Controversial Michael Moore Flick 'Sicko' Will Compare U.S. Health Care with Cuba's

mvanz9999, RN · Jun 26, 2007

Well, this isn't exactly an argument based on legality. There isn't a law against having an opinion.

What we have here is "he said", "he said". I'm am simply expressing my opinion of Michael Moore's opinion.

cardiacRN2006, ADN, RN · Jun 26, 2007

But, I suppose that one of the main gov't restricted healthcare advocate posters, who continually posts links for progessive websites, to include the cheapshot graphic, -- I suppose HIS quoting venomous, vitriolic websites can be dismissed as impassioned debate, because you agree with it.

Lol, Timothy. Well put!

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Jun 26, 2007

Look at the strain of EMTALA on our emergency depts. That's what you get with lifting the consequences of demand; by creating unlimited demand. Only, even THAT isn't unlimited demand because people like me, with real insurance, must pay a high enough co-pay for ED services to provide a check on demand.

Even so, our EDs are overwhelmed. Add to that real unlimited demand, and our EDs would sink.

Now, add that concept of unlimited demand across the entire healthcare system, and you have the vaunted 'Universal Healthcare' model. Only. Our gov't couldn't create unlimited supply, even if it wanted to.

So, the result will be rationed care.

Care MUST be rationed in some way, to keep demand balanced with supply. It's an immutable economic law. It can't be changed because we want our cake and eat it, too. EVERYTHING is rationed. Whether that rationing comes in the ability to pay, or waitlisting for care, nothing is free.

Imagine our current distress with our ED services. Imagine that EVERYBODY could access it without a co-pay, not just those that don't care about paying. Now, imagine that across the spectrum of healthcare. THAT is the gov't restricted care being advocated by MM.

Gov't restricted because nothing is free and the gov't must keep demand in check with supply. It's a law, and not one designed by legislators.

Gov't restricted healthcare is not compassionate. It's gov't care. And. It's restricted access to care.

~faith,

Timothy.

headsup · Jun 26, 2007

But, I suppose that gov't restricted healthcare advocate posters, who continually posts links for progessive websites, to include the cheapshot graphic, -- I suppose THOSE quotings of venomous, vitriolic websites can be dismissed as impassioned debate, because you don't disagree with it.
It goes both ways.
There can be debate without insult. But, when you start the debate with the observation that everybody that disagrees with you is vitrolic and venomous, can you really expect the conversation to go anywhere but downhill?
Gov't restricted healthcare won't work. It can't work, because it ignores basic economic laws. Creating unlimited demand for a resource means creating unlimited supply, or rationing of supply. It's that simple. Plus, the gov't is not any kind of saint when it comes to managing your money or anything else. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them.
And, Uncle Daddy treats you like the child he thinks you are.
No thanks. I want better. Gov't is NEVER better.
Universal healthcare isn't. It's gov't restricted healthcare. And that's just not very compassionate.
I'd rather have the current system where 85% of people are covered and 15% have EMTALA access for emergency care. It's MUCH more compassionate - and better care, even for those without insurance. I agree that some changes could be made. But the CURRENT system - as is - is a much better system than gov't restricted healthcare.
That's the bottom line. I'm not being venomous to say so. Gov't restricted healthcare won't work. It's not compassionate. I understand the thought processes of those that advocate it. I think it's misguided, but I'm not going to accuse them of being evil (even as I have been accussed of that in the past, on this site.). I support resisting gov't restricted care because I believe that to be the more compassionate position.
The idea of Universal Healthcare looks great on paper. Except. The reality is gov't restricted healthcare. NO thanks. That's not compassionate.
~faith,
Timothy.

I have not seen whatever it is you are talking about, and I really do not wish to. If it was the same as the other website, I would have the same opinion. The website mentioned is crass, venemous and - as far as I can tell - a vitriolic diatribe against a person who the administrator intensely dislikes.

ANY argument would have much more credibility if they cite a credible source.

And as for Universal healthcare. I just won't bother with you. You seem to forget that it is thriving and alive and well in many, many countries that rank much higher than the US's miserable 37th place in the World Health statistics.

I am not saying it is perfect. I am not saying that it would work in the US. But it DOES work.

pickledpepperRN · Jun 26, 2007

I know I don't use all the healthcare my insurance would pay for.

Many peiople are like me. I don't think it is fun to go to the doctor.

Perhaps with mental health assistance many of these "frequent flyers" would not go to the ER so often.

