a mess just about everywhere that it is practiced. Even France's healthcare system, which is usually regarded as the prototype, has it's issues due to its overly complicated nature. One of its biggest downfalls is the fact that it somehow still doesn't cover the most poor. Kind of ironic, don't you think?

There's no perfect system, and yes, ours is out of whack. But socialism is not the answer. Electing real libertarian politicians who shun lobbyists is. Unfortunately - and I realize this all too well - that's as much a pipe dream as your utopian healthcare model. Still, I prefer to start there as opposed to expanding goverment. It's already way too big.

[noreaster]

Typical? LOL. This is typical. Run out of defense for your position, so you start slinging political FUD. God forbid we have a civilized discussion with actual ideas.

This is a fine example of what's broken about the political system and why there's no progress to solve the real problems we all have to deal with together.

[xcslowpoke]

My wife is from Europe and there are pro's and con's to every system. Obviously the pictures that are being painted here are complete utopia from personal responsibility to if the system were like this it would solve all our ills. As a person who has family in Europe, I am not sure I would want socialized medicine. Sure it sounds good but when someone has to wait months to see a Doctor when someone here almost can instantly see the specialist for the same thing, one starts to wonder if one size fits all would really work.

My mother in law waited months to be seen as the backlogged cleared. Meanwhile she was very dizzy, lost a bunch of weight, and was tired all the time. The only reason she was seen within a few months is because my sister in law works in a hospital and called various people to get her bumped up. So I am not buying it as better? Nope, but yes she was covered.

Yes we pay alot and the system needs to be changed. I would like to see national coverage. I've never been without health coverage so I do not know what its like for someone without. I do know that a significant amount of my retirement fund could go towards future health care needs. I do know that I could retire earlier if I didn't have to worry about health care.

Although I'd have to side with Governments inefficeincies as my biggest concern. Government hasn't shown me that they manage anything well or is it that everyone that gets a government contract figures out how to milk the system. I sat next to two guys who were working on a city capital building (San Jose, Ca) at a SJ Sharks game a few years ago. They were literally bragging about how they were on budget, their budget not the one that they originally submitted to the city. Problem was the city was going to have to pay either way. So everyone who paid taxes to SJ ended up paying for someone lying and knowing lying. I don't trust anyone who is managing money without the consequences of that responsiblity. Government has what kind of debt already?

With this debate I am interested in seeing Micheal Moore's Sicko.

[Slappy]

But without the obsence profits, how would you get people to take on the obscene educational, personal, and insurance costs that go along with becoming a doctor?
:confused:

I figure you get what you pay for. You don't see people in the US flocking to other countries to get complicated procedures done.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Typical? LOL. This is typical. Run out of defense for your position, so you start slinging political FUD. God forbid we have a civilized discussion with actual ideas.

This is a fine example of what's broken about the political system and why there's no progress to solve the real problems we all have to deal with together.

I'm not "slinging" anything. Calling it like it is. That doesn't make this in any fashion "uncivilized". It is just rather easy to poke holes in such liberal-playbook arguments because they all carry the same fundamental flaw: government will cure all.

What is truly broken about our system is not the mudslinging. It's the size of it and the way it is set up to allow for special interests to manipulate outcomes of both electons and law making. I hate to tell you, but even the most liberal Democrats in Congress are every bit as guilty of allowing our "leaders" to move our government away from the people they represent. What just happened in Massachusetts is a prefect example as the lawmakers completely disregarded the will of the people in thwarting a ballot initiative on gay marriage. It doesn't matter how you feel about the issue, and I certainly don't want to get into that here, but the point is appropo. Special interests got their way.

You think that once government gets it's hands on healthcare that everything will eventually get straightened out. That's totally laughable. Not only will the lobbyists not go away, there will be more of them! And how simplistic is it to say that instead of paying directly (or indirectly through employers) for the healthcare plans of our choosing that we'll just shift that money over to the wonderfully efficient machine we know as our government to get a single product that will somehow be equal in quality to what we now have come to expect.
Riiiiight.

I do regretfully think that it's only a matter of time before this national healthcare comes to fruition. It's become too big an issue on which both parties are spending political energy; but it will not be anything close to this idealistic model that you expect. You may think I'm being cynical. I know I'm being realistic.

Better that we focus our attention on the root causes of the problems, one of which is personal responsibility. Another is pharmaceutical companies. And a third is the cozy relationships between healthcare providers (doctors) and the insurance companies that allow them to charge $65 for a band-aid. Yes, I know that you think this will all change once big money government gets involved, and maybe it will. Hell, just take more money from the rich, right? Isn't that the ticket? The rich will be forced to pay for all of the poor and indigents who need medical care they currently cannot afford. It's always the rich. Liberals love to spend the money of the wealthy for them. Too bad that's not the America that I know.

[Mr_Cheeze]

If they were backlogged that badly it sounds like they need more doctors, not a new system.

And who pays for those doctors? How well do you think government employed doctors will get payed? And do you think that enrollment in medical schools will precipitously drop once it is known that their bosses will eventually be the government? I do.

[xcslowpoke]

If they were backlogged that badly it sounds like they need more doctors, not a new system.

Have you ever been to the DMV? What the heck is it called here, I think the Registry of Motor Vehicles? Or any other Government run agency that has direct people contact. Post Office?

Would you rank any of these places as "Best Service you've ever had"?

Not even close.

The reason for the backlog was not lack of Doctors. Doctors in the US get paid by the patient. You may or may not like that but since the HCP pay them its all about thru-put. Give someone a set salary and the thru-put goes down. Why do you think some workers are paid by the piece and not by the hour?

