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

fronkey bean · Jul 8, 2007

Don.t be Fooled! Only true unaided Market Forces will drive costs down. Ever hear the commercial "When Banks Compete You Win" well when healthcare has got to compete for your bucks and you can choose who takes care of you freely, plus you have your money in your pocket. then you will win bigtime. only then will the naked businessmen and doctors who are not coddled by government or protected from failure by insurance cos', ppos' or hmos' actually provide you with good service or lose you as a customer. It Is Your Hard Earned Money. You Should Not Be Taxed to take care of every Unhealthy Tom, Dick And Harry.
oh by the way we could give Income tax breaks to hospitals and doctors who take care of the indigent pro bono. less taxes would also mean less indigent. Health Is Not A Right it has got to be earned by doing the right thing. Our System now promotes Illness. it is not " healthcare" it is sickcare. healthcare is a misnomer just like (LIfe Insurance) lol

Ever been to the site? The offers aren't that different, they vary only in the details. I think health care co.s would do the same, one might be a little cheaper here, another a little cheaper there, but over all they would be about the same (kind of like wireless co.s now) I'm afraid we will have to endure a little gov't meddling to ensure they don't collude to keep prices up.

penguin2 · Jul 8, 2007

What payroll taxes? Sales taxes, yes but since most of the illegals i've known (I taught ESL) send a significant portion of their earnings home that isn't a huge income for the nation. The property tax gets paid whether any one lives in the rental property or not. Having the worker there does not raise any tax revenue.

Also of note, some of the highest crime rates are in hispanic communities. Many do NOT work, and as you say are sending money to Mexico or helping their families come here. I don't see any evidence of illegals HELPING the system. Add to the fact that they can drive uninsured vehicles and not be fined if they cause accidents (citing personal experience here) and I don't see a "contribution" to society here. I am not talking about LEGAL immigrants, they are hardworking contributors to the system.

penguin2 · Jul 8, 2007

There's little doubt at this point that the profit motive with U.S. healthcare doesn't work. We spend more than anybody else yet our system is ranked 37th. The only way to make a lot of money with our system is to deny care to a substantial portion of the population.
As the old saying goes ... behind every great fortune there's a crime ... and in our case, it's millions of crimes. With our system you can't get rich by insuring everybody, only by denying care.
In the movie Moore does interview a British doctor who says he's paid more if his patients are healthier with lower blood pressures, etc. Seems like that might work for us but, from a practical standpoint, it would never happen unless the government is the single payer with that mandate.
Because ... when you think about it ... the HMO's already have ample motive to keep the insured healthy. But, of course, that's not enough for the HMO's ... they want to make even more money and that means denying care even when the healthy insured get sick.
The government would have to force them to do it and, at that point, it would be government controlled healthcare anyway.
As Moore points out ... there are certain services that shouldn't be for profit and should only be controlled by the government ... like police and fire. Could you ever imagine the HMO's controlling police and fire services?
Sorry ... we know you're house is on fire but, we're denying coverage because of an exemption in your policy. We're going to let your house burn down.
Or ... sorry that someone has broken into your house and is murdering you but ... since you don't have insurance, we're not coming to help. We're going to let you die instead.
It's absurd, isn't it? Yet this is what we do with the healthcare. Just because we are a capitalist society doesn't mean everything should be for profit ... and with police and fire, it's not. Healthcare shouldn't be either.
:typing

Agree. And the problem is: do we trust our government enough to implement UHC???? I think NOT!!

penguin2 · Jul 8, 2007

That's why I thought Moore's interview with the British doctor was so fascinating. He's paid by the government, but he's paid even more if he keeps his patients healthy.
That, IMO, would be the way do it. A government system that pays MD's, nurses and all of the other direct healthcare staff more money for keeping patients healthy. That's a profit motive that would actually work and, would also keep costs down.
Because you've got to take Wall Street out of the equation. Wall Street isn't actually interested in keeping healthcare costs down ... the HMO phenomenon has proven this. HMO's promised they would cut costs but they didn't ... costs are still skyrocketing every year.
The fact is: Wall Street is interested in keeping revenues up and patient care costs down because 10 profit isn't enough for them. In fact, that's considered a failure ... you've got to have 20 percent profits or better or your stock tanks.
And on Wall Street those profits better go up year after year ... because keeping patients healthy isn't enough. You've got to deny care to meet those expectations and to be able to buy those multi-million dollar homes.
This is how we end up paying more for less quality healthcare.
:typing

But how much are we willing to have the government TAKE from our paychecks? From what I've read, in places w/UHC, France for instance, the government takes a MANDATORY 40% out of your check. I don't know about you, but I can't live on 60% of what I make!

