Controversial Michael Moore Flick 'Sicko' Will Compare U.S. Health Care with Cuba's - page 70

... Read More

  1. by   lamazeteacher
    Quote from Hospice Nurse LPN
    I agree with Chatsdale. I have no respect for anyone who puts this great country down!
    Then have respect for what works in other countries with success in tye healthcare field, and be on the side of being an informed consumer, who works to improve things that need improvement! "We are not an island".
  2. by   HM2VikingRN
    Tim,
    I have repeatedly posted one solution to your concerns about being able to purchase "better" coverage. Google "The health of nations" and you will find a link to how the French have addressed this issue. It is a model that you might like if you take the time to read and think about it.

    I have read several articles for school this quarter that discuss the impact of moving towards a primary care/md as gatekeeper model. Interestingly enough unlimited access/pt self referral to specialist care without the mediation of a primary care physician DOES NOT lead to better outcomes if anything it leads to worse outcomes.

    My central point remains that reducing disparities in health care for the uninsured will lead to better use of resources and better outcomes on average for all people.
    Last edit by HM2VikingRN on Sep 12, '07
  3. by   HM2VikingRN
    i decided to make it easy:

    france
    it's a common lament among health-policy wonks that the world's best health-care system resides in a country americans are particularly loath to learn from. yet france's system is hard to beat. where canada's system has a high floor and a low ceiling, france's has a high floor and no ceiling. the government provides basic insurance for all citizens, albeit with relatively robust co-pays, and then encourages the population to also purchase supplementary insurance -- which 86 percent do, most of them through employers, with the poor being subsidized by the state. this allows for as high a level of care as an individual is willing to pay for, and may help explain why waiting lines are nearly unknown in france.
    france's system is further prized for its high level of choice and responsiveness -- attributes that led the world health organization to rank it the finest in the world (america's system came in at no. 37, between costa rica and slovenia). the french can see any doctor or specialist they want, at any time they want, as many times as they want, no referrals or permissions needed. the french hospital system is similarly open. about 65 percent of the nation's hospital beds are public, but individuals can seek care at any hospital they want, public or private, and receive the same reimbursement rate no matter its status. given all this, the french utilize more care than americans do, averaging six physician visits a year to our 2.8, and they spend more time in the hospital as well. yet they still manage to spend half per capita than we do, largely due to lower prices and a focus on preventive care. (emphasis added).
    ...
    problem is, studies show that individuals are pretty bad at distinguishing necessary care from unnecessary care, and so they tend to cut down on mundane-but-important things like hypertension medicine, which leads to far costlier complications. moreover, many health problems don't lend themselves to bargain shopping. it's a little tricky to try to negotiate prices from an ambulance gurney.
    a wiser approach is to seek to separate cost-effective care from unproven treatments, and align the financial incentives to encourage the former and discourage the latter. the french have addressed this by creating what amounts to a tiered system for treatment reimbursement. as jonathan cohn explains in his new book, sick:
    in order to prevent cost sharing from penalizing people with serious medical problems -- the way health savings accounts threaten to do -- the [french] government limits every individual's out-of-pocket expenses. in addition, the government has identified thirty chronic conditions, such as diabetes and hypertension, for which there is usually no cost sharing, in order to make sure people don't skimp on preventive care that might head off future complications.
    http://prospect.org/cs/articles?arti...lth_of_nations
  4. by   fronkey bean
    Quote from hm2viking
    i decided to make it easy:

    france
    it's a common lament among health-policy wonks that the world's best health-care system resides in a country americans are particularly loath to learn from. yet france's system is hard to beat. where canada's system has a high floor and a low ceiling, france's has a high floor and no ceiling. the government provides basic insurance for all citizens, albeit with relatively robust co-pays, and then encourages the population to also purchase supplementary insurance -- which 86 percent do, most of them through employers, with the poor being subsidized by the state. this allows for as high a level of care as an individual is willing to pay for, and may help explain why waiting lines are nearly unknown in france.
    france's system is further prized for its high level of choice and responsiveness -- attributes that led the world health organization to rank it the finest in the world (america's system came in at no. 37, between costa rica and slovenia). the french can see any doctor or specialist they want, at any time they want, as many times as they want, no referrals or permissions needed. the french hospital system is similarly open. about 65 percent of the nation's hospital beds are public, but individuals can seek care at any hospital they want, public or private, and receive the same reimbursement rate no matter its status. given all this, the french utilize more care than americans do, averaging six physician visits a year to our 2.8, and they spend more time in the hospital as well. yet they still manage to spend half per capita than we do, largely due to lower prices and a focus on preventive care. (emphasis added).
    ...
    problem is, studies show that individuals are pretty bad at distinguishing necessary care from unnecessary care, and so they tend to cut down on mundane-but-important things like hypertension medicine, which leads to far costlier complications. moreover, many health problems don't lend themselves to bargain shopping. it's a little tricky to try to negotiate prices from an ambulance gurney.

