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

Michael Moore's 'Sicko'

IMDb

Trailer:



http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/ne...stm?bw=bb&mp=rm

I gotta say, I am incredibly excited about seeing this film.

Moore's rumoured to be making the same offer that he made with Fahreneheit 9/11; if you can prove one fact wrong, he'll give you $10,000 - talk about putting your money where your mouth is.

Either way, I think this film is going to be huge, and is set to cause controversy. Alot of critics have been saying its his most mature film yet, and he lets the situations do the talking. I can't wait to see it.

BBC and reviews on 'Sicko'

And whilst I post this, what do you Americans think of your healthcare system? Is Moore right to make this film? Do you think it'll be good? Have you had bad experiences?

Re: Michael Moore's 'Sicko'

quote:

Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_ And whilst I post this, what do you Americans think of your healthcare system? Is Moore right to make this film? Do you think it'll be good? Have you had bad experiences?

My experience with it has been fantastic. But then again, I'm not poor. If I had to use an HMO I might consider it sucky.

Interestingly enough my friend moved to London recently and can't stand the British public health care system. So much so that he's buying private insurance.

Re: Re: Michael Moore's 'Sicko'

quote:

Originally posted by occrider My experience with it has been fantastic. But then again, I'm not poor. If I had to use an HMO I might consider it sucky. Interestingly enough my friend moved to London recently and can't stand the British public health care system. So much so that he's buying private insurance.

I think they NHS is largely fantastic, but so under-funded. I had to go private for my retinal screening this year, but I was lucky on that I could afford to. And goodness knows what I'd do if I had to pay for insulin.

Incidently, whilst your here; what happened to the Iraqi Information Minister?!

I think our health care system does have major issues, and if that's all this film will be pointing out, then it'll be nothing new. It'll simply be a momentary pause for people to say "gosh, that's just horrible." Then things will continue on as they are because the health care system is no longer in control of heath care practitioners but in control of law makers.

Now, if he somehow is able to point out a way in which the quality and accessibility of health care in the US can be maintained and become universal while not doubling or tripling taxes, that will be something to talk about. It's easy to point out where things are wrong or broken, as Moore has made a career of, it's another thing entirely to be able to provide constructive criticism.

There is no perfect health care system. Limited resources assure that no matter what route you go, universal or private. As occ said, if you can afford it the US health care system is second to none. Even if you can't afford it, you'll still get health care, but without the bells and whistles that Americans have come to expect. As I've said before, I think the only thing that can be done is to make it more affordable, not make it universal. Putting the health of every American in the hands of the government would be both a medical and economic disaster.

I think we should have a mixed system of insurance. Those who can afford private insurance should continue to buy it. Those who can't should be covered by universal coverage.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I think we should have a mixed system of insurance. Those who can afford private insurance should continue to buy it. Those who can't should be covered by universal coverage.

That's pretty much where we're headed. Basically those that can afford it will continue to get the quality of care they get now. Those who can't will get the kind of care you see at VA hospitals.

Re: Re: Re: Michael Moore's 'Sicko'

quote:

Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_ I think they NHS is largely fantastic, but so under-funded. I had to go private for my retinal screening this year, but I was lucky on that I could afford to. And goodness knows what I'd do if I had to pay for insulin. Incidently, whilst your here; what happened to the Iraqi Information Minister?!

Personally I think it's a good system because my friend who doesn't want to deal with the hassles of the NHS, and can afford health insurance, just goes out and buys it. I think the quality of the US health insurance system is too good to make it universal and therefore it should be a tierred approach like Britain.

Actually it's a pretty shitty system. It's not run on ideas of medicine but rather ideas of economy. Every patient is in essence not a person but rather a number, who given certain factors, will have certain medicines given and certain treatments put into place regardless of the specifics of this patient/number. Result is text-book finance and not medicine based treatment that is often wrong, and that is worst of all, blindly accepted by people who are not knowledgeable about medicine. I am not a doctor, but have several doctors in the family, as well as family friends. One of these attempted to run a system at a psychological ward where the basis for treatment was not based on finances and was very quickly told that this kind of a thing could not work. Sadly this is commonplace, and only really good doctors who work really hard and step outside of a text-book finance type of ideology actually treat people well. Of course the source is how expensive things got and how it became very profitable, but this is the result... This is more to answer the question about how the system is rather than what is the source of the problem. Worst of all is that many people can't even afford to end up with 'text-book financial formula' type of treatment.

Just my 5 cents on the matter. I'm for once curious to see a Michael Moore film since I think this is relevant and not radical just for the sake of being radical like some of his other films (imo) were.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Michael Moore's 'Sicko'

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Personally I think it's a good system because my friend who doesn't want to deal with the hassles of the NHS, and can afford health insurance, just goes out and buys it. I think the quality of the US health insurance system is too good to make it universal and therefore it should be a tierred approach like Britain.

