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

Nurses Activism

Published

Health care advances in Cuba

According to the Associated Press as cited in the Post article, "Cuba has made recent advancements in biotechnology and exports its treatments to 40 countries around the world, raking in an estimated $100 million a year. ... In 2004, the U.S. government granted an exception to its economic embargo against Cuba and allowed a California drug company to test three cancer vaccines developed in Havana."

http://alternet.org/envirohealth/50911/?page=1

While I simply cannot disagree that this country's healthcare system needs a serious overhaul, I don't think that a centralized healthcare system is the answer. As previous posters have mentioned, countries such as France, Canada, and Great Britain do not have the health coverage that Michael Moore portrays-- it takes months to get in to see a physician, the time with him/her is always limited, and getting tests such as MRIs and CT scans is difficult and takes time. Furthermore, if you have rare or complicated conditions; for example, say you need a lung transplant, you can pretty much put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye. Now that's all good and well as long as it's the guy next door but when it's your sister or brother that needs that organ, you're a hurting cowboy. Also, we have the benefits of a free market-- a free market means drug companies are able to produce new drugs all the time. Again, do these drugs benefit the majority of society? No. However, if it's your Aung Ginny who develops a rare form of malignant breast cancer, you may thank your lucky stars that you live in America where Glaxo Kline Smith is.

What Moore also fails to mention is that a lot of these people are eligible for federal benefits which they never apply for. He also fails to mention that it is illegal for an emergency room to turn away a patient in need of care.

Do we really want to go to a centralized healthcare system, because once we go there, is there any way back? Why don't we just cut the pork? Do we really need all this hospital administration? At the hospital where I work, we have people who sit at desks just making up more paper work for other administrators to administrate to nurses who are overwhelmed because they are understaffed because they are busy trying to take care of patients. And it's really stupid stuff. Don't tell me that you don't have stupid administrative paperwork to fill out that has no purpose whatsoever because I know you do. Everyone does.

How could we cut back and save money on this troubled healtcare system?

1. Cut back on useless administration. Eliminate all unnecessary paperwork so that the nurses and other staff could actually do their jobs.

2. Put a cap on malpractice suits. Doctors, contrary to popular beliefs, do not try to kill patients, and in the fear of missing some obscure disease that the patient has 1/10000 chance of having will order an expensive unnecessary test. Malpractice suits also raises malpractice insurance which raises patients bills

3. Let the doctors and patients make the medical decisions, not the insurance companies

4. Shoot Michael Moore

5. Kill the politicians

There, that felt good.

Thanks for that, I am still cracking up. I will refrain from comments until I see the movie. I dont know MM personally, never met him. But if he can somehow open peoples minds, get accurate information out there, and make a difference in a good way, he's earned his $$. If he creates chaos, panic and worsens the problems we already have, knock him out. Only shoot him if he has to wait in line for healthcare.

Specializes in med-surg, ER.

I saw the movie and I liked it. I have read about the "broken" US health care system and how so much money is spent with a huge overhead, esp. administration, malpractice suits, etc. Living in a country with socialized medicine myself, I can testify it CAN be efficient and it WORKS. I know alot of Americans equal something being ran/controlled by the government with unefficiancy and uncontrolled spending. I think it's the opposite! Someone posted in this thread "we do more MRI's in Austin each year than in the whole of Canada". Is this necessary a good thing? Is it necessary? Will the population live longer because of it?

I think that's the only way to measure health care quality, and that's how they measure it when they compare healthcare among nations. How much money is spent on health care and how does the money spent affect the average citizen, the population as a whole? In "Sicko" we're told the poorest citizens in the UK lives longer than the richest ones in the US.

It's not about the government spending money, it is HOW it is spent and due dilligance. When you have a set limited budget for health care coming from tax money, it must be spent with care in order to provide the best health care possible. I think that actually promotes efficiancy. Why would you want to place your life into the hands of insurance companies?

I read somewhere in the US you have "sick care" not health care. I suppose there's not much money to made in preventive care?

Specializes in Cardiac Care, ICU.
I read some of these posts and I just have to laugh. Instead of so-called professionals watching a documentary that will probably give them some insite into the mess thats called the health care crisis, these "professionals" would rather rant and rave about how they loathe Michael Moore. Micheal Moore directed a documentary (Fahrenheit 9/11) that did an excellent job in showing some of the HUGE contradictions between what politicians say and what they actually do, it also allowed G.W. Bush to show how unqualified he is to hold the office of president. So what? It happened get over it and take the time to look at the world from a perspective that may challenge you to actually THINK.

