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

[HM2VikingRN]

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

[fronkey bean]

So, when you start nursing school, are you going to get need-based financial aid? These would be socialist programs, would they not? Have you filled out a FAFSA?

I would really be interested in seeing how many people who oppose UHC received/are receiving need-based financial aid (Pell grants, etc.) in nursing school. Is this not another social program that enables people to lift themselves up, better themselves, thus bettering society as a whole? How is this different from UHC in principle?

Scholarships and loans

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

The difference between socialized medicine and single payer is this:

Socialized medicine means that drs, nurses etc are all employees of government.

single payer means that there is a single payment source. Hospitals, clinics etc are independent and in competition with each other.

Bull.

He who pays, decides. It's an immutable law of economics. Providers of any product/service will always cater to the person PAYING them as that is their true customer.

THAT is what is wrong with healthcare, now. It's too much of a third party payor system. The CURRENT system is warped by gov't being too far into bed with corporations. You propose much more of the same.

The system you have just identified is nothing more than corporate welfare: Uncle Daddy pays, by contract, for your healthcare. Imagine Halliburton, in charge of your healthcare. THAT is essentially the system for which you are advocating.

You want it both ways: Uncle Daddy pays, and yet, YOU are the true customer. Except, you can't have your cake, and eat it, too.

~faith,

Timothy.

[grv68]

Ive read through this thread and my two cents for contributions are:

1. Moore may start off with right intentions but tends to be over the top in most cases. In this film had he simply presented the criteria the WHO uses in ranking health care then the movie would indeed be damning.

2. That said no health care system is perfect and "ours" is certainly held hostage by pharmaceutical and lobbying groups. What do you expect when a society has no social net? The Euros have high taxes to fund their system, perfect or imperfect as they may seem, but suggest to most Americans to pay 40% in taxes out of each check you will see a public lynching. The cultural divide continues in that we have more debt and more consumerism and our states vary in where monies are allocated: for example one town may choose to spend tax money on their education system which makes their town have higher SAT scores, college placements, etc. Research economic data and tell me if you can compare the state of NY to the state of MS (no disrespect to MS). Northern industrial to agrarian economy that appears on paper to still be in Reconstruction.

3. I suspect Castro pulled out all the stops to "shame" the US when Moore did this film. I have distant relatives in Cuba that are doctors (cardiologists in fact) and they make $18/month. Confounding, no? So yes you may have socialized medicine but if you have to wait six months and hope you dont die in the meantime what is the point? If you dont have insurance and cant get help as is the case here at times then what is the point? Results are the same.

4. Separate health care from military politics. Apples and oranges. You might be surprised to know many folks around the world respect and like Americans but despise our government. We are a generous people. I am waiting for someone to do an expose on the VA system where returning vets are denied mental health because of "pre-existing personality issues." That is worth a film and an ounce of outrage. In matters of politics I will defend anyone's right to say what they want no matter how much I disagree with it. Open discourse is better than people disappearing in the night. Orwell wasn't too far off the mark at times -speaking of all governments and imperial practices. Cultural politics are complicated matters, living and dying is straightforward.

5. I walked away from "Sicko" contemplating more of what it means to have a "society" and if we are any closer to a functional one. What does it mean to be a "citizen of the world" and get away from dichotomous "us vs them" thinking. If people are angry then why are they angry? Simple "they are jealous" is childish reductionist thinking. There is a distinction to be made between "Society" and "Civilization". We treat our pets better than we treat each other.

6. The poorest and most abject case of neglect here does not merit comparison with someone who lives in sub-Saharan Africa and other underdeveloped countries. We have a "system" and they have nothing. Something to contemplate. Does not matter if you are "left" "right" or whatever, go and look at Africa or Bombay and tell me that the sights, conditions, and smells dont move you to tears. My point is in terms of dollar and cents one is left to infer human life doesn't amount to much. As nurses we may be treated just as poorly as people in Moore's film. Perverse irony that we are the first face of "health care" people will encounter.

Ive said it in previous posts:

Treating the body and spirit are ultimately outside of the black and red margins of profit. We all lose if everything is predicated on dollars and cents.

My only bias is my belief that in this country where there is so much wealth there should be no child that goes without food or an education, and no adult should be homeless. In every society there are those who cant work (physical or mental impairment) but every human being wants to feel useful and connected to something. Call me an optimist.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

The Nation did write an expose about the abuse of the "Personality Disorder" clause by DOD. (VA actually isn't the bad actor in this case. Eligibility for VA benefits is determined by discharge type. If DOD gives the veteran a bad discharge than that disqualifies the veteran for VA care.)

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

Bull.

He who pays, decides. It's an immutable law of economics. Providers of any product/service will always cater to the person PAYING them as that is their true customer.

THAT is what is wrong with healthcare, now. It's too much of a third party payor system. The CURRENT system is warped by gov't being too far into bed with corporations. You propose much more of the same.

The system you have just identified is nothing more than corporate welfare: Uncle Daddy pays, by contract, for your healthcare. Imagine Halliburton, in charge of your healthcare. THAT is essentially the system for which you are advocating.

You want it both ways: Uncle Daddy pays, and yet, YOU are the true customer. Except, you can't have your cake, and eat it, too.

~faith,

Timothy.

The profit motive does not belong in health care. We (as a society) cannot afford to continue to pay 30% of our health care dollars to profit and administrative costs.

Your vaunted choice in the private system is illusory. If your insurance is through an HMO, PPO or whatever you can go to any provider on THEIR list. In a true single payer system YOU as the patient can go to any provider that you choose.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

[HannitizeYou]

The difference between socialized medicine and single payer is this:

Socialized medicine means that drs, nurses etc are all employees of government.

single payer means that there is a single payment source. Hospitals, clinics etc are independent and in competition with each other.