Nervous parents with a healthcare provider to call don't often not take their child to the ER needlessly.

Now the ER gets them all because they can't be cared for anywhere else without insurance. Maybe even those who can't be stopped could go to a walk in clinic so if you have an MI or accident the ER won't be so backed up.

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Jun 26, 2007

Anybody that advocates for gov't restricted healthcare MUST explain how supply is to be balanced with the proposed creation of unlimited demand.

To do less is to only advocate for half the story. FREE HEALTHCARE. Yeah, right. And Cuba has better healthcare than the United States. Nothing is free.

Everything costs. Before you can evaluate an idea, you should be presented with the total cost of the idea.

In this case, the cost is much higher taxes, and, much less access to care.

The other half of the universal healthcare story? Gov't restricted care.

A fair share in a dismal outcome is not fair. For anyone.

~faith,

Timothy.

teeituptom, BSN, RN · Jun 26, 2007

But, I suppose that gov't restricted healthcare advocate posters, who continually posts links for progessive websites, to include the cheapshot graphic, -- I suppose THOSE quotings of venomous, vitriolic websites can be dismissed as impassioned debate, because you don't disagree with it.
and, Uncle Daddy treats you like the child he thinks you are.
No thanks. I want better. Gov't is NEVER better.
Universal healthcare isn't. It's gov't restricted healthcare. And that's just not very compassionate.
I'd rather have the current system where 85% of people are covered and 15% have EMTALA access for emergency care. It's MUCH more compassionate - and better care, even for those without insurance. I agree that some changes could be made. But the CURRENT system - as is - is a much better system than gov't restricted healthcare.
The idea of Universal Healthcare looks great on paper. Except. The reality is gov't restricted healthcare. NO thanks. That's not compassionate.
~faith,
Timothy.

I'm impressed I never would have thought of putting venomous and vitriolic together before. I do find that impressive. I also am tired of that graphic, Im a golfer not a graphic.

Uncle Daddy, Ive never heard of that reference either. But Ive never felt like I have been nor I feel like a child. So I am not sure what you are trying to convey here.

85% are covered and the rest have emtala access for emergency care. Im not convinced nor impressed by your number selection here. But I agree some changes can be made. Particularly changing to a Universal Health care system. I dont see that as Govt Restrictive.

Yes Universal Health Care looks good on paper. I just dont see your Gov't restrictions and or lack of compassion. I do see lack of compassion with HMO's and Insurance companies and whether they approve or not for procedures to be done. We have made HMO jokes for decades now.

teeituptom, BSN, RN · Jun 26, 2007

Anybody that advocates for gov't restricted healthcare MUST explain how supply is to be balanced with the proposed creation of unlimited demand.
To do less is to only advocate for half the story. FREE HEALTHCARE. Yeah, right. And Cuba has better healthcare than the United States. Nothing is free.
Everything costs. Before you can evaluate an idea, you should be presented with the total cost of the idea.
In this case, the cost is much higher taxes, and, much less access to care.
The other half of the universal healthcare story? Gov't restricted care.
A fair share in a dismal outcome is not fair. For anyone.
~faith,
Timothy.

It would be far cheaper than supporting this illegal war to help support the oil companies and the military industrial complex.

Where does it even mention Gov't Restricted Health Care. You seem to like that term, but I can't find any references to that phrase of yours.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Jun 26, 2007

Look at the strain of EMTALA on our emergency depts. That's what you get with lifting the consequences of demand; by creating unlimited demand. Only, even THAT isn't unlimited demand because people like me, with real insurance, must pay a high enough co-pay for ED services to provide a check on demand.
Even so, our EDs are overwhelmed. Add to that real unlimited demand, and our EDs would sink.
Now, add that concept of unlimited demand across the entire healthcare system, and you have the vaunted 'Universal Healthcare' model. Only. Our gov't couldn't create unlimited supply, even if it wanted to.
So, the result will be rationed care.
Care MUST be rationed in some way, to keep demand balanced with supply. It's an immutable economic law. It can't be changed because we want our cake and eat it, too. EVERYTHING is rationed. Whether that rationing comes in the ability to pay, or waitlisting for care, nothing is free.
Imagine our current distress with our ED services. Imagine that EVERYBODY could access it without a co-pay, not just those that don't care about paying. Now, imagine that across the spectrum of healthcare. THAT is the gov't restricted care being advocated by MM.
Gov't restricted because nothing is free and the gov't must keep demand in check with supply. It's a law, and not one designed by legislators.
Gov't restricted healthcare is not compassionate. It's gov't care. And. It's restricted access to care.
~faith,
Timothy.

