TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Michael Moore's 'Sicko'
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

I think it's a tough problem to solve overall. It's not just a problem of there not being enough people to teach new doctors, it's also a problem of finding qualified individuals that want to become doctors in the first place, as well as keeping practicing doctors in their field. Even if we began to drastically increase the amount of doctors being trained, I don't think we'd be able to keep up with an aging population and a population that is becoming increasingly dependent on physicians. There's been a shift in mentality from seeing the doctor as a last resort to wanting to be seen at the first sign of trouble. Things such as colds, a bout of vomiting or diarrhea or stiffness/soreness used to be treated with the old "chicken soup and fluids" or a couple Aspirin, but the current trend is that all of these now demand a doctor's visit.

So, I guess I'd summarize as to why we have a shortage of doctors as:

- A decrease in those wanting to be doctors
- A decrease in doctors practicing for the "normal" length of time
- An increase in doctor visits for reasons that used to be considered trivial
- An enormous rise in the elderly population

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid I didn't mean that it had to be forced upon them. But wouldn't you feel better doing something for the greater good? I mean what are you going to do when you are retired? Play golf all day or go to Thailand and sleep with 12yr old girls? They should return to being teachers. Society needs them.

I only subscribe to the greater good theory if it's predicated on voluntary behavior. Encouraging something is one thing, requiring it is another.

Trailer:




Michael Moore on Oprah (includes clips from 'Sicko'):

Part 1:



Part 2:

Moore and Oprah. The Keymaster and Gatekeeper are in union. The return of Gozer is nigh.

Seriously though, when two forces of sensationalist propaganda and unbridled sanctimony of this magnitude meet, the fabric of space/time is in jeopardy.

I am interested in the movie I'll admit, but not socialized medicine or bleeding hearts.

Don't even think about crossing the streams. If someone asks you if you are a god, you say YES!!!

Our healthcare is great. Provided you make enough to pay for insurance.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Moore and Oprah. The Keymaster and Gatekeeper are in union. The return of Gozer is nigh. Seriously though, when two forces of sensationalist propaganda and unbridled sanctimony of this magnitude meet, the fabric of space/time is in jeopardy. I am interested in the movie I'll admit, but not socialized medicine or bleeding hearts.

Hmmm. Maybe the fire service should be privatised also, and then your life and death situation and fire engine will have to be pre-approved whilst your house is burning to the ground.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild Our healthcare is great. Provided you make enough to pay for insurance.

Not so (see clips).

quote:

Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_ Hmmm. Maybe the fire service should be privatised also, and then your life and death situation and fire engine will have to be pre-approved whilst your house is burning to the ground.

"Life and death" situations are treated in the hospitals regardless of pre-approval. And that's an area where the government actually could play a role; preventing insurance fraud on the part of insurance companies. Half the reason (if not all) we have these problems in the first place is the government. Medicare, being virtually bankrupt, decided that it wasn't going to pay the full price for health care anymore. A doctor charges a Medicare patient $50 and the government decides it will only pay $20. So, a doctor has to charge everyone else $80 for the same thing. But then the insurance companies decided they're going to dictate how much they pay doctors as well, in fact even dictating what care they'll "allow" their customers to receive. They figure if the government can dictate those things, they should be able too.

You have a bankrupt socialized medical system in Medicare, which a national health system would soon be, that by example allows private insurance companies to do the same things it does; underpay and dictate treatment, all at grossly inflated costs that are a product of doctors raising prices in order to compensate for underpayment and for the costs of the bureaucracy now involved with medical care.

quote:

Not so (see clips).

That's like saying God exists because the bible says so.

Andy Grove (ex-CEO of Intel) had a good op-ed in the latest issue of Fortune magazine on this topic:

quote:

