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

pickledpepperRN · Jul 2, 2007

July 01, 2007 6:00 AM

Canadians are going to love Michael Moore and his film "SiCKO" because it talks about something we are nationally very proud of — our public health-care system. For many of us, it is a strong reminder of why we want to keep our system public and universal for everyone.

I am a registered nurse and I worked for years in a hospital. As nurses, we never worry about costs, billing, whether a procedure will be covered or anything like that. We focus on what our patients need. From talking to Canadian nurses who have worked in the U.S. and come back, as many have, this is a huge relief.

I never have to worry about whether one of my patients will get the treatment or care they need. They will, and I can be confident about that. That is the reason nurses are so supportive of our public system. And we have fought to protect it.

As in any system, we have had some problems. Commercial forces have been pushing for a U.S.-style health-care system in Canada lately. Here in our province, Alberta, the government has attempted to open up the system to for-profit health services. But the people have mounted big campaigns to protect this vital resource and the government has backed down on several attempts....

http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070701/OPINION/707010336/-1/RSS

mvanz9999, RN · Jul 2, 2007

You are right. Most Americans are kind and generous. I think WE THE PEOPLE need to scrutinize our elected representatives, get rid of obscene corporate donations, and enforce current laws. Then we need to elect people who don't take big money from for profit corporations.

But HOW? As Kenny b states so eloquently, votes just do not work. I have candidate A that I think is horrible and I fully disagree with, and candidate B that I also think is horrible and fully disagree with. So where does that leave me?

Government officials are, by-and-large pretty well insulated from accountability much of the time. And when they are held accountable, it is usually after they've already stolen or wasted huge amounts of the kinds of resources we need to address the issues we're discussing here. Voting isn't currently a very effective way to hold people accountable.
The hospital and pharmaceutical CEOs are similarly insulated. They are only accountable to a slightly lesser degree because of competition. However, the leveling effects of competition are weaker than many of us would like to believe because of limited choice in many cases (not exactly the kind of raw competition you get between pepsi and coke when they're both on the shelf in front of you).....

Very nicely stated! I haven't the slightest clue how to affect this giant political quagmire that is our government. I have seen it posted that MM has the resources and fame to get noticed, but so what? See reasons above.

OB Night Nurse · Jul 2, 2007

Obviously I'm not going to read through 39 pages of this but I for one am looking forward to seeing this movie. I have no idea if I'll agree with it or not, but I do plan on seeing it soon.

I'm not sure a universal socialized type coverage would be the best solution but I feel we need to do something. I work in TX where so many of the hospital visits are covered by taxpayer money. So I'm already paying for it whether I like it or not.

I'm wondering if something like a universal but very basic coverage could be offered and work well yet others (I guess meaning those who either want it or can afford it) could buy a more inclusive policy? Kind of like car insurance. In TX all drivers are required to have basic insurance but it's optional if you want to pay extra for full coverage/collision. I hope that makes sense.

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Jul 2, 2007

Answer me this question, anybody, because it's at the heart of this debate.

Do people who work harder and/or are more successful deserve more than those that don't?

Or phrased a few more ways:

Should someone on foodstamps be able to have JUST AS MUCH food purchasing power as the people that actually pay taxes and make too much for foodstamps?

Should someone that doesn't pay for any of their share of healthcare have JUST AS MUCH healthcare as people that pay?

Are these really rights? I'm not talking about some form of access, but rather, equivalent access?

If you think these are rights, how do you propose to convince people to work when an equivalent lifestyle on par with those that DO work is a "right"?

When there is no reward for excellence, you discourage excellent behavior.

And of course, the converse is true: when there is significant reward for sloth, you encourage sloth. How can a system that encourages sloth and discourages excellence keep from imploding?

How can a system that cannot but implode be described as "compassionate"?

How can a system that refuses to recognize the amount of contribution someone puts into the system be considered "fair"?

Isn't it grossly unfair of y'all to draw RN salaries when housekeeping makes so much less? Shouldn't those outcomes be equalized? But you might say, given equal outcomes, who would work harder to become a nurse? Exactly. And THAT is the problem with gov't restricted healthcare.

Not to mention that it would be an UnConstitutional violation of the enumerated, limited powers of Congress to enact such a scheme. . . And why were Congress' powers limited? To prevent abuses of power like gov't restricted healthcare. THIS IS WHY.

~faith,

Timothy.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Jul 2, 2007

access to healthcare is neither a conservative or a liberal issue. its a human rights issue for all.

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.

