Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:42 pm Post subject: SICKO
I finally got a chance to see Michael Moore's film, Sicko in theatres recently. It's a documentary exposing the flaws of America's whack, for-profit, investor driven, inefficient healthcare system. It's a topic I've always felt emotionally attached to, and although the film presents an overtly bias, lop-sided view of the whole issue, and some smudging of the facts, I would still encourage others to see it, only because it presents the facts and figures in an engaging, entertaining way, and it's packaged in a way that most people could swallow it.
Some key figures worth mentioning about our healthcare system:
46 million Americans (disproportionately minorities, the sick, and the poor) don't have health coverage (approx. 16% of the population)
18,000 Americans DIE each year due to the above figure (which is in itself, a national crisis - the equivalent of SIX September 11ths every year!!!
The U.S. spends on average, about twice as much per person on healthcare, and double the percentage of GDP on healthcare than most industrialized countries, and yet our healthcare system is ranked 37th in the world, and a substantial number of citizens don't have adequate access to vital healthcare.
Too expensive to nationalize health care some may say. Well consider this. The U.S. government already spends the equivalent amount on healthcare as most countries that have universal healthcare, with programs such as medicare, despite the fact that 16% of the public is not covered, and the government only accounts for half of all healthcare spending. Streamling the system under one central date base in a single payer system, would reduce administrative costs by $280 billion dollars per year, which is more than enough to insure the now 46 million uninsured people in this country, while maintaining the same quality level of care for the currently insured.
I can go on all day discussing the benefits of such a system, but I don't have the time right now. I welcome both ends of the debate, and I anticapte the rebuttal from our laissez-faire friend Loic. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
Yep, public health insurance is great. They're slowly trying to chip away at it here: some provinces are advocating a two-tier system, where you can pay more for better service. The result of this process would be essentially the same as the current American system, with only the poor covered by government insurance. But I don't think it's likely; public health care is one of those sacred institutions that governments don't dare mess with. I remember back at the beginning of the Iraq war, they were talking about setting up a public health care system in Iraq. _________________ L'homme est comme Dieu l'a fait et un peu pire/ L'homme est le seul animal qui détruit pour le plaisir
I definitely think we should have universal health care. The flaws in our current system are egregious, and "Sicko" heightened my awareness of them. When they try to scare voters by saying that we'll be "drowning in taxes", they fail to point out that we'll be paying much less in new taxes than we currently pay for insurance premiums. The US spends a greater percentage of its GDP on health care than any other country, but we still have over 40 million people with no insurance, and millions more with insufficient coverage.
Here in Massachusetts they recently passed legislation that requires every resident to buy health insurance or face legal penalties. (This is modeled on our state's policy of mandatory auto insurance.) People who are too poor to afford health insurance, but who don't qualify for Medicaid, will have their premiums partly or fully subsidized by the state. This plan is an improvement, but I think it's only a half-solution. It still doesn't ensure equal access to high-quality health care.
Here in Massachusetts they recently passed legislation that requires every resident to buy health insurance or face legal penalties. (This is modeled on our state's policy of mandatory auto insurance.) People who are too poor to afford health insurance, but who don't qualify for Medicaid, will have their premiums partly or fully subsidized by the state. This plan is an improvement, but I think it's only a half-solution. It still doesn't ensure equal access to high-quality health care.
I heard about that. I always thought mandatory auto insurance was a scam though. I understand that you have to have insurance so that if you have an accident, the other person can get their car fixed, but to me, if you forced to buy insurance, people shouldn't be making money off of it. _________________ L'homme est comme Dieu l'a fait et un peu pire/ L'homme est le seul animal qui détruit pour le plaisir
I definitely think we should have universal health care. The flaws in our current system are egregious, and "Sicko" heightened my awareness of them. When they try to scare voters by saying that we'll be "drowning in taxes", they fail to point out that we'll be paying much less in new taxes than we currently pay for insurance premiums. The US spends a greater percentage of its GDP on health care than any other country, but we still have over 40 million people with no insurance, and millions more with insufficient coverage.
Here in Massachusetts they recently passed legislation that requires every resident to buy health insurance or face legal penalties. (This is modeled on our state's policy of mandatory auto insurance.) People who are too poor to afford health insurance, but who don't qualify for Medicaid, will have their premiums partly or fully subsidized by the state. This plan is an improvement, but I think it's only a half-solution. It still doesn't ensure equal access to high-quality health care.
Not to mention that auto insurance is far cheaper than individuals having to buy health insurance directly. Have you looked into the cost of Cobra? It's insane, and I don't know how anyone, aside from the richest 10%, could possibly afford it. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
Probably never. And Medicare is disallowing more and more reimbursements, so the government, in the eyes of the health industry, is only hammering more nails in the coffin.
Health care costs are a weird, weird thing -- reimbursement from the government or private insurance never matches what the hospitals or doctors "charge" -- it's often just a percentage or a flat amount based on contractual agreements. And each payor decides what services they will pay or not pay for, so two people with different insurances can get the exact same treatments done, but the hospital gets two different amounts entirely. It's crazy. And now Medicare is auditing all charts with the stated purpose of finding at least two items that they can refuse to pay for. That's their goal. If they deny a hospital stay, they can force the hospital to give them back all the money they were initially given -- so the hospital ends up treating that patient for free, out of its own pocket. I think our hospital has just had 20 denials crop up -- 20 patients whose care they will never get one dime for. It becomes a game of averages -- hoping you make enough money on some patients to cover your losses on the other ones. _________________ An apple a day....
We had a universal health care system, still kind of do but thanks to our amazing ex-PM, we are all forced to take rapidly escalating private insurance if we can. Not that I mind paying a bit but when this ex-PM also starves the states (who fund the hospitals) and thus the hospitals to a comatose level, well let's just say, it's a problem.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