Many of MM's "proofs" were later shown to be false or exagerated. He makes films that promote a viewpoint - period. I will watch it on video just to see if there is anything redeeming in it but as I agree with little MM says I don't expect to find much. the point is though should the ANA have spent the money to promote the film when it doesn't rrepresent the views of all (Possibly not even most) of their members. I don't think so so I also opt to keep my membership in specialty organizations.

Specializes in Cardiac Care, ICU.
There is a government run healthcare institution already. The VA. Anyone read anything about how that's going lately?

HA HA HA LOL:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah:

I watched the trailor on the movie yesterday online. His movie has a point. Our government makes so many rules et regs along with the insurance that getting good care is almost impossible. One woman said that her ambulance bill after a bad traffic accident was denied because she did not get pre-approval. When are you supposed to get Pre-Approval for an auto accident ambulance ride? Now come on! That is totally rediculous. It is just another way for the insurance to get out of paying for things!:angryfire I absolutely HATE dealing with insurance companies!! And in this movie, there are people who work for insurance companies admitting that they get bonuses from the companies when they can come up with a reason to deny claims!!:angryfire Our health care system stinks and if this movie makes people mad then good! Maybe then will get up and demand that it be fixed.

Specializes in Med/Surg, ER, L&D, ICU, OR, Educator.

G.W. is my president, just like the womanizing, lying, impeached, bloated, gas bag was my president, or the stuttering no new taxes guy, the jelly bean Iran Contra guy, peanut boy, the I am not a crook guy and even I pick my nose in public LBJ.

Tripps

Captain...you are hilarious!

What.....no "perfect" prez? No one we can all agree on? God bless the land of free will and self determination and the freedom to debate these issues in a public forum!

Now, back to the ANA...I have sent them a message with my "discontent" as to the use of my membership fee $. I will no longer be flushing that to support those that are not performing to my expectations and do not speak for me.

I haven't seen the movie. I haven't gotten a flyer from the ANA about it. I'm not sure if I want to see it or if I will see it.

But I think it's fabulous that everyone is talking about it. No matter what people think of Michael Moore, people are actually discussing America's health care system. Some people don't think it's that bad; other people think it's awful. But at least it's being discussed. Maybe a socialized health care system is not the way to go, but now that people are talking about it, maybe a better way will emerge. I think it's a good first step, and no matter what anyone thinks of Michael Moore, he has managed to bring this subject to a level of national attention that it might never have received otherwise.

Thanks for posting that link, Steph. That site is very entertaining.

Yeah - I just googled "sicko" and came up with it . . .after someone mentioned MM paying for someone's wife's medical insurance . . . it is an odd and entertaining place - just be careful of the photos. :uhoh3:

steph

Specializes in Med/Surg/Ortho/HH/Radiology-Now Retired.

You might like to check out our health care system here in Oz:

www.medicareaustralia.gov.au

It's always worked well for most of us here in the land Down Under.

I've not seen the MM film, but would watch it in order to form my own opinion. I've seen a couple of his other films, and while I believe he goes for the shock value, they made me think about some of the things he covered in those films.

I think that no matter how good care is once you get to a hospital or clinic one has to take care of themself first. People act like it is a bad thing that we in the US live three years less than many western industrialized nations. Are you kidding? The fact that we are even close is a miracle. NO society has EVER lived longer with less regard for their health than the modern day american.

Basically I would like to see a system that rewarded people taking some self responsiblity. There would also be automatic disqualifiers for people once they got treatment. For instance I have no problem with a system that pays for someones lung cancer treatment if that person is not a smoker. However if that person is a smoker than tough. Also if a person has diabetes from lifestyle I see NO reason to help than other than maybe paying for a gym membership and a consultation with a nutritionist.

So I would like to see more free resources on the front end with rewards for people that make positive strides. For instance if an obese person lost 150lbs but still needed help controlling their BP or BS I have no problem with the government footing that bill.

But as a person that gives up all sorts of fun stuff to stay in excellent shape I have a problem with just saying treat your body as poorly as you would like and we can try and salvage what is left when you come and see us.... that will backfire big time. The population of the US is more than many of these other countries combined.

If you think socialized medicine is a great thing also take a look at dialysis treatment. That is actually a small part of socialized medicine in the US that has cost far more than anyone ever expected.

Specializes in Oncology/Haemetology/HIV.

Unfortunately, even some right wing groups have positive stats on Cuba vs. US healthcare.