Tweety, BSN, RN · Jul 2, 2007

Answer me this question, anybody, because it's at the heart of this debate.
Do people who work harder and/or are more successful deserve more than those that don't?
Or phrased a few more ways:
Should someone on foodstamps be able to have JUST AS MUCH food purchasing power as the people that actually pay taxes and make too much for foodstamps?
Should someone that doesn't pay for any of their share of healthcare have JUST AS MUCH healthcare as people that pay?
Are these really rights? I'm not talking about some form of access, but rather, equivalent access?
If you think these are rights, how do you propose to convince people to work when an equivalent lifestyle on par with those that DO work is a "right"?
When there is no reward for excellence, you discourage excellent behavior.
And of course, the converse is true: when there is significant reward for sloth, you encourage sloth. How can a system that encourages sloth and discourages excellence keep from imploding?
How can a system that cannot but implode be described as "compassionate"?
How can a system that refuses to recognize the amount of contribution someone puts into the system be considered "fair"?
Isn't it grossly unfair of y'all to draw RN salaries when housekeeping makes so much less? Shouldn't those outcomes be equalized? But you might say, given equal outcomes, who would work harder to become a nurse? Exactly. And THAT is the problem with gov't restricted healthcare.
Not to mention that it would be an UnConstitutional violation of the enumerated, limited powers of Congress to enact such a scheme. . . And why were Congress' powers limited? To prevent abuses of power like gov't restricted healthcare. THIS IS WHY.
~faith,
Timothy.

First of all some of us aren't proponents for "government restricted healthcare", just the government as a payment source.

The same way we give foods stamps to those who are hungry, is the same attitude that we should take with healthcare..........no one should starve in our country and no one should be without adequate, fair and equal healthcare. Surely the rich and working among us are going to be healthier by nature of our wealth, but study after study shows that lack of insurance and access to healthcare (particularly for minorities) has bad outcomes that we can perhaps improve. I say improve because "equal" probably isn't going to happen because there are other things that come into play. Richer, more educated people do tend to eat better food, have acess to gyms, etc.

[should someone that doesn't pay for any of their share of healthcare have JUST AS MUCH healthcare as people that pay?

Yes, because it's the right thing to do.

Also not that ANYONE who pays federal income tax will be paying a portion that goes into healthcare, the same way that anyone who pays federal taxes has a portion that goes to the military, congress salaries, and the many other things our tax dollars buy - healthcare would be among them.

Should someone on foodstamps be able to have JUST AS MUCH food purchasing power as the people that actually pay taxes and make too much for foodstamps

No. But enough to keep from being malnourished or suffering ill health in a land of plenty. I'm still all about capitalism.

How can a system that refuses to recognize the amount of contribution someone puts into the system be considered "fair"?

The system is already like that. As a single man without kids I'll step out on a limb here and say I put thousands of dollars more into the tax system than you do that has kids. (If not you personally, then take someone else that makes my exact same salary and has kids to deduct - all other things being equal. I pay much more in taxes and don't get out as much, in tangable things that is.) Also, I'll say again, that capitalism is going to be alive and well in America even if we go to a payment system from the govenrment. Government should not take over healthcare, just find a way to pay for it. Yes, there will be problems. But I'd venture to say that those of us who can afford to pay for healthcare above and beyond what our government insurance (for lack of a better word) pays for is going to find it. Just like it is now. Are the fancy clinics going go away? Are the plastic surgeons going to go out of business? I doubt it. Capitalism isn't going to disappear just because of a payment system from the government. Health care capitalism will more than likely survive. Healthcare has suffered when medicare/aide and insurance companies clamped down on payments, and probably in UHC there might be some similar effects, but those ripple effects are being felt now and we're adjusting.

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Jul 2, 2007

First of all some of us aren't proponents for "government restricted healthcare", just the government as a payment source.

It's the same thing.

Once the gov't is the only allowed payment source, they have an effective monopoly, regardless whether other parts of the system remain in private hands.

And, once Uncle Daddy becomes the only payor, the laws of economics will still demand that the unlimited demand on healthcare (because somebody else is paying for it) will either need unlimited supply (impossible) or rationing and restriction of care. The inevitable result is gov't restricted healthcare.

I understand that you think that being the only payor is different from "owning" the system. It isn't.

He who pays for something, owns it.

More important, he who has a monopoly on payment gets to dictate whatever terms he wants to both his suppliers and his customers.

How is it that a monopoly is always bad, unless we put it into the hands of the most incompetent source, and then its good?

Oh, btw, I waited 3 hrs at the Social Security office to get a replacement card for my 17 yr old last week. Why did I wait 3 hrs? Because after every customer called, the gov't agent for replacement cards pulled her window shut for 15 minutes. 2 customers an hour. Why? She's a gov't employee; she doesn't get paid based on customer satisfaction, now, does she?