My question remains: How would you make it better?

Quote:

Rather it is meant to emphasize that we need to work together to solve America's very real problems in a pragmatic and fair way. What I find interesting is the total lack of response from the right to my question which was to the effect of how are we going to build a society where we have affordable universal access to health care and a broadly shared prosperity. See:

Quote:

we have a non-system where we will pay for care for those people regardless of their insurance status through cost shifting to the insured.

There are enough correlations out there between poor health status and lack of educational achievement, use of public welfare systems, underemployment, and entrance into the correctional system to say that doing nothing is too expensive for our society. Its not that progressives are trying to achieve absolute equality of results for everyone rather the more accurate goal of progressivism is to reduce barriers to achievement (whether it is educational, health etc.) so that all people in society have the opportunity to achieve to the extent of their individual ability and drive.

Michael Moore-nor the CAP graphic- are not the issues here. The real issue is that we have a failing health care system that could be more efficient and deliver better health care outcomes for all Americans.

There is a problem and I think that a solution needs to be derived and it is not a liberal or conservative issue.

teeituptom, BSN, RN · Jun 26, 2007

My question remains: How would you make it better?
There is a problem and I think that a solution needs to be derived and it is not a liberal or conservative issue.

Neither Liberal nor conservative shall we be.

Yes there is a problem, a big problem. Requires a big solution. Universal Health Care is the way to go.

cjmue12 · Jun 27, 2007

I am not for a healthcare system where people (government) make the decisions that are never at the bedside assessing the reality of providing or withholding treatment and procedures. However there is a huge problem with our system and it is not limited to EDs. How about the patients who sit in ICUs for days longer than they need to because a particular physician doesnt like the care on the step down units? Its not that the nurses are inadequate, there just isnt enough of them. Or the backup into ED because ICU is full, and stepdown is full? Now what. ED is overcrowded the nurses on the floors are pressured to transfer patients out before they are ready. Pressured by administrators, the ones not at the bedside. I believe that the majority of nurses will fight to protect their patients, but if it is your mother, child, spouse being pushed out before they are ready what can you do? There is always someone sicker who needs a bed. The ones I really feel sorry for are the people with no medical knowledge whatsoever. Nurses are the ones who know whats going on and we need to unite. We need to have a unified front, but historically with 85% of nurses being female, I dont see any aggressive fights in the near future.

CRNI-ICU20 · Jun 27, 2007

To Timothy:

Isn't an HMO "restricted Healthcare?" Don't they pick and choose who gets a surgery, and for how much, and by which doctor, and at what hospital network???

So I guess what you are saying is, you much prefer BlueCross Blue Shield restricted healthcare....you know...the compassionate ones who consistently deny needed medications and treatments to patients who need them.....so that THEIR bottom line is achieved.....

As for the 85/15 stats??? uh....no....85% of the US population is NOT insured....and that is why our ER's are wall to wall doctor's office visits....and our hospitals are having to extend their resources to accommodate these people....

To Stevie:

Whenever there is a contract negotiation between an employer and a union official, the NUMBER ONE issue on the table is HEALTH CARE BENEFITS. Any Google search will tell you this. Of all the entities that are in full support of health care reform, it's the UNIONS! Calling someone a "union buster??" because they are in favor of health care reform??? are you sure about this one???

As for your misunderstanding of my analogy: I was not COMPARING Paul Revere to Michael Moore....I was trying to show some here that sometimes their stance often does blind them to the reality around them....ie, some are so hung up on words like "socialism" and equate a universal health care system as being nothing shy of "communistic".....there could be nothing further from the truth, dear.

When you dial 911, and ask the police to come, do you worry whether it is "socialism" coming to your door to protect you? What about the fire department? When your house burns down or your neighbor's house burns down, does the fire department discriminate on whether you have the ability to pay, and therefore may or may not put out your fire/save your house? Both of these entities have operated within our country for nearly 200 years.....so far, they work!! You are still a free American....you still get to stay as conservative as you wish!!

All of their services are equally burdened by the whole of society.....universal fire/police service....so far, no one in America has suffered because of it....and only has benefitted from their tremendous front-line protection of us every night and day.....

Here's a website you might find interesting. It is a compilation of EVERY POLL TAKEN for the last thirty years.....

A quick scan will show you that health care tops the number one or number two position nearly every year.....

Obviously, people are speaking up.....but some are not listening.....

http://pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm