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

[bakpakr]

Am sorry but I do not agree with the post to the Aussie RN!

MM is a sensationalist who shows the WORST of everything and none of the good in order to get everyone worked up - - - but where are his solutions?

There is NO FREE healthcare in ANY nation in the world. Universal healthcare does not mean FREE healthcare. It just means everyone who has ambition and drive and a good income gets taxed MORE to pay for healthcare of those who do not make good choices in life.

And as far as the woman who had the husband who was DENIED a certain cancer therapy, the insurance company didn't kill him, the CANCER did. There are lots of chemo out there that is simply a delaying of the inevitable. Further more when one chooses a healthcare plan one should KNOW what they are buying. Not all insurance plans are alike.

There is no FREE healthcare in the ENTIRE world.

Jerico you have made some valid points. And I agree with a good bit of what you said. But it seems you have fallen into the trap laid by the Insurance and pharmaceutical companys.

Yes Michael Moore is a sensationalist. But if you had done your research you would have learned he purposly did not provide any solutions. The reason being he felt it would be better to provide as much information as he could in his way which I agree is onesided and he wants the American citizenry to decide how and what sort of solution is necessary. It is his feeling that we need to take a stand on our own to rectify the health issue.

As for your statement that there is no free healthcare anywhere in the world you are mistaken. We have it right here in the good ole US of A. Look at the military heathcare system. It is free for members of the military.

The number of US citizens traveling abroad for healthcare is on the rise. Also more citizens are seeking medications from abroad as well. Just look at the debacle over trying to stop people from importing medications from Canada and from Mexico. For your reading pleasure;

http://www.webmd.com/news/20061018/more-americans-seeking-surgery-abroad

Yes there are no two insurance policies alike and reading them is a must. But heaven forbid that either you or one of your loved ones is denied life saving or prolonging care because the insurance company decides it is either not indicated or cost effective. They make these decisions every day without ever seeing the patient and basing the decision not on what is best for the patient but what is best for the insurance companies bottom line. They are in it to make money. Thus they will do what is best to maximize profits irregardless of whether the patient needs the care or not. If you would just google the issue you will find a myriad of sites telling the horror stories with the insurance providers. Many of whom had great coverage and were still either denied care or had the policy canceled outright all at the whim of the insurance company.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

to say the least i think that is a misstatement of the single payer argument. a tax based health insurance system will deliver better results at a lower cost. the evidence is there to show that a shift in focus to a primary care prevention oriented system will deliver better results at lower costs.

with 54% of bankruptcies in the us driven by nedical expenses we simply need to come up with a better system. quotas exist in our current system. have you seen a benefit for "xxxx" poster lately to help defer medical expenses? the reality is that a 31% profit and expense ratio is diverting money away from patient care.

see:

in so doing, the ncpa analysis completely ignores access problems for many

millions of americans, as illustrated by these examples:

* 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).

source: http://pnhp.org/facts/myths_memes.pdf accessed today.

the most telling point is the last bullet point. (emphasis added.)

[BBFRN, BSN, PhD]

Can I just reiterate that NO ONE HERE THINKS THAT MEDICAL CARE WILL BE FREE. That is not what universal health care is about. We are all aware that it will take taxpayer money to fund UHC.

[teeituptom, BSN, RN]

Can I just reiterate that NO ONE HERE THINKS THAT MEDICAL CARE WILL BE FREE. That is not what universal health care is about. We are all aware that it will take taxpayer money to fund UHC.

And it will be a far better use also

[Jerico, BSN, RN]

J

...Yes Michael Moore is a sensationalist. But if you had done your research you would have learned he purposly did not provide any solutions. The reason being he felt it would be better to provide as much information as he could in his way which I agree is onesided and he wants the American citizenry to decide how and what sort of solution is necessary. It is his feeling that we need to take a stand on our own to rectify the health issue.

(Jerico commenting here: Being sensationalist IMHO only contributes to the problem if he does not offer solutions. Why doesn't HE rather BRING people together rather than polarize? Why doesn't he SPEND his money on a think-tank to FIX the issues and provide legitimate research? He is out to make HIMSELF money, that is why. It is easier for him to do that than HELP solve medical coverage issues (if there are any). (END of Jerico statment.)

...As for your statement that there is no free healthcare anywhere in the world you are mistaken. We have it right here in the good ole US of A. Look at the military heathcare system. It is free for members of the military...