In Cuba, they are trying for the things that are most cost effective to the greatest number of people. In America, it tends to be all the care for a few people.

There are millions of dollars being paid to infertility clinics for infertile couples, well outside of childbearing years, to have a baby "of their own", even though most will be unsuccessful. Add in millions of dollars for the micropremies that are products of a "successful" treatment. Add in the lifetime costs of poor health of the surviving micropremies.

I would rather have them spend the money for one little baby on protecting the safety of hundreds/thousands with well baby checks, vaccinations, proper treatment and screening of dread diseases.

It's fabulous that we can separate conjoined twins, but I would have more pride in repairing the cleft lips/palates of many children, vaccinating every child, or actually treating the number of TB patients that it costs to do the multimillion dollar operations those twins required.

Jimmy Carter is distributing pesticide impregnated mosquito nets in the Third World, in places where families lose many children to malaria. They researched chemicals, found a safe combo that lasts up 4 years, and distribute them to families, at a cost of a few dollars a net. This has way more potential to save many more lives than one CT scan, or one MRI, at a much better price.

I'm an oncology nurse and the waste that occurs is unreal. I have families that insist that 85 year old Aunt Millie with pancreatic cancer undergo a Whipple and chemo,....so she can "beat this 'cause Jesus won't her die". I have patients w/brain and bone mets that are getting treated with great pain, and getting CT after CXR after MRI, after PET scan that shows minimal improvement. And so we keep flogging the incurable with chemo. Because they might just eke out a few more days.

Even with insurance you may not be able to afford chemo. Witness the astronomically prices on Tarceva, Avastin, even with deductibles. Especially when the research shows that there is only limited effectiveness in many cases.

In the US, sure you can get a quick CT or MRI...

BUT STATS HAVE SHOWN THAT IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN YOUR CARE IS BETTER!!!!!!!!! Many of the people getting knee or hip surgery, never really rehab to a condition that they wil actually use that hip or knee (or at least it goes in Florida)

There are many reasons why women under 40 are not routinely mammogramed. One is density of tissue interfering with reading it. Another had to do with the issue that many breast cancers in women of that age group had poor prognosis to start, finding earlier made minimal difference. But one of the reasons against routine early mammos, was that there were false positives, which led to biopsies and invasive procedures an other false positives, that in and of themselves posed danger to what was actually a very healthy person. Thus, unless there is a reason, mammos are not routinely done for screening on young women.

There was a big bouhaha in the media about using bone marrow transplant to treat young breast cancer patients, in the 1990s. It was "experimental" thus not covered by many insurances. Activists were picketing insurances, about how they were "killing" breast cancer patients by not covering this. So what did we find out? That there was little to no improvement in outcomes. And that patients often died of the complications of the procedure, or had significant QOL impairment. That there was no overall advantage to the procedure.

Many guidelines call for stopping PSA testing in men in their 70s. Why, if we know that prostate cancer is so prevalent in that age group. Because we know now, that most prostate cas in that age group are slow growing and not as likely to kill the patient as treating them aggressively would. Why test for it if you can't treat it, or if there is not a major threat to the patient? Yet many family members will get indignant about why a PSA was not done, or why the MD will start immediate chemo/surgery on the 92 year old pt with an enlarged prostate, an EF of 20%, chronic bronchitis and renal disease.

Many of the CTs, MRIs, lab tests are ordered to cover the MD or because someone pesters the MD with , "Could we please check JUST ONE MORE time." Or we need to know what it is, even if there is nothing that we can do about it.

My own father had several shadows on his CXR, he was dying of emphysema. He refused a bronchoscopy for dx. MD called me in and wanted me to "talk some sense' into him. I turned to the MD and said, "What are the possible diagnoses?" He listed them. I then asked, "And given how poor that his health is, how we be able to treat it? ".

There was silence.......................

And no answer...................

And the bronch was NOT done.

Most bone marrow transplant centers refuse to transplant over the age of 65....because statistically there is NO improvement in mortality/morbidity over not transplanting the patient. Yet people flock to centers that will transplant everyone. Because everyone wants "to do something". Whether it helps or not. And bleeds lots of money everywhere in its' path.

When quite often, waiting, or doing the routine (not state of the art) treatment or not doing might be the better option.

Getting that immediate surgery, that state of the art care, or that immediate test may be more harmful than you care to know. Not all medicine is good or beneficial.

Why not kill the messenger? It dosen't matter who delivers the message. Only content is relevant. Is his?

+ Add a Comment