I am watching Michael Moore's "Sicko" for the first time....

iteachob, MSN, RN · Apr 15, 2009

Geez....I give up!

You asked for a URL.....I give it. It's not flattering to your point of view. You're mad. The treatment the Canadian got here was superior. You can't stand that.

Yes, there are problems with our health care, but I don't think your system is the way to go.....I'll NEVER think that. Michael Moore only confirms my belief that we should not emulate Canada.

Atheos · Apr 15, 2009

but I don't think your system is the way to go.....I'll NEVER think that. Michael Moore only confirms my belief that we should not emulate Canada.

All based off a blog...

What happened to evidence based practice???

LaughingRN · Apr 15, 2009

I didn't ask for a URL

I asked for URLS.

I mostly requested them from a person that was posting repetitively that our government denied care in the same volume that your insurance companies did.

Sorry you feel exasperated. I do to.

I never once claimed that our system was superior. I actually have posted more posts in this thread pointing out glaring faults with our system, namely the wait lists, then I have anything positive about it.

H S has many good points, and I've agreed with many. I also feel like I should be able to jump in and add to the conversation, without getting people worked up.

I'm not mad, I'm amused.

Hekate · Apr 15, 2009

i do not want to pay higher taxes for a system implememted by the government!!! everything that the government touches results in higher cost and less service....of course that is just my opinion - maybe thehealth care system should ask for a bail out!!!
"michael moore's ...sicko...puts forward a policy prescription. moore thinks the united states should adopt a free, single-payer, national health system like canada, the united kingdom, france, or cuba--socialized medicine, for moore, the answer is having the government run it all.
he sets out on a worldwide tour to show us how great a single-payer system is in countries that have it.
and here's where his policy prescription goes into overdrive.
at the most simplistic level, giving free health care to everyone costs a lot of money.
especially since people tend to use things more frequently when they are free
nor do these countries have the same costs associated with malpractice lawsuits that we do. a single-payer system here would have to also include some truly major rearrangment of the tort system to bring those costs down.

check this out:who rankings:

rank country

1 france

2 italy

3 san marino

4 andorra

5 malta

6 singapore

7 spain

8 oman

9 austria

10 japan

11 norway

12 portugal

13 monaco

14 greece

15 iceland

16 luxembourg

17 netherlands

18 united kingdom

19 ireland

20 switzerland

21 belgium

22 colombia

23 sweden

24 cyprus

25 germany

26 saudi arabia

27 united arab emirates

28 israel

29 morocco

30 canada

31 finland

32 australia

33 chile

34 denmark

35 dominica

36 costa rica

37 united states of america

38 slovenia

39 cuba

40 brunei

41 new zealand

42 bahrain

43 croatia

44 qatar

45 kuwait

46 barbados

47 thailand

48 czech republic

49 malaysia

50 poland

===

1.the us has the most expensive healthcare system in the world. it is almost twice as expensive as every other developed nation. this is largely due to administrative costs which account for 19-25% of healthcare costs, and up to 34% at for-profit hospitals.

2.other than south africa, america is the only developed country in the world that does not provide healthcare for all of its citizens.

3.yet, the us ranks 26th in infant mortality and 24th in the number of healthy years a person can expect to live - putting america's healthcare system in the company of cuba and slovenia rather than canada and western european nations.

4.and, despite ludicrous right-wing anecdotal claims of high dissatisfaction among those who live in countries with universal healthcare, the reality is that, with the exception of italy, americans are more dissatisfied with their healthcare than are the citizens of every other developed nation, including england, france, germany, and canada. moreover, us doctors spend less time with patients that do doctors in other nations.

http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/u.s.%20hcweb.p...

http://pub.ucsf.edu/newsservices/release...

allnurses Guide · Apr 15, 2009

check this out:who rankings:
rank country
1 france
2 italy
3 san marino
4 andorra
5 malta
6 singapore
7 spain
8 oman
9 austria
10 japan
11 norway
12 portugal
13 monaco
14 greece
15 iceland
16 luxembourg
17 netherlands
18 united kingdom
19 ireland
20 switzerland
21 belgium
22 colombia
23 sweden
24 cyprus
25 germany
26 saudi arabia
27 united arab emirates
28 israel
29 morocco
30 canada
31 finland
32 australia
33 chile
34 denmark
35 dominica
36 costa rica
37 united states of america
38 slovenia
39 cuba
40 brunei
41 new zealand
42 bahrain
43 croatia
44 qatar
45 kuwait
46 barbados
47 thailand
48 czech republic
49 malaysia
50 poland
===
1.the us has the most expensive healthcare system in the world. it is almost twice as expensive as every other developed nation. this is largely due to administrative costs which account for 19-25% of healthcare costs, and up to 34% at for-profit hospitals.
2.other than south africa, america is the only developed country in the world that does not provide healthcare for all of its citizens.
3.yet, the us ranks 26th in infant mortality and 24th in the number of healthy years a person can expect to live - putting america's healthcare system in the company of cuba and slovenia rather than canada and western european nations.
4.and, despite ludicrous right-wing anecdotal claims of high dissatisfaction among those who live in countries with universal healthcare, the reality is that, with the exception of italy, americans are more dissatisfied with their healthcare than are the citizens of every other developed nation, including england, france, germany, and canada. moreover, us doctors spend less time with patients that do doctors in other nations.
http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/u.s.%20hcweb.p...
http://pub.ucsf.edu/newsservices/release...