You didn't answer my question about the Iraqi information minister!

Some good reviews on the film so far. This one from (*gasp*) Faux News:

quote:

Sicko' Shows Michael Moore's Maturity as a Filmmaker Sunday , May 20, 2007 By Roger Friedman Filmmaker Michael Moore's brilliant and uplifting new documentary, "Sicko," deals with the failings of the U.S. healthcare system, both real and perceived. But this time around, the controversial documentarian seems to be letting the subject matter do the talking, and in the process shows a new maturity. Unlike many of his previous films ("Roger and Me," "Bowling for Columbine," "Fahrenheit 9-11"), "Sicko" works because in this one there are no confrontations. Moore smartly lets very articulate average Americans tell their personal horror stories at the hands of insurance companies. The film never talks down or baits the audience. "This film is a call to action," Moore said at a press conference on Saturday. "It's also not a partisan film." Indeed, in "Sicko," Moore criticizes both Democrats and Republicans for their inaction and in some cases their willingness to be bribed by pharmaceutical companies and insurance carriers. In a key moment in the film, Moore takes a group of patients by boat to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba because of its outstanding medical care. When they can't get into the U.S. naval base, Moore proceeds onto Havana where the patients are treated well and cheaply. This has caused a great deal of controversy, with the federal government launching an investigation into the trip, which officials say was in violation of the trade and commerce embargo against the Communist country. "This administration flaunts the law, flaunts the constitution," Moore said at the press conference, explaining the flap over the trip to Cuba. Moore now claims the U.S. government says his Cuban footage may be illegal, and Moore said he made a second master copy of "Sicko" and had it shipped it to France immediately just in case of potential government issues. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273875,00.html

Gotta agree with the take on going after both sides of the aisle and being paid off by health and pharmaceutical lobbyists. That just doesn't sit well with me. Of course this is but one of many issues to which the lobbyists pull the strings.

I know my position is obvious, but if he's going after insurance company and political corruption, I'm all for it. If he's going after doctors and health care providers, I'll be a bit upset. Trust me, I hear everyday how "doctors must be making a killing with these hospital bills." Trust me, they're not. In fact the income of physicians has not risen (in relation to inflation), but has decreased over the last 25 years. Physicians have their method of care dictated by and their income reduced via the afore mentioned insurance companies and politicians, yet because they are the "face" of medicine get the blame for high costs. In 20 years when we're in the midst of a physician shortage of epidemic proportions, it'll be interesting to see how people view doctors when they won't even be able to see one.

^And whose fault will that be? The med schools that reject more than half of all the applicants, but still allow the children of doctors to attend med-school even if they are not qualified?

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Now, if he somehow is able to point out a way in which the quality and accessibility of health care in the US can be maintained and become universal while not doubling or tripling taxes, that will be something to talk about. It's easy to point out where things are wrong or broken, as Moore has made a career of, it's another thing entirely to be able to provide constructive criticism.

Of course not, Moore's a raging liberal! No solutions, just complaints and impossibly idyllic visions! Can I get a hell yeah Opus?

quote:

There is no perfect health care system. Limited resources assure that no matter what route you go, universal or private. As occ said, if you can afford it the US health care system is second to none. Even if you can't afford it, you'll still get health care, but without the bells and whistles that Americans have come to expect. As I've said before, I think the only thing that can be done is to make it more affordable, not make it universal. Putting the health of every American in the hands of the government would be both a medical and economic disaster.

agree.



Why anyone would ever voluntarily cede more of their health-care decision making authority to their government is beyond me.


So let's talk about some other possible solutions that don't involve the government taking more control over health care.

Neo--I know you specifically have said that there are 3 desireable factors in the current U.S. health care system, but only 2 of them can be maximized at once at the cost of the third (or something of that nature). I believe they are quality of care(Q), cost(C) and accessibility(A).

Currently in the U.S., if you are "rich" or have a "j.o.b." or otherwise have access to a decent healthcare plan, you can stop reading here. Congratulations, you did it. You are the envy of many.

Okay, beyond that and below the Mendoza line, how does one address the problem of lowernig the cost, increasing accessibility or improving the quality without necessarily sacrificing either of the other variables without involving an increase in taxes or a government takeover?

One caveat: Health care is not a "right". It is a service performed by a professional who expects to be paid for his/her work. As with everything in the world, if you can't afford the good stuff, you need to realize that you should be shopping for the no-frills generic stuff on the bottom shelf. Sure, it comes in a bag instead of a box, but it's basically the same thing.

OK, I'll throw out a few ideas to get the brainstorming going. Feel free to contribute.

1) Lower administrative costs in hospitals through technology investments and greater automation of processes.

2) Lower the cost of medical supplies. Promote generic alternatives when applicable.

