Controversial Michael Moore Flick 'Sicko' Will Compare U.S. Health Care with Cuba's - page 16
... Read More
Jun 22, '07Quote from ceecel.deeHA HA HA LOLThere is a government run healthcare institution already. The VA. Anyone read anything about how that's going lately?
Jun 22, '07I 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.Last edit by fultzymom on Jun 22, '07
Jun 22, '07Quote from Captain TrippsCaptain...you are hilarious!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.
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.
Jun 22, '07I 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.
Jun 22, '07Quote from SharonH, RNYeah - 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.Thanks for posting that link, Steph. That site is very entertaining.
Jun 22, '07You might like to check out our health care system here in Oz:
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.
Jun 22, '07I 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.
Jun 22, '07Unfortunately, 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.
Jun 22, '07Why not kill the messenger? It dosen't matter who delivers the message. Only content is relevant. Is his?
Jun 22, '07Quote from chatsdalethe truth sometimes hurt and all he is doing is revealing pertinent infor. that is usually kept secret. we need to know these things. healthcare companies are in business for profit and could care less. i am sure the care in healthcare is derived from the word caring, something i most certainly do not associate with that business.not much respect for mm..hates americans as much as rosie
Jun 22, '07Quote from MaxsHere! Here!Although MM is not credible to speak of this subject, he is however, a celebrity/journalist and has the resources/right to make such documentaries and report it. The point of this documentary is to inform the public of this health desparitie (corrupt in the insurance business, congress and etc). On top of that, politicians are governed by three important principles; votes, funding, and publicity. Therefore, if this topic becomes important to the people, they're more likely to vote for the candidates in their best interest. So, we have raised this issue in nursing school, and guess what, none of us made a documentary about it because were not journalist. Therefore, I cheer for MM for his effort to make this documentary because you are not likely to hear such issues on the news (publicity) or from who ever pays congress (funding). And for those that believe MM is bashing this great nation, remember that this great nation is shaped by revolutionist who find the current policies/trends peccable.
Jun 22, '07Quote from heatherwoodthe problem with this idea is that he is actually not revealing pertinent info. he hacks and slashes at the actual truth until it fits his agenda. it is in no way a documentary. i still go back to my original post and say that this is not going to reveal anything to the general us populace, it's just going to start a war about how mm is lying/not lying/ blah, blah, blah. he is the absolute wrong person to deliver any sort of message to anyone.the truth sometimes hurt and all he is doing is revealing pertinent infor. that is usually kept secret. we need to know these things. healthcare companies are in business for profit and could care less. i am sure the care in healthcare is derived from the word caring, something i most certainly do not associate with that business.
if you look at it strictly as entertainment or an opinion piece, that's another story.Last edit by mvanz9999 on Jun 22, '07
Jun 22, '07Of course it is an opinion piece. That means there is a point of view.
After the weekend of June 29th -July 1st I will post a disagreement with Moores opinion of one scenario in the movie.
Unless someone else posts it first.
Then I'll just agree.
Ken Burns jazz documentary point of view was that Louis Armstrong was the greatest innovator and personality in the history of the genre.