've seen the who information and this seems accurate.

but the links don't work for me.

Hekate · Apr 15, 2009

a socialized system doesn't change that. it's just in a socialized system, the beancounters are now gov't employees who also want to use the money to study mosquito farts and get post offices named after them.
the current gov't payor system we use in the us does the very same thing...sigh...i can almost type that with my eyes closed now.
i wonder if you ever used any other health care than the us one?
please refer to my prior posting about countries and their ranking by the quality of their health care....
for example, in france, the tax monies go toward education, health care ect....can you tell me that your tax money actually goes to any service you have directly benefited from, or that as a tax payer you have access to the budget details and repartition of tax monies?
continuing with the same example (france), treatment is decided by the doctors and other health care providers. neither the insurance nor the government have any power in deciding the medical care provided or the medication ordered.
i'm not following you; those movies reflected government control of everything. if anything, uhc advocates lean toward the brave new world/futuristic/gattacian model.
how so? the fact that the health care is funded by tax monies means that everyone is equally covered and will receive the same quality of care without discrimination (of any kind). the health care providers are solely responsible for their choice of care, and not in any way controlled by the government. two systems co-exist in france: public and private hospitals- yet both are to be accredited by the national standards of care, and both are re-reimbursed by the national health insurance coverage. the only thing that changes between private and public hospitals is the management of the "company"....as a patient, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference from the quality of the care you received or the $ reimbursed !
what is a "docu-movie?" sicko is not a documentary, and unless you watched dead meat, i hardly think you can accuse someone else of being 'close minded.' michael moore admits that the criticisms of his film are valid.
and what his movie does is misrepresent the conditions of the healthcare system in cuba and other countries.
and god help us when we resort to using "art" to make decisions about medicine. i want the surgeon who operates on me to be thinking about the science of what he is doing, and not what picasso inspires him to do with the scalpel.

i beg to differ! have you ever worked closely with a surgeon? or any us doctor? because i can assure you that the choices they make, their practice, is highly impacted by the different insurance policies, hospital incentives etc... i'll give you a very basic example:

a young man undergoing cervical discectomy & fusion as an out patient because his insurance would pay 3000 $ more to the surgeon if the patient was not admitted!

this is not something i heard off, it is something the surgeon told me directly!

is it not a crazy and unsafe practice?

the surgeon eventually accepted to keep the patient as a 23 hours stay because i checked with the insurance that it didn't qualify as an admit, this way the surgeon got his bonus, and we kept the patient until the next day to make sure nothing happened to him...

i rest my case :angryfire

leadesign · Apr 15, 2009

I found this link for WHO rankings:

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf

Page 164

Honnête et Sérieux · Apr 15, 2009

You've totally missed the point by taking what I've said literally.

How else are we supposed to take people's words here?

Have you never heard of docudrama? I can't be the first person to use documovie, Google it.

Not much out there in google to support your descriptor for Sicko. It definitely isn't a docudrama, either. Moore admits that Sicko was the use of satire to make a political point...HE SAID THAT, and that should not be the substance of anything that is supposedly in the 'documentary' genre.

Art uses different materials or 'media' to represent the view of the artist or author etc.

In which case it can only be described as a biased opinion of the producer. It certainly can't be assigned credibility as an objective piece which should influence how we conduct ourselves...unless, of course, you function that way...

If you worked with a plastic surgeon or any surgeon you can't say they never use their own artistic interpretation in technique or execution of a procedure.

What are you talking about? The essential element of a surgical procedure is SCIENCE. Their education is entirely science based. They may choose a simple interrupted vs. a vertical mattress stitch to execute the procedure, but no matter what decision they make, it is based on the EVIDENCE, not on unsupported bias.

The movie references chosen were to illustrate a point that insurance companies would rather only service perfect specimens who don't need much in the way of health care. And that it would be be helpful since they only live until they were 30-35yrs old before 'rejuvenation' (Logan's Run)
In a Brave New World 'The year of our Ford' was actually in reference to the corporate/consumerism based society. Which is kind of what these corporate giants promote. Also the use of withholding oxygen and other nutrients from selected babies while they were developing to create different class levels also melds well with insurance corporations practices of with holding care...