source: http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/29/new...rtune/index.htm An open letter to the candidates Business legend Andy Grove shares a few modest proposals to fix health care, from Fortune Magazine. FORTUNE Magazine By Andy Grove May 29 2007: 4:59 PM EDT To: Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, Rudy Giuliani, John Edwards, John McCain, et al. cc: Newt Gingrich Andy Grove The rise and fall of Ilan Reich Discovery Channel gets a boost from Oprah What can India do about global warming? FORTUNE 500 Current Issue Subscribe to Fortune Each of you will have to address health care, and with good reason. The U.S. health-care system is expensive and uneven, in both quality and availability. Medical spending is 16% of the GDP, and that share is growing; U.S. life expectancy is so-so; and the ranks of the uninsured number 46 million and counting (rapidly). Your staff is probably working on a big, ambitious plan to fix health care. Depending on whether you lean left or right, it's either a universal health-care plan or a way to increase market influence throughout the health-care economy. I have a best-of-all-worlds idea too. In my system the government would cover preventive care and catastrophic health-related expenses. The ordinary medical expenses would be left to individuals. The reason I like this approach is that it has built-in incentives to support preventive care, and it would also protect people from financial ruin due to illness. Yet for most situations, the power of the consumer economy would be allowed to do its magic. The only problem with my plan - and yours - is that it's too much. Look at the history of health-care reform in our country. Presidents have been putting forth plans for comprehensive health-care reform for 100 years. That's not a typo. Woodrow Wilson proposed universal health care. So did Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton (see table). None of them got there. I believe none of you will either. Society is simply resistant to fundamental change. Dramatic departures can take place only in a crisis. Example: It took the Great Depression for our government to implement a safety net (the New Deal). It's not that we haven't been making changes. We've been doing that all along. It's just that the successful reforms haven't been all-encompassing; they've improved the health-care system for some. The Veterans Administration was formed in the '30s. Medicare became law in the '60s. Step by step, chunk by chunk, each of those events moved us forward. This is what I suggest: Fix specific problems of the system. Leave bigtime changes for later, after you've demonstrated that you can solve more limited problems. Until then, I propose that you commit to two - and only two - programs. Fix the emergency-room emergency Emergency rooms have become the de facto health-care system for millions. The uninsured go there because they have nowhere else to go - by some estimates they account for a bit over half of all emergency-room visits. The insured go there as well, when they feel that their needs cannot wait for an appointment during business hours. The first step in fixing this mess is to establish minimum standards for all ERs. A lot of work has already been done to specify methods of dealing with heart attacks, strokes, and other emergencies: Commit to these standards. The same goes for acceptable patient waiting times: Set the standard, and implement it. How to pay for those upgrades? Levy a 1% surtax on all health-care billings and use the proceeds as a fund for ERs that meet the rules. Tell hospitals and medical centers that if they want to dip into this new 1% fund, they have to put a lower-cost walk-in clinic under the same roof as the ER. Demand further that the clinic be open 24/7 and staffed with primary-care professionals who can deal with asthma attacks, ear infections, and other nonemergencies on a cash basis. Require a triage system that directs patients to either the ER or the clinic, using well-defined criteria. Running the clinics could even be outsourced. You can already find this kind of clinic in the corners of pharmacies and chain stores like CVS and Target. Their offerings are still rudimentary - flu shots, standard screening tests, that sort of thing. But their capabilities will expand over time. Retailers have ambitious plans for this new line of business: Wal-Mart recently announced a target of 6,600 in-store clinics. I think that company and others would jump at the opportunity to run clinics right next to ERs. One more thing. Mandate that to qualify for the 1% fund, both the ER and the new clinic must use the Internet to provide a simple health-record system: a file of the stored images of faxed documents, retrievable by electronic locks (a combination of passwords and security codes kept on a chip). By doing so, you will allow patients to "carry" records of their treatment from the ER or clinic to a doctor near their home. Unlike the task of harmonizing the many assorted electronic medical-record systems used in hospitals, this is a technically trivial job if you act now. Keep parents at home The cost of caring for the elderly is huge and will only grow as our population ages. Of the $440,000 the average American spends on health care in his lifetime, $280,000 will be spent after age 65. Probably 50% of that post-65 outlay goes to assisted-living facilities and nursing homes. So it stands to reason that if there were a way to keep elderly patients in their own homes longer - without degrading quality of care - we'd have a cheaper and better system. And we can do just that using technology. I'm talking everyday, low-cost technology - the sensors, microchips, small radios you'd find in today's PCs, in cellphones, and in Bluetooth earpieces. It's not too difficult to use this stuff as monitoring tools. Not to spy, but to detect trouble. For example, did the patient go outside to get the newspaper or did she wander away? Has the patient taken his meds? The same technology that brings us HBO can watch over the patient and trigger human intervention when needed. A critical step to make this happen is to have it blessed - and reimbursed - by the dominant health-care supplier to the aged, Medicare. Candidates, I hope to see a phrase in your inauguration speech that starts like this: "I will have Medicare define specifications for electronic equipment that allows the average aging citizen to stay home two years longer than today." Can we afford all this? Let's do the math. In my estimation, the ER plan can be implemented for $20 billion per year, paid for with the 1% surtax I suggest. As for the elder-care plan, the savings achieved by keeping just 10% of the aging population in their homes can amount to $30 billion a year. So, yes, Mr./Ms. Presidential Candidate, we can afford it. Not making these reforms would be the same as burning $30 million a day at the local dump. Commit to doing these two concrete things - now. You will save money. You will improve the lives of millions of citizens. And you will demonstrate to yourself, and to all of us, that we are a country of doers. That is worth the program by itself.

I like this approach because it is doable and tackles two of the biggest reasons that make our health care expensive.

I don't like this proposal because it levy's a new tax; if this is done I believe it should be embedded in the price and insurance/doctors should not be allowed to increase their prices to compensate for the tax. (In away this would force a 1% efficiency increase if you want to think of it that way).

I'm not a big fan, because even though he says it's a plan that goes "both ways" in that it has conservative and liberal values, the only I get out of it is a bigger role and more involvement of the government in health care.