Considering we live in America and last time I checked, America is a capitalist country, the free market system should continue to be applied to the current health care model. Not everyone in America wants to wait 6 months to get an MRI like they do in Canada, England and Germany.

Sean

[pickledpepperRN]

I was "fully insured" by PacifiCare. Waiting for authorizations had me wait exactly six weeks for an MRI. It was a total of 11 weekd befor they authorized the physical therapy that finally helped.

That is 11 weeks I was disabled instead of working my full time night shift in the ICU. Taxpayers supported me on state disability.

WELCOME TO ALLNURSES.COM!

What field of nursing are you in?

[HannitizeYou]

I was "fully insured" by PacifiCare. Waiting for authorizations had me wait exactly six weeks for an MRI. It was a total of 11 weekd befor they authorized the physical therapy that finally helped.

That is 11 weeks I was disabled instead of working my full time night shift in the ICU. Taxpayers supported me on state disability.

WELCOME TO ALLNURSES.COM!

What field of nursing are you in?

Hmm -- 6 weeks is better than 6 months in my opinion. When I hurt my knee last year, I had an MRI within 2 days of my injury. My insurance is blue cross blue shield, blue care. The day of the injury I stayed while the nurse called blue cross to get the pre-cert, once the pre-cert was given I called around to local MRI centers to find out when the fastest available appointment could be granted. Like I said, two days post injury the MRI was completed and fully paid for. This required some proactivity on my part, in other words, I didn't sit around and wait for everyone to do everything for me, because most people are lazy in my opinion. I dont know what happenned in your particular situation but maybe you should try to be more pro-active and not blame everything on private insurers, at the same time somehow believing if government comes in and takes over all of these problems will magically disappear. Just my opinion. Oh and by the way, I am a nurse anesthetist.

Sean.

[HannitizeYou]

I was "fully insured" by PacifiCare. Waiting for authorizations had me wait exactly six weeks for an MRI. It was a total of 11 weekd befor they authorized the physical therapy that finally helped.

That is 11 weeks I was disabled instead of working my full time night shift in the ICU. Taxpayers supported me on state disability.

WELCOME TO ALLNURSES.COM!

What field of nursing are you in?

Additionally something that might help in the future if you ever become injured, you should try to be more pro-active with your care. For instance, going to the library and reading books about your specific injury might enable you to empower yourself to actually engage in therapeutic activity in the home environment rather than waiting around for a physical therapist to tell you what exercises to do. You can even get some self help therapeutics, hot packs, ice, analgesics are readily available and with a little self directed learning you would be surprised what the body is capable of accomplishing.

Sean

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

considering we live in america and last time i checked, america is a capitalist country, the free market system should continue to be applied to the current health care model. not everyone in america wants to wait 6 months to get an mri like they do in canada, england and germany.

sean

absolutely a myth. see http://pnhp.org/facts/myths_memes.pdf

• there are now more than 45 million americans without health insurance,

in itself an important key to adequate access to care (8).

• almost 60 million americans lack health insurance at some point during

the year (9).

• about 20 million american families, representing 43 million people, had

trouble paying medical bills in 2003; many had trouble gaining access to

health care and paying for other basic necessities—rent, mortgage payments,

transportation, or food (10).

• twenty percent of the uninsured cannot afford health insurance even if offered

by their employers (11).

• about two-thirds of the uninsured have no regular physician and have costrelated

barriers to physician visits, prescription drugs, and necessary care (12).

• about one-half of the non-elderly u.s. population earn less than $50,000 a

year, and have major problems in affording health care (13).

• in 32 states, a parent working full-time at a minimum wage of $5.15 an hour

is ineligible for medicaid and cannot afford health insurance (14).

• americans with above-average incomes have more access problems than patients in canada, the united kingdom, australia, and new zealand

(figure 1) (15).

• overcrowding of emergency rooms in canada is increasingly mirrored by the same problem in the united states, though underreported in this country. physicians at the los angeles county–usc medical center have testified that some emergency room patients can wait up to four days for a bed and that others may die before receiving care (17). of the millions of americans crowding u.s. emergency rooms, many have problems that could have been prevented by earlier care; they end up being charged the highest rates for emergency care, then are released with often inadequate follow-up care (18).

• though admittedly the canadian system is underfunded, and extended waits for some elective services may be a problem in some parts of the country, these problems are often exaggerated by its detractors based on unreliable self-reported data. in 1998, fewer than 1 percent of canadians were on waiting lists, with fewer than 10 percent of these waiting longer than four months

(19). waiting times in the united states, even for the privately insured, are now increasing for checkups as well as for sick visits (20).

comprehensive and reliable provincial databases on waiting times show that in recent years, waiting times have decreased while services have increased.

for example, coronary bypass surgery increased by 66 percent between 1991 and 1997 in manitoba, while waiting times were reduced for that procedure and also shortened for five other elective procedures—carotid endarterectomy, cholecystectomy, hernia repair, tonsillectomy, and transurethral resection of the prostate (21).

accessed 8/25/07.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

a dose of reality aboout drug innovation:

even though r&d costs of many drugs developed in the united states

are funded in large part by federal tax monies through basic research by the national institutes of health, drug manufacturers exaggerate their own r&d expenditures, claiming that about $800 million are expended to bring a new drug to market (77). studies by public citizen’s health research group put that figure closer to $110 million (78).

and

fifty-seven percent of the more important new drugs are discovered by

r&d in other countries and later marketed in the united states (81). the european federation of pharmaceutical industries, despite the presence of price controls in their countries, spent $47 billion on r&d in 2002, about 50 percent more than r&d spending by u.s. drug manufacturers (82, 83).

source: http://pnhp.org/facts/myths_memes.pdf accessed 8/25/07.