And please understand if I find it completely ironic that you use entirely governmentalized 'examples' in an attempt to demonize insurance companies.

talaxandra · Apr 15, 2009

All based off a blog...

City Journal's not a blog it's an urban policy magazine.

I'm not saying that validates everything David Gratzer wrote, but it does give his opinion a little more weight than if the article was written by an unqualified blogger - he's a Canadian psychiatrist, so has worked within the system he criticises, and he's written a prize-winning book about flaws in the Canadian health care system.

On the other hand, he's been heavily criticised for "drawing improper inferences from statistics" (Wikipedia), and clearly has a conservative agenda (the Donner prize is for conservative research and, though the Donner Foundation has reduced funding to this area it generously supports the Candian Right and its mission statement is "encourage individual responsibility and private initiative to help Canadians solve their social and economic problems" - source).

On the (other) other hand, none of us contributing to this debate are free from bias. I, for one, can hardly believe I'm even a little championing the cause of an anti-UHC advocate. How can this be?!

Honnête et Sérieux · Apr 15, 2009

I want to challenge you....show me proof that the Canadian UHC system denies medical care or limits a person to a certain treatment as opposed to the newer more expensive treatment (for example). I want you to show me in our media, in your media, research, websites etc. I don't even care if they are from anecdotal type sources. It is hard to sit here and watch you repeatedly type the same thing over and over with no proof. It's even harder to understand what you are talking about, since I am Canadian and I have seen no evidence of the above.
Show me the angry Canadians (related to this topic!).
I can Google "US insurance companies denying care" and it fills page after page of hits. Show me how the Canadian system is the same.
Show me the links...

I find it completely disingenuous that people are criticizing the poster who used google in the same manner as was challenged in the post quoted above. Obviously someone was trying to make a point about the volume of "hits" on google when someone searched regarding the negative aspects of US insurance companies, specifically presenting the challenge to show how "the Canadian system is the same," specifically SAYING that they don't care if the sources are anecdotal. It makes no sense that a similar search in the same medium looking for negative aspects of the Canadian system is somehow irrelevant...and even less sense that someone actually conducted a matching maneuver with clear limitations, and is then criticized for actually following those recommendations.

It's no way to conduct a discussion...and it makes absolutely no sense. How is someone supposed to have rational dialogue when people pull stunts like that?

https://allnurses.com/nursing-activism-healthcare/real-people-denied-218189.html#post2123800

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/258135

http://www2.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=b76443f6-3686-4d86-b822-4e940259f95b&k=98749

http://www.getbetterhealth.com/cancer-patients-in-ontario-denied-drug-coverage/2007.09.16

http://www.halifaxlive.com/content/view/956/51/

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/172786

Obviously I can do this all night...but I hope you get the point.

Honnête et Sérieux · Apr 15, 2009

I read the first paragraph. The story has no relevance since the Canadian was receiving treatment outside of Canada which is not included in our UHC.
I was more or less looking at a Canadian being denied Canadian available care.
good start though.

That is actually untrue. In this forum, maybe even this thread, there are other Canadians who talk about being sent to the US to receive treatment not available in Canada. Additionally, I've already shared about the epidemic of high-risk obstetrical/neonate cases exported out of Canada to the US because of a lack of Canadian NICU beds.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=16524

I'm not saying this is part of the evidence of denial of care, but it reveals the Canadian reliance on the US system...which it so frequently accesses AND criticizes.

Honnête et Sérieux · Apr 15, 2009

check this out:who rankings:
4.and, despite ludicrous right-wing anecdotal claims of high dissatisfaction among those who live in countries with universal healthcare, the reality is that, with the exception of italy, americans are more dissatisfied with their healthcare than are the citizens of every other developed nation, including england, france, germany, and canada. moreover, us doctors spend less time with patients that do doctors in other nations.

first, i need to point out that these outdated and proven-to-be-poorly formulated rankings are based on indicators that have nothing to do with healthcare.

second, the rankings you shared are the original rankings...which had to be modified in 2003 after the who was forced to acknowledge glaring problems in their methodology. given the blatant incompetence with which the who arrived at these rankings, it's no surprise that they have refused to tackle the task after their last debacle in 1997. for example, france was demoted from #1 to #5...ironically the same year that 15,000 french people died just because it got hot (for comparison, the death toll from one of the most devastating hurricanes to hit n. orleans was 1,800). even chirac blamed the massive death toll on their own health-care system.

and finally, if you are going to try to use the who statistics (which are about as useful as a cup of warm spit), they need to be presented accurately. americans are actually among the most satisfied recipients according to the sources you used, not the most 'dissatisfied.'