He seems to be calling for:

• An increase in health care taxes
  
• Demand ERs open adjunct clinics
  
• Require these clinics and ERs to follow arbitrary "acceptable waiting times"
  
• Create an internet-based charting system with personal security chips
  
• Create an entirely new system to monitor the elderly based on "sensors, microchips and small radios"
  

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono "Life and death" situations are treated in the hospitals regardless of pre-approval.

There is a scene in the film that is apparently absolutely heart-wrenching to watch, but unfortunately proves your statement false.

But what is wrong exactly with people paying higher tax to help out their fellow citizens when they get diagnosed with cancer or need to get insulin?

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I just did a term paper on Castro and the Cuban healthcare system. It's really interesting stuff. I live 5 miles from the greatest medical center in the world, and I can still see flaws with how Americans approach healthcare. Ghandi said that a civilization should be judged on how it treats its most vulnerable populations. Without quality universal healthcare and education, any state has room to improve.

Where do you live? In Rochester, MN? Watch the video's on sicko. I agree that insurance companies always try to avoid paying for treatment that would cost them too much money.

quote:

Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_ But what is wrong exactly with people paying higher tax to help out their fellow citizens when they get diagnosed with cancer or need to get insulin?

Because the tax goes directly towards the middle class or the working poor and not to the rich who pay less taxes so they would be less affected by an increase in taxes. Because they have the resources available to avoid paying taxes or pay such a minimal amount that it is upsetting to people who are earning a lot less but yet have to pay a higher percentage of their income to big brother and at the same time receive less from big brother.

quote:

Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_ There is a scene in the film that is apparently absolutely heart-wrenching to watch, but unfortunately proves your statement false. But what is wrong exactly with people paying higher tax to help out their fellow citizens when they get diagnosed with cancer or need to get insulin?

If that truly was the case, if life-saving treatment was withheld, then that was illegal.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono If that truly was the case, if life-saving treatment was withheld, then that was illegal.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono The movie, screened for TIME, is double-barreled Moore, a mix of familiar numbers (47 million uninsured Americans, the ever rising cost of care) and chilling moments (the 18-month-old baby who dies of a seizure when she�s denied emergency-room access, the husband and father with kidney cancer whose insurer won�t pay for a bone-marrow transplant). Together, they will have many moviegoers angry enough to gouge holes in their armrests.

Source (Time Magazine)

Depressing huh?!

Like I said, that's illegal. Emergency medical care can not be dictated based on the ability of the patient to pay. I'd have to see more details about the case, but if it truly was an instance of care being refused because of a patient's ability to pay, then like I said, that's illegal.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Like I said, that's illegal. Emergency medical care can not be dictated based on the ability of the patient to pay. I'd have to see more details about the case, but if it truly was an instance of care being refused because of a patient's ability to pay, then like I said, that's illegal.

Yeah, cool, I get that. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts after viewing the film, (which I assume you will be)?

quote:

Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_ Yeah, cool, I get that. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts after viewing the film, (which I assume you will be)?

I'll probably "force" myself to. I'm no huge fan of Michael Moore, but I think it'll be important for me to see it simply because being in the medical profession I'm sure I'll get a bunch of "oh my God, did you see that 'Sicko' movie..."

I just want to say now (not that I haven't said it before) that I don't believe our medical system is perfect. However, I don't think there is a perfect health care system. There are just too many demands that can't be simultaneously met that we expect of medicine. However, I will always put quality and accessibility as the two most important characteristics of any medical system. If I, or a loved one (or anyone for that matter) becomes sick or injured, I want them to be seen as quickly and with the highest quality of care possible. We should try to make health care as affordable as possible and hold insurance companies (as well as government-based health care plans) accountable for their actions, however, due to the nature of the "beast," cutting-edge, quality health care will always be an expensive endeavor.

the movie was just put up on bit torrent.

quote:

Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_ Torrent here

How do you play the file?

it probably uses a special compression codec.

i suggest downloading the k-lite codec pack:
http://www.free-codecs.com/download..._Codec_Pack.htm

which will pretty much give you every imaginable codec and better alternatives to any current player you have on your system.

PS, good film and the humor of Moore's "dumb american in foreign land" is quite funny at times.

quote:

Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_ Hmmm. Maybe the fire service should be privatised also, and then your life and death situation and fire engine will have to be pre-approved whilst your house is burning to the ground. Not so (see clips).

I was being sarcastic. Sorry.

quote:

Originally posted by SuspicionVandit it probably uses a special compression codec. i suggest downloading the k-lite codec pack: http://www.free-codecs.com/download..._Codec_Pack.htm which will pretty much give you every imaginable codec and better alternatives to any current player you have on your system. PS, good film and the humor of Moore's "dumb american in foreign land" is quite funny at times.

I can't get it still. I have k-lite....

yeah still no good for me....

quote:

Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_ Download K-Lite 'FULL' (the latest version): http://www.free-codecs.com/download...php?d=3577&s=95

\
I do have k lite full. It still doesn't work. Explain how am I suppose to watch the movie when I click on the torrent. Save the film? And then open it. because I can't find the film even though it is saved...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.