[noreaster]

XCslowpoke - thanks for the thoughtful points. It's nice to have a discussion where some points are raised, and not just a bunch of strawmen show up ("Liberals love to spend the money of the wealthy for them").

I've seen the charge that if medicine is nationalized, that no one will want to be a doctor. I just don't get it. I'm sure some doctors are in it for the money, but sh!t there are a lot easier ways to make a lot more money than doctors make. (Hello, MBA! CEOs of failing companies make millions, trash the company, get a golden parachute when they're fired, then do it again! Brilliant!)

Every doctor I ever met was in it to help people. If Dr.s were in it just to make money, then why would anyone want to work in podiatry, or the ER or urology? Wouldn't everyone want to be a dermatologist, treat acne, get paid well and not have to be on call, or rarely risk someone in your care dying? (no offense to dermatologists)

That excuse doesn't make any sense to me. Are Europeans not willing to become doctors? There are people going to from the US to France and Switzerland for medical procedures, and more than ever before, so the level of care clearly hasn't dropped.

And with DMV or Post Office service… that isn't because it's the government, it's because you're dealing with poorly compensated and poorly educated employees. The guys who track hurricanes seem to be a better group of people to compare to. Or how about Army doctors? They get paid by the government. Are they incompetent? Must be! You're comparing Apples and oranges. The guy who works at the mini-mart isn't great at customer service, either. He doesn't work for the gov't, what gives?

[Mr_Cheeze]

Obviously there are going to be exceptions when you consider those who simply want to practice medicine regardless of the paycheck. But you would have to be extremely naive to believe that there won't be some negative effect of socialized medicine on the number of new doctors. There's a reason why government employees are, as you say, underpaid and undereducated. Because there's a finite amount of money the government is ever willing to spend on employment. Over time this effect will carry over even into the field of medicine unless the industry remains private. I know we all would like to believe in the best and most noble intentions of people, but in reality there will be considerations made to whether or not a prospective medical student will want to work for the private or public sector. An Army doctor is most certainly one of those exceptions. They joined the Army first and became doctors second.

As for these "more and more" people going to doctors overseas, you make as though this is some significant number without providing any background to the data. Give me concrete numbers and reasons and then we can discuss whether or not this supports your argument.

Finally, let's just hit on this "strawman" argument for a second. I notice that you didn't deny it's veracity. Do you deny that you consider the wealthy an insurance policy for any potential cost overruns for your socialized medicine model? You don't honestly believe that it will be as simple as shifting what we now pay privately to the government. I refuse to believe that you are that naive.

[xcslowpoke]

Somehow my reply wouldn't go through last night probably for the better. I was having a beer and listening to some old Rolling Stones, Paint it Black I think.

First on people who go to other countries for medical procedures. The most common reason is that our Government hasn't approved a procedure or drug. So most people go when they are in dire straights (end of the line). Some people go because cosmetic surgeries are cheeper in other places.

I don't believe we would lose that many Doctors if it were Socialized. I have a friend that was an engineer, she hated it. Always wanted to be a Doctor but her Leave Certificate scores (Irish Socialized School System similar to our SAT/ACT but one must score X to get accepted into a program (medical, engineering, vet,....). If the program doesn't fill up because not enough people scored X then they recruit from outside the country) weren't high enough. She went to college and became an engineer. Then worked for about 5 years at Motorola & HP in the US. Hated it and wanted to go back to Ireland. She started taking Pre-Med classes at SJSU, got accepted into the College of Surgeons in Dublin. Has since graduated and is finishing up her internship. She debated about taking her US boards but decided she wanted to stay in Ireland. She could have made more money but would have been worked like a dog. All of her classmates that were American are now working twice as hard as her. So people do choose to do things not purely based on money. My friend would make as much money as an Engineer if not more than as a Doctor.

As for the US Government running it, hmmm. Don't we already have a debate going about Stem Cell research? Think what items will be even more debated about what should or shouldn't be covered. How close will Church and State get then?

[Mr_Cheeze]

Cheese, I see what you are saying but I think it is sad that you automatically think that everything government run is bad. The private sector is far from perfect. Should something like the your health be left up to a company that is most interested in profits? If the government plan loses money then they find other ways to fund it. I would rather go in debt for healthcare than for this pointless war.

I don't think that everything government does is bad. I just think they are too big and do too much and that, in principle, socialist programs are anti-constitutional. That's not so much being cynical as simply thinking with a libertarian mindset. I understand the negative aspects that many people, especially left-leaning and/or anti-rich people attribute to capitalism, but the fcat remains that neither you nor I would be where we are today were it not for the system under which this country grew. And I'm sorry to tell you, it certainly didn't grow with the help of social programs.

[noreaster]

Here's an interesting take from a business owner…

I have intentionally used the word “taxes” because in the health care debate it really all comes down to money. Businesses that do the right thing are paying a health care tax to insurance companies. […] But the “health care insurance tax” that I pay is very different from the other taxes I pay. Unlike other taxes, a) not everyone pays this tax, although everyone benefits from it; b) there is no rational allocation of the tax burden; c) the burden is not distributed through a transparent democratic public debate process; and d) as a “health insurance taxpayer” I have no influence on the administration or governance of the public good that is funded by the tax. I would much rather pay taxes that are determined through a democratic process, with democratic oversight of the disbursement and delivery system, to fund health care, than continue to be subject to unpredictable, opaque and rapidly escalating health insurance “taxes”.

Lot's more at the link below…

<http://blog.smalldog.com/article/769/time-to-end-employer-based-health-insurance>