(Jerico commenting here: Am intimately familiar with military healthcare system. It isn't FREE! Military members get healthcare benefits as part of their enlistment. CHAMPUS and TRICARE are versions of Medicare/Medicaide in their structure. One of the MAJOR draws of the military is healthcare benefits and if it were not for that benefit recruiting would be VERY difficult. Another REASON military provides healthcare to its members is that the nature of military service nearly requires provision of military medicine due to deployments/warfare. One certainly could not call in BC/BS to provide a provider's list while the troops are in Iraq...which is a rather comical thought). Quite OFTEN private healthcare does not even COVER healthcare issues related to WARFARE incidents. Military healthcare is anything BUT free - it is a part of the PAYCHECK, because pay in the military is pretty low and the miltary needs military healthcare to exist due to the mobile nature of a required military medical corps (medics, docs, nurses to go to the zones. Military members cannot pick and choose their providers, either...unless they pay part of the fees via CHAMPUS and TRICARE). (END of Jerico comments).

...The number of US citizens traveling abroad for healthcare is on the rise. Also more citizens are seeking medications from abroad as well. Just look at the debacle over trying to stop people from importing medications from Canada and from Mexico....

(Jerico here: My own mother does this to get antibiotics in Mx and her elderly friend does this in CA. Do not disagree pharmacy is out of control in SOME areas...but we also have the BEST in RR here in US. There are areas I feel pharm agents issues need to be CHANGED...) (End of Jerico comment)

...Yes there are no two insurance policies alike and reading them is a must. But heaven forbid that either you or one of your loved ones is denied life saving or prolonging care because the insurance company decides it is either not indicated or cost effective. They make these decisions every day without ever seeing the patient and basing the decision not on what is best for the patient but what is best for the insurance companies bottom line. They are in it to make money. Thus they will do what is best to maximize profits irregardless of whether the patient needs the care or not. If you would just google the issue you will find a myriad of sites telling the horror stories with the insurance providers. Many of whom had great coverage and were still either denied care or had the policy canceled outright all at the whim of the insurance company.

Jerico here: Anyone who thinks government CONTROLLED healthcare (aka universal healthcare for all) is going to be BETTER had better think twice! It won't be the insurance denying patients/taxpayers anymore, it will the the GOVERNMENT deciding who gets care, who does not; what age you don't matter any longer for lung transplants or kidney transplants; at what age your preemie "needs" resusitation.

The problem with healthcare today is the EXPECTATIONS and feelings of ENTITLEMENT. That is what MM is PLAYING on - raising the expectations and giving people a feeling of ENTITLEMENT.

As I said before: We have Medicare for the OLD; we have Medicare AND Social Security Disability benefits for the sick and infirm/handicapped/mentally ill; we have Medicaid for the poor and YOUNG. (Not sure about medicaid in AZ, though).

The only ones LEFT are people who can work between the ages of 18 and 62; and those need a minimum of emergency and acute care.

I propose we EXPAND military healthcare system to include those over under 18 and those over 65 IF we have ANY sort of "univ healthcare system".

Even in this mode, military medicine is still "govt provide

MM does more HARM than HELP. He OBVIOUSLY didn't do HIS homework, only looked for sensationalized stories from UPSET families. He should do some REAL homework and talk to people who are intimately familiar with the ins and outs of American healthcare system, who know the politics of such.

He jerks the strings of human EMOTION. What a jerk.

[pickledpepperRN]

Jerico here:

As I said before: We have Medicare for the OLD; we have Medicare AND Social Security Disability benefits for the sick and infirm/handicapped/mentally ill; we have Medicaid for the poor and YOUNG. (Not sure about medicaid in AZ, though).

The only ones LEFT are people who can work between the ages of 18 and 62; and those need a minimum of emergency and acute care.

I propose we EXPAND military healthcare system to include those over under 18 and those over 65 IF we have ANY sort of "univ healthcare system".

Even in this mode, military medicine is still "govt provide

QUOTE]

I think your proposal to provide healthcare for those over 18 is great.

I think we need to keep Medicare for those over 56 and the disabled.

I think the simple solution is to improve and expand Medicare to cover all ages including working adults and our families.

[BBFRN, BSN, PhD]

J

The problem with healthcare today is the EXPECTATIONS and feelings of ENTITLEMENT. That is what MM is PLAYING on - raising the expectations and giving people a feeling of ENTITLEMENT.

MM does more HARM than HELP. He OBVIOUSLY didn't do HIS homework, only looked for sensationalized stories from UPSET families. He should do some REAL homework and talk to people who are intimately familiar with the ins and outs of American healthcare system, who know the politics of such.

