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

Nurses Activism

Published

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

Specializes in ER Occ Health Urgent Care.

All i can say is I can't wait untill the US has a wonderful system like that in place. My vote in the next elelction wll certainly go to the canidate who will fight for universal health care. And I'm so thankful to everyone including MM who are willing to tell the truth, even at the risk of being called unpatriotic.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.

Americans have too much of an Independence streak to ever approve gov't restricted healthcare. This will always be a loser issue. Harry and Louise will ALWAYS point out the fundamental flaws in this idea. And, make no mistake, the idea is fundamentally flawed.

Not to mention that the left is not very good at holding their cards. Things like Edwards asking for mandatory preventive care reveal the true nature of gov't restricted healthcare: controlling the citizenry.

Want universal coverage? Make it a requirement, like auto insurance. Automatically payroll deduct for those that can't prove coverage. Means test it so the poorest get it for free, and as you earn more money, the cost is supplemented until you earn enough you can afford it on your own. Mass recently passed JUST this type of legislation under Gov. Romney.

But go even further. Remove the gov't red tape and expensive requirements for insurance. Require only a catastrophic plan, and then let people choose the day to day coverage they want, if any at all.

In addition, completely decouple insurance from work. End the subsidy for employer provided insurance. Shift the subsidy to the individual. Do you think GEICO would EVER require useless forms to verify coverage in order to use it as an excuse to deny future coverage? Well, no. BECAUSE, they have to actually compete for your business.

EVERYBODY would be covered, and the gov't wouldn't own the system. There would be incentive to get your own coverage (to avoid the gov'ts pricing and plan) and incentive to design a plan to your own liking.

But, having the gov't take over healthcare? That's not about healthcare; that's about ideology. I've said this before: gov't restricted healthcare is a proxy for socialist ideology. You can call it progressive if you like that name better. The end result is that this ideology cares more about itself than the poor uncovered poor. Given a chance to actually implement a system that could provide coverage, but would be short of socialist takeover, the socialist would not choose coverage.

The ideology is more important than healthcare.

And that's not very compassionate.

~faith,

Timothy.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ER, ICU, L&D, OR.
All i can say is I can't wait untill the US has a wonderful system like that in place. My vote in the next elelction wll certainly go to the canidate who will fight for universal health care. And I'm so thankful to everyone including MM who are willing to tell the truth, even at the risk of being called unpatriotic.

Amen, Halleleujah, I'm with ya brother

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ER, ICU, L&D, OR.
Americans have too much of an Independence streak to ever approve gov't restricted healthcare. This will always be a loser issue. Harry and Louise will ALWAYS point out the fundamental flaws in this idea. And, make no mistake, the idea is fundamentally flawed.

Not to mention that the left is not very good at holding their cards. Things like Edwards asking for mandatory preventive care reveal the true nature of gov't restricted healthcare: controlling the citizenry.

Want universal coverage? Make it a requirement, like auto insurance. Automatically payroll deduct for those that can't prove coverage. Means test it so the poorest get it for free, and as you earn more money, the cost is supplemented until you earn enough you can afford it on your own. Mass recently passed JUST this type of legislation under Gov. Romney.

But go even further. Remove the gov't red tape and expensive requirements for insurance. Require only a catastrophic plan, and then let people choose the day to day coverage they want, if any at all.

In addition, completely decouple insurance from work. End the subsidy for employer provided insurance. Shift the subsidy to the individual. Do you think GEICO would EVER require useless forms to verify coverage in order to use it as an excuse to deny future coverage? Well, no. BECAUSE, they have to actually compete for your business.

EVERYBODY would be covered, and the gov't wouldn't own the system. There would be incentive to get your own coverage (to avoid the gov'ts pricing and plan) and incentive to design a plan to your own liking.

But, having the gov't take over healthcare? That's not about healthcare; that's about ideology. I've said this before: gov't restricted healthcare is a proxy for socialist ideology. You can call it progressive if you like that name better. The end result is that this ideology cares more about itself than the poor uncovered poor. Given a chance to actually implement a system that could provide coverage, but would be short of socialist takeover, the socialist would not choose coverage.

The ideology is more important than healthcare.

And that's not very compassionate.

~faith,

Timothy.[/quote

Timmy, are we not and can we not get past all these socialistic and communistic concerns and McCarthy era fears. Healthcare will be an ideaology of universal care and concern equal for everyone. What is basically wrong with that concept.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
Timmy, are we not and can we not get past all these socialistic and communistic concerns and McCarthy era fears. Healthcare will be an ideaology of universal care and concern equal for everyone. What is basically wrong with that concept.

What is basically wrong with this concept is that it defies the laws of economics, and that simply cannot be legislated away. Socialism is more than McCarthy era fears. It is a flawed and failed concept. Nations have gone down to defeat, not by foreign enemies, but by the destructive nature of their socialist ideologies.

The law of supply and demand requires that both be in inverse balance with each other. As demand goes up, supplies go down. And, vice versa. It is a balance.

FREE anything is delimiting the restriction upon demand. Unlimited demand (because there is no price fixed to demand) means, since demand is raised to infinity, so must supply. Since that is impossible, the only other way to keep demand in check is to ration supply.

It is what MUST happen. It's an economic law. Ted Kennedy can't make it go away. YOU can't have your cake, and eat it, too. There's a law against it, and it isn't a law written in Washington.

Gov't restricted healthcare is JUST that. Not to mention, it is completely unnecessary. You want to cover everybody: do it. THAT doesn't require taking over 1/7th of the economy. The principle advantage of gov't restricted healthcare is a gov't takeover of healthcare.

At issue is this fundamental concept of equality of outcome. IF you believe that everybody should have the same, no matter HOW much they put in, then gov't restricted healthcare is a fine idea. I'll admit, an equal share in a dismal outcome is, nevertheless, equal. Dismal, but equal.