    a wiser approach is to seek to separate cost-effective care from unproven treatments, and align the financial incentives to encourage the former and discourage the latter. the french have addressed this by creating what amounts to a tiered system for treatment reimbursement. as jonathan cohn explains in his new book, sick:
    in order to prevent cost sharing from penalizing people with serious medical problems -- the way health savings accounts threaten to do -- the [french] government limits every individual's out-of-pocket expenses. in addition, the government has identified thirty chronic conditions, such as diabetes and hypertension, for which there is usually no cost sharing, in order to make sure people don't skimp on preventive care that might head off future complications.
    http://prospect.org/cs/articles?arti...lth_of_nations
    viking, didn't someone say earlier in this thread that france was having to reduce services and raise copays because of the overwhelming cost of their system?
  5. by   paola go!
    Hi!
    I'm an Italian nurse, I saw Moore's movie and I conferm that in Italy all related health is free for all the people, not regular people also.
    But there are a lot of problems, as waiting several days if health problem is not urgent, or fews nurses, or old sick people and few nursing homes ...
    But I'm proud to have an universal health system and I fight all days to better it, with other nurses.

    I hope United States will be a great country for medical and nursing free care, is a priority right and a justice problem.

    (Sorry for my English writing!)

    Paola. Milan, Italy
  6. by   HM2VikingRN
    The point is that France is accomplishing better care at about half the cost. The model is worth examining for lessons learned.

    Better that than this:
    https://allnurses.com/forums/f112/ed...ml#post2397340
    Last edit by HM2VikingRN on Sep 13, '07
  7. by   Happy RN
    I have not yet seen this film, but am anxious to see it. Reading your comments have been interesting. I love Michael Moore, and am personally glad there is someone who raises the questions that we normally do not consider. He exposes themes that need to be scrutinized by the American public. I appreciate the work he does.
  8. by   bakpakr
    Went and saw Sicko today. All I can say is wow. I know it was a one sided view. But WOW. It was a very eye opening movie. I knew and know our health care system is in pretty bad shape but I did not realize just how bad.

    I thought the examples of universal health care show were great models that we could and should take a serious look at in bringing universal health care to the US. This is not a one size fits all type situation. but we need to look at all options out there and pick and choose what will work here.

    As to how to get it done well first off we are going to have to get the pharmaceutical companies out of the politicians pockets. Also get the insurance companies out of the politicians pockets. Then and only then will we be able to get a serious dialog going. But until then it will not happen. Another thing that must and should happen is for the citizens to get off their behinds and speak up that they want to take a look at this.

    Now the subject of paying for it will come up. Yes taxes will have to be raised no way around it. Now the nay sayers are cheering for that last point. But I hate to say, in my opinion that is a moot point. You see the amount that taxes will have to be raised will be offset by the amount we will be saving by not having to pay out the exorbitant amounts of money we now pay for insurance and medications.

    I know it will not be perfect but at least everyone will have health care.
  9. by   sunshine_carly
    Hi everyone. I'm an Aussie RN, and last week I saw the movie Sicko. I was just wondering if the health system in America is really as bad as the movie makes out?? Just wondering as well, as nurses, what do you think about universal healthcare? I am hoping to come and work in the US, in 2009, so thats also why I'm curious!
  10. by   tvccrn
    I haven't seen the movie, but I don't care for the concept of socialized medicine.

    I am the first to admit that I know nothing about it except for the fact that I live in Wisconsin and the number of Canadians that come here for their healthcare becasue of the problems in Canada tell me lot.

    The medications may cost less, but waiting 2 years for an appointment with a specialist doesn't seem something I prefer to do.

    tvccrn
  11. by   sunshine_carly
    2 years to see a specialist??!! I was complaining about waiting a month!
  12. by   JOLLIEHOLLY
    Quote from sunshine_carly
    Hi everyone. I'm an Aussie RN, and last week I saw the movie Sicko. I was just wondering if the health system in America is really as bad as the movie makes out?? Just wondering as well, as nurses, what do you think about universal healthcare? I am hoping to come and work in the US, in 2009, so thats also why I'm curious!
    I am a conservative. I cannot stand Micheal fat ass Moore. His movies are completely worthless. I doubt he could make his movies any more one sided and liberal. Anyone who wastes their time watching this movie instead of doing there own research deserves no respect. I said it once and I'll say it again. I'd rather be a conservative nut job than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
  13. by   Sensoria17
    Quote from JOLLIEHOLLY
    I am a conservative. I cannot stand Micheal fat ass Moore. His movies are completely worthless. I doubt he could make his movies any more one sided and liberal. Anyone who wastes their time watching this movie instead of doing there own research deserves no respect. I said it once and I'll say it again. I'd rather be a conservative nut job than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
    Either way, you are a still a nut job and will be viewed as such.

close