penguin2 · Jul 8, 2007

No I do not want to continue the insurance system as it is and cover just the uninsured with medicaide/medicare. I want a single payer........the government........to insure everyone. One idea is to use the current system already in place and expand it to include all Americans.
I do not want the government however to blindly pay every bill they get, such as the person with a cold that goes to the ER. I think their reimbursement rates should be raised, but not blindly so that health care costs rise just because the government is willing to pay it.
I'm not sure I want to become a government employee and have the goverment take over all hospitals, doctors offices, etc. That would be too bloated and perhaps take capitalism out of our #1 industry.
Obviously there are a myriad of things to consider in UHC and one answer leads to more questions.
I am not necessarily a MM disciple. :)

And what about giving a break to healthy Americans who never use the system except for routine care??

HM2VikingRN, RN · Jul 8, 2007

What payroll taxes? Sales taxes, yes but since most of the illegals i've known (I taught ESL) send a significant portion of their earnings home that isn't a huge income for the nation. The property tax gets paid whether any one lives in the rental property or not. Having the worker there does not raise any tax revenue.

If they are working on a mismatched SS number (which does happen) they do pay in payroll taxes (SS, medicare, state, federal income tax etc). Believe it or not there is actually a program available through the IRS which helps undocumented immigrants file and pay taxes.

I must disagree with your assertion about sales taxes. In many states sales taxes are paid on every purchase. The point remains that they are paying taxes on the money that they earn here in the US. The studies and columns that I posted directly allude to the ways that they are paying into the health care system. Here is another example of how immigrants pay into supporting the health care system. In MN, there is a tax attached to cigarettes that is directly targeted to helping pay for MN Care. Anybody who smokes is paying into the funding stream for MN Care which is the health insurance program for the working poor. If you smoke you help pay for health care.

Objectives. We compared the health care expenditures of immigrants residing

in the United States with health care expenditures of US-born persons.
Methods. We used the 1998 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey linked to the
1996-1997 National Health Interview Survey to analyze data on 18398 US-born
persons and 2843 immigrants. Using a 2-part regression model, we estimated total
health care expenditures, as well as expenditures for emergency department
(ED) visits, office-based visits, hospital-based outpatient visits, inpatient visits,
and prescription drugs.
Results. Immigrants accounted for $39.5 billion (SE=$4 billion) in health care
expenditures. After multivariate adjustment, per capita total health care expenditures
of immigrants were 55% lower than those of US-born persons ($1139 vs
$2546). Similarly, expenditures for uninsured and publicly insured immigrants
were approximately half those of their US-born counterparts. Immigrant children
had 74% lower per capita health care expenditures than US-born children.
However, ED expenditures were more than 3 times higher for immigrant children
than for US-born children.
Conclusions. Health care expenditures are substantially lower for immigrants
than for US-born persons. Our study refutes the assumption that immigrants
represent a disproportionate financial burden on the US health care system.
(Am J Public Health. 2005;95:XXX-XXX. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.044602)

http://www.pnhp.org/PDF_files/Mohanty_Immigrants.pdf

HM2VikingRN, RN · Jul 8, 2007

behav. mod ward= clean ward kids dressed and clean, would line up in straight line to go to class, creativity flurished, the were happy for the most part, they became extraverted and played well and worked hard
quite a contrast and quite metaphor and microcosm of comparing a system that promotes responsibility and one that does not.

behaviorism only works if you establish an environment that supports and encourages positive behavior. a uhc system will establish a consistent environment that supports healthy behaviors. the health outcome results of countries with uhc show better outcomes.

instead, the united states has opted for a makeshift system of increasing complexity and dysfunction. americans spend $5,267 per capita on health care every year, almost two and half times ; the extra spending comes the industrialized world's median of $2,193to hundreds of billions of dollars a year. what does that extra spending buy us? americans have fewer doctors per capita than most western countries. we go to the doctor less than people in other western countries. we get admitted to the hospital less frequently than people in other western countries. we are less satisfied with our health care than our counterparts in other countries. american life expectancy is lower than the western average. childhood-immunization rates in the united states are lower than average. infant-mortality rates are in the nineteenth percentile of industrialized nations. doctors here perform more high-end medical procedures, such as coronary angioplasties, than in other countries, but most of the wealthier western countries have more ct scanners than the united states does, and switzerland, japan, austria, and finland all have more mri machines per capita. nor is our system more efficient. the united states spends more than a thousand dollars per capita per year--or close to four hundred billion dollars--on health-care-related paperwork and administration, whereas canada, for example, spends only about three hundred dollars per capita. and, of course, every other country in the industrialized world insures all its citizens; despite those extra hundreds of billions of dollars we spend each year, we leave forty-five million people without any insurance.

http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_08_29_a_hazard.html

the rest of the western world puts a real emphasis on preventive cares which does pay off in the outcome measures that matter.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Jul 8, 2007

But how much are we willing to have the government TAKE from our paychecks? From what I've read, in places w/UHC, France for instance, the government takes a MANDATORY 40% out of your check. I don't know about you, but I can't live on 60% of what I make!