IF you believe in equal opportunity and the rewards for your own input, gov't restricted anything is a nightmare. Socialist/progressives see gov't as the ultimate arbiter of equalized outcomes: redistribute until everything is equal. THAT is the principle benefit of gov't restricted healthcare. It isn't about providing access to everyone; it's about ensuring that some, however well earned, don't have more access than others.

Ultimately, Americans don't believe that. THAT is why socialists have changed their name to progressive. The name change is an admission that the ideas are damaged goods in mainstream thought. You tacitly admit that with your rebuttal against calling a socialist idea, well, socialist. "Can't we just move past that?" Sure, just explain how socializing medicine ISN'T socialism.

It is also why Americans will not go for gov't restrictive care. And, you know it. It is why the movement is desperate to remove the socialist label to a socialist product. Calling a spade a spade is a death sentence for socialized medicine.

Americans are generous to a fault. They WILL go for universal coverage. They will NOT, however, trade what they have now for a dismal share in an equal outcome. Helping those less fortunate is one thing. Using the power of the gov't to take from the majority to equalize outcomes is another.

Americans are savvy enough to understand the difference. This I believe.

Here's a quote from one of the heroes of the movement, LBJ: "You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered. "

The pitfalls of 'improperly administered', when it comes to your health, is what is wrong with gov't restrictive healthcare.

Ultimately, I don't trust the gov't further than I could throw the massive beast. THIS concept too, is very American and will be very difficult to overcome in trying to bring about gov't restricted healthcare. Ask Hillary about that.

The American public just doesn't trust the gov't to do what you want it to do, or we'd already HAVE gov't restricted care. The masses do not want their healthcare administered by the DMV. When the full cost of restricted healthcare is laid out, those that advocate such trust in the gov't remain a very fringe group.

(btw, I appreciate the sarcastic use of my name. I'm not offended, in the least.)

~faith,

Timothy.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Med-Surg, Home Health, LTC.
How Un-American of you to hold up France, of all places as an example to us. Don't you know we are in a war against the terrorists? I bet you don't even have a ribbon magnet on your SUV! You probably are aiding and abetting illegal aliens too! You are the reason Taco Bell had to pay an extra penny per bushel to those illegal aliens and forego giving their CEO an extra million dollars last year!

Shame on you!

Please do not tell me you are a licensed nurse....

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Equalized opportunity does not equate to equality of results. It is in the broad interest of the economy and everyone else to ensure access to primary care services with minimal to no copays. EG immunizations, annual physical exam, annual eye exam and annual dental exam.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
Equalized opportunity does not equate to equality of results. It is in the broad interest of the economy and everyone else to ensure access to primary care services with minimal to no copays. EG immunizations, annual physical exam, annual eye exam and annual dental exam.

Maybe.

What you describe in this post can be accomplished much cheaper than socializing medicine. However, it just wouldn't meet with your goal to socialize this part of the economy to actually focus on providing such coverage. As such, healthcare and all its intended 'compassion' is just a proxy for a political ideology; the ideology is more important.

Tell me, HOW is it in the interest of the economy to ensure that MY level of coverage cannot be more than everybody else? THAT is equalizing outcomes, whether you mince words about it, or not.

Gov't takeover is about eliminating the advantage of hard work and personal effort. In reality, you don't believe that anybody SHOULD have the ability to use their hard work and effort to provide themselves with a better system of coverage.

Why shouldn't I have the best care that I can afford? Why does improving healthcare for some necessitate, in your book, decimating it for others. Oh, I know why: you think that equates to some sort of fairness.

I just don't think you will find a majority of Americans willing to adopt a dismal decrease in their own healthcare to satify your definition of social justice. At its heart, Americans are a bootstrap pulling society that long ago abandoned such ideas. We are a better, more compassionate nation, as a result.

I defy you to tell me that this is completely about healthcare and not about your ideas regarding social justice; that you would exchange your concept of 'equal access' for a concept of universal access. THEN we could talk about how best to improve healthcare. (Be careful, once you submit that this is only about healthcare, then you must be willing to also submit to ways to improve healthcare that DON'T involve socializing the economy. I'll hold you to it, in thread after thread, using that post as a link.)

See, if you remove the concept of an inflated view of social justice and instead, focus on coverage, gov't restricted healthcare would be off the table. It's that simple. Therefore, it's that untenable.

~faith,

Timothy.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in OB, HH, ADMIN, IC, ED, QI.

Dear Timothy:

Your admirable verbeage has content, but little substance for me, which leads me to believe that my comment was misunderstood. You seem to think that the more private healthcare insurance coverage one has, the better care, should be received, which would necessitate more than 100% being given those who spend more money on it.

On a visit to Canada I mentioned to my neice, a doctor there, that diagnostic radiology was deferred in my medical situation, due to its cost. She murmured, "Oh, you do have to think of that, there?". What is indicated, is done in Canadian healthcare! No one waits for funding to have a procedure, only for their place in line which is determined by acuity.

Government blessing is not necessarily government bungling in other countries. The ideal way to run a medical program, is with those active in its administration, in charge. Financiers run our insurance programs, whether private or government funded here in the USA, which is bringing great frustration and cries of "foul" by caregivers and recipients of care alike.

Medicare recipients are refused medical care in many places, by doctors boycotting our present system of reimbursement. Is that fair? Interestingly they don't act similarly when the medication/procedures they deem necessary are refused by private insurance, which has one and only one goal - the profit earned!:o

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in OB, HH, ADMIN, IC, ED, QI.
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".

Up Vote Up Vote ×

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.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

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?article=the_health_of_nations

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Add a Comment