He jerks the strings of human EMOTION. What a jerk.

(Hmmm...some of us feel the same way about GWB, and his policies of tax cuts for the rich, and the war in Iraq. 100% ENTITLEMENT and playing on peoples' EMOTIONS without doing his homework.)

Only thing is, MM's movie isn't killing anyone. Health insurers' policies of denying care in favor of profit (read entitlement) are. MM could've interviewed my stepmother who chose to die of breast cancer rather than risk losing the home her, my father, and my 19 year old brother lived in, because of the very high cost of her chemo/radiation/surgical treatments. She knew the ins and outs of insurance. She worked for Humana for decades.

[Jerico, BSN, RN]

Jerico here:

As I said before: We have Medicare for the OLD; we have Medicare AND Social Security Disability benefits for the sick and infirm/handicapped/mentally ill; we have Medicaid for the poor and YOUNG. (Not sure about medicaid in AZ, though).

The only ones LEFT are people who can work between the ages of 18 and 62; and those need a minimum of emergency and acute care.

I propose we EXPAND military healthcare system to include those over under 18 and those over 65 IF we have ANY sort of "univ healthcare system".

Even in this mode, military medicine is still "govt provide

QUOTE]

I think your proposal to provide healthcare for those over 18 is great.

I think we need to keep Medicare for those over 56 and the disabled.

I think the simple solution is to improve and expand Medicare to cover all ages including working adults and our families.

What I am suggesting that those people between 18 and 62 can AFFORD to go get their OWN - self paid insurance at a alow cost for emergency and acute care. Why do able bodied people between 18 and 62 need taxpayers to pay their insurance?

[Jerico, BSN, RN]

(Hmmm...some of us feel the same way about GWB, and his policies of tax cuts for the rich, and the war in Iraq. 100% ENTITLEMENT and playing on peoples' EMOTIONS without doing his homework.)

Only thing is, MM's movie isn't killing anyone. Health insurers' policies of denying care in favor of profit (read entitlement) are. MM could've interviewed my stepmother who chose to die of breast cancer rather than risk losing the home her, my father, and my 19 year old brother lived in, because of the very high cost of her chemo/radiation/surgical treatments. She knew the ins and outs of insurance. She worked for Humana for decades.

Sorry about your SM but:

If she worked for Humana for decades, she should have realized what her coverage was; perhaps she didn't want to have more coverage all along. CHOOSING to save the house for your father, etc was a CHOICE.

I think taxpayers should have a CHOICE in who deserves taxpayer paid healthcare.

Do we INCLUDE breast aug? Cosmetic dentristry? Hair implants? Br reconstruction? Super expensive "SAVES" only to see someone on disability for 50 years? WHO is going to play the "GOD" who decides what to RATION to WHOM?

I'd predict what happens is that the high income taxpayers will pay MORE taxes for minimal coverage for ALL and then have to go out and get their own coverage ANYWAY so they can have a CHOICE.

People decide how important their health is to THEM. Health isn't so important to EVERYONE...that is why I don't want to be paying for the smokers, drinkers, high riskers. They want to smoke, go ahead and buy your own insurance and it SHOULD cost you more than others who pay attention to their health needs.

Punish the good and successful. REWARD the stupid choices people make.

[pickledpepperRN]

What I am suggesting that those people between 18 and 62 can AFFORD to go get their OWN - self paid insurance at a alow cost for emergency and acute care. Why do able bodied people between 18 and 62 need taxpayers to pay their insurance?

I think that since most able bodies people bewtween 18 & 64 are paying taxes they should be added to the pool of those Medicare insures. We already include the most expensive people.

With one risk pool we will pay for the sick and injured when we are healthy.

We will also receive the care we need when we are sick or injured.

Isn't that the idea of insurance?

[Jerico, BSN, RN]

I think that since most able bodies people bewtween 18 & 64 are paying taxes they should be added to the pool of those Medicare insures. We already include the most expensive people.

With one risk pool we will pay for the sick and injured when we are healthy.

We will also receive the care we need when we are sick or injured.

Isn't that the idea of insurance?

We already have that so why change the best democratic health system in the world to socialized medicine for all?

[pickledpepperRN]

We already have that so why change the best democratic health system in the world to socialized medicine for all?

I think we can do better.

I think our democracy can improve healthcare for most of us.

Statistically other democracies have better health and a longer life expectancy.