As far as those that can pay over and above the system. Yes, you are right, but being forced to pay FOR the system will sap too much from too many to do so. For example, the child abuse of sending your child to a government school is necessary for so many BECAUSE of the confiscatory rates the gov't charges in taxes in order to pay for those schools. By sucking up all the resources, the gov't effectively stifles competition.

And, I disagree with you that the provision of healthcare is a right. The opportunity to freely engage in the healthcare services is the right, and the gov't taking that right from you, by fiat or gunpoint; that is the wrong. We fought wars to convince the gov't to keep its dirty hands off our rights. When the gov't exercises your rights FOR you, that is not the provision of your rights; it's the imposition of them.

~faith,

Timothy.

fronkey bean · Jul 2, 2007

access to healthcare is neither a conservative or a liberal issue. its a human rights issue for all.
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.

i thought we had already decided that there is access to healthcare for everyone in the us - not equal access at times but access none the less.

vashtee, RN · Jul 2, 2007

I'm not sure it was mentioned in all these pages, but although the World Health Organization ranked the U.S. 37th for overall health care systems, it placed number ONE for patient satisfaction.

Yes, we have problems, but clearly we are doing something right, too.

Tweety, BSN, RN · Jul 2, 2007

I'm not sure it was mentioned in all these pages, but although the World Health Organization ranked the U.S. 37th for overall health care systems, it placed number ONE for patient satisfaction.
Yes, we have problems, but clearly we are doing something right, too.

Absolutely there is much to be proud of in our current health care system. And yes, if you polled Americans most are satisfied with the status quo. If I take only myself and my experiences with the health care system (which is limited due to excellent health) I personally am satisfied as well.

Tweety, BSN, RN · Jul 2, 2007

It's the same thing.
Once the gov't is the only allowed payment source, they have an effective monopoly, regardless whether other parts of the system remain in private hands.
And, once Uncle Daddy becomes the only payor, the laws of economics will still demand that the unlimited demand on healthcare (because somebody else is paying for it) will either need unlimited supply (impossible) or rationing and restriction of care. The inevitable result is gov't restricted healthcare.
I understand that you think that being the only payor is different from "owning" the system. It isn't.
He who pays for something, owns it.
More important, he who has a monopoly on payment gets to dictate whatever terms he wants to both his suppliers and his customers.
How is it that a monopoly is always bad, unless we put it into the hands of the most incompetent source, and then its good?
Oh, btw, I waited 3 hrs at the Social Security office to get a replacement card for my 17 yr old last week. Why did I wait 3 hrs? Because after every customer called, the gov't agent for replacement cards pulled her window shut for 15 minutes. 2 customers an hour. Why? She's a gov't employee; she doesn't get paid based on customer satisfaction, now, does she?
As far as those that can pay over and above the system. Yes, you are right, but being forced to pay FOR the system will sap too much from too many to do so. For example, the child abuse of sending your child to a government school is necessary for so many BECAUSE of the confiscatory rates the gov't charges in taxes in order to pay for those schools. By sucking up all the resources, the gov't effectively stifles competition.
And, I disagree with you that the provision of healthcare is a right. The opportunity to freely engage in the healthcare services is the right, and the gov't taking that right from you, by fiat or gunpoint; that is the wrong. We fought wars to convince the gov't to keep its dirty hands off our rights. When the gov't exercises your rights FOR you, that is not the provision of your rights; it's the imposition of them.
~faith,
Timothy.

First I'll address the last part. I never really said that health care was a right. I think that in an wealthy/advanced society such as America, health care should be a priviledge, the same as education for all is. Not that it's a basic human right, but for Americans, we can do it.

Your other points are well taken. I think there should be provisions built into UHC that would not allow the government to own the health care system. Thus you and I would not become government employees.

One doesn't have a choice where we go to get our mail or a social security card. But I'd like to think that my doctor would not be a government employee and that if I'm unsatisfied, I would still have some choice and go to another doctor. I'd like to think that the current system of doctors choosing where their patients go would last through UHC, i.e. if poor customer service is being given at Hospital A, then he's going to put his patients in Hospittal B.

I'm still not buying 100% into the idea that we're all going to become government employees just because they government pays the insurance premiums/medical bills for us. Obviously it's all speculation on both our parts.

I feel your pain in getting your social security card. Stuff like that is maddening.

fergus51 · Jul 2, 2007

\One doesn't have a choice where we go to get our mail or a social security card. But I'd like to think that my doctor would not be a government employee and that if I'm unsatisfied, I would still have some choice and go to another doctor. I'd like to think that the current system of doctors choosing where their patients go would last through UHC, i.e. if poor customer service is being given at Hospital A, then he's going to put his patients in Hospittal B.
.

Thank you. I've worked in Canada obviously and believe me, you wouldn't survive as a nurse if patients were complaining about you. Managers still care about patient satisfaction because patients can go to ANY hospital they want.