This is the best proposal out there for the US (and no it won't raise your taxes.):

A universal public system would be financed this way: The public financing already funneled to Medicare and Medicaid would be retained. The difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%). The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees' health care. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and any and all other out of pocket payments. For the vast majority of people a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and in out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly for anyone who has had a serious illness or has a family member with a serious illness. It is also a fair and sustainable contribution. Currently, over 41 million people have no insurance and thousands of people with insurance are bankrupted when they have an accident or illness. Employers who currently offer no health insurance would pay more, but they would receive health insurance for the same low rate as larger firms. Many small employers have to pay 25% or more of payroll now for health insurance - so they end up not having insurance at all. For large employers, a payroll tax in the 7% range would mean they would pay less than they currently do (about 8.5%). No employer, moreover, would hold a competitive advantage over another because his cost of business did not include health care. And health insurance would disappear from the bargaining table between employers and employees.
Another consideration is that everyone would have the same comprehensive health coverage, including all medical, hospital, eye care, dental care, long-term care, and mental health services. Currently, many people and businesses are paying huge premiums for insurance that is almost worthless if they were to have a serious illness.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#raise_taxes

HM2VikingRN, RN · Jul 8, 2007

Agree. And the problem is: do we trust our government enough to implement UHC???? I think NOT!!

Jim Hightower nails it on the head.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Jul 8, 2007

As the nation struggles to improve medical and mental health care for military personnel returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, about 1.8 million U.S. veterans under age 65 lack even basic health insurance or access to care at Veterans Affairs hospitals, a new study has found.
The ranks of uninsured veterans have increased by 290,000 since 2000, said Stephanie J. Woolhandler, the Harvard Medical School professor who presented her findings yesterday before the House Committee on Veterans Affairs. About 12.7 percent of non-elderly veterans-or one in eight-lacked health coverage in 2004, the most recent year for which figures are available, she said, up from 9.9 percent in 2000. Veterans 65 and older are eligible for Medicare.
About 45 million Americans, or 15 percent of the population, were uninsured in 2005, the Census Bureau reports.
"The data is showing that many veterans have no coverage and they're sick and need care and can't get it," Woolhandler said.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/june/study_finds_18_mill.php

People who have served our country are being left uninsured.

On a personal note. This is post 1450 for me.

lindarn · Jul 8, 2007

Okay,so Medicaid/Medicare is better than bad insurance but not by much and a lot of providers don't want to take these pts b/c they don't reimburse well and this is run by the same gov't you want to take over all health care coverage?

Add Tricare to the list of who will no longer accept that form of insurance. I called the Orthopedist who did my knee surgery, and my husband's knee surgery, and I was told that the group voted to no longer accept Trcare. The OB-GYN, who delivered both of my kids, also no longer accepts Tricare. I now see a Family Doctor. I will now have to find an new orthopedist to look at and my knee, and so will my husband. My kids pediatrician also stopped taking Tricare several years ago, and we had to find a new pediatrician for them.

And why won't they take Tricare anymore? Because they don't get reimbursed enough. Nurses would do well to form "Practice Groups", like physicians. As a group, we will then have the power, and clout to get what we want.

Lindarn, RN, BSN, CCRN

Spokane, Washington

ramboRN, RN · Jul 8, 2007

If Nurses would join forces and get behind a rational Healthcare Policy we could definately make a difference if not totally dominate the debate. When I say rational i mean a policy that will not have a "Large Pool Of Money" available for the Government and thier collusion Businesses to exploit and change to thier benifit over time. I can see no other way than to put the money in the direct consumers hand so he has the power rather than Government Or other institutions. Let Market forces prevail. Lasse faire Capitalism in its pure form has never been tried or allowed show it value to mankind. we only have small case evidence that it will work. Healthcare would be the perfect place to give it a shot.

The small case evidence comes from the computer industry. The computer industry grew so fast by market forces that the government and all its colluders could not get a handle on it and exploit it for thier purposes. consequently the " Fountainhead" of values then spilled over into the marketplace and gives direct evidence of the value of "Lasse faire" capitalisms. We now can afford computers that only a few years ago would cost millions of Dollars { proof positive}Again Handcuff the govrnment and all its colluders and set the market free for the FIRST time and watch the magic of the free market do its thing. I would stake my life on the results.