3) Allow for quality controlled drug reimportation.

4) Lower the demand for healthcare (this is very hard to do given its relative inelasticity). Perhaps by allowing more prescription drugs to be sold over-the-counter, making more medical products available to consumers at outlets like drug-stores such that they don't need to visit a doctor.

5) Increase the supply of healthcare. Perhaps the Internet could be used to increase access to doctors at a cheaper rate than an in-office visit. A doctor could interface with a patient via video conference and diagnose conditions remotely (though this would likely be seen as giving up an element of quality). Either way, a doctor could theoretically earn extra income by using the Internet to access greater patient populations at different parts of the day. By the sheer power of the Internet, something like this would effectively increase the number of available physicians in any given place exponentially!

Any others?

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid ^And whose fault will that be? The med schools that reject more than half of all the applicants, but still allow the children of doctors to attend med-school even if they are not qualified?

Huh? Actually the majority of those turned down who are qualified are done so because spots are reserved for minority students. I could post some statistics that would speak for themselves, if you'd like. I was actually told, to my face, by one medical school who rejected me, "with these scores, it's a shame you're white." I'll let you derive your own meaning from that, and yes, I'm still shocked that was said out loud.

The problem is multi-faceted, not some nepotistic conspiracy. First, you have a decrease in overall applicants. The pros of becoming a doctor are increasingly being outweighed by the cons. Second, medical schools are limited in the amount of students they can enroll and new medical schools hardly ever appear. Third, we have a growing, aging population that demands more and more health care hours. Lastly, many physicians become "burned out" and retire early or go into teaching or other fields.

Shakka...yes it is the quality/affordability/accessibility triangle. Limited resources mean you can have two of the properties at the expense of the third. You can try your hardest to limit the effects of not having the third (which I argue is the government's only job in health care), but it will always be a problem.

What do I think needs to be done?

1. Reduce government regulation. As I've already said, more people in the health care industry work with paper than with patients. Half of the money we spend on health care goes to people who never see a patient. I think this is one of the greatest areas where money can be saved, simply by having the government stay the hell out of the way.

2. Allow doctors to dictate patient care, not the government, fear of litigation or insurance companies. Millions of patients receive care which does not meet the standards the doctor wishes, because an insurance company representative denies it, or their government health care plan (medicare/medicaid) will not pay for it. At the same time, billions of dollars are wasted by doctors who perform unnecessary tests and procedures because the fear of being sued demands it. If you come into the ER with simple indigestion, and even if the doctor is sure that's all it is, you'll also be checked for an ulcer, hiatal hernia, esophageal/gastric cancer, appendicitis, cardiac issues and that's just to name a few. A fifty dollar visit soon turns into a five-thousand dollar visit.

2b. Get rid of EMTALA. This goes along with allowing doctors to dictate patient care. Currently, if you go to an emergency room, you have to be seen. If you're a drug seeker and this is your 10th visit this week, you'll be seen. If you've had one bout of diarrhea, you'll be seen. If you fell and scraped your knee, you'll be seen. All of these cases have no need to be seen in an emergency room, yet they will be. A triage nurse/doctor can't simply say, "you have no business being here, go home and see your family doctor or go to a clinic."

3. Make the government responsible for protecting subscribers from health care fraud. This is by far the biggest headache for both insurance subscribers and for health care providers. Don't let insurance companies decide "on the fly" what they will and will not pay for. Heck, make health insurance companies non-profit only, if you have to. The government cannot manage the health care of all 300 million of its citizens, but it may be able to oversee the actions of a few hundred (or less) insurance providers.

4. If you want a universal health care system fine, but only have it for those who cannot afford traditional care. If you make over a certain amount of money, be required to have insurance, either by putting the responsibility on the individual or the employer. The fastest growing population of the uninsured, now rivaling those who cannot pay for it, are those who could afford health insurance, but simply choose not to have it. If you're making 60,000+ a year, you have no business bitching about not having health insurance simply because you'd rather spend your money on something else. We require drivers to have car insurance, why can't we require those who can afford it to have health insurance?

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I know my position is obvious, but if he's going after insurance company and political corruption, I'm all for it. If he's going after doctors and health care providers, I'll be a bit upset. Trust me, I hear everyday how "doctors must be making a killing with these hospital bills." Trust me, they're not. In fact the income of physicians has not risen (in relation to inflation), but has decreased over the last 25 years. Physicians have their method of care dictated by and their income reduced via the afore mentioned insurance companies and politicians, yet because they are the "face" of medicine get the blame for high costs. In 20 years when we're in the midst of a physician shortage of epidemic proportions, it'll be interesting to see how people view doctors when they won't even be able to see one.

Agreed.

I've been told that the cost of the malpractice insurance alone is also driving them into the ground...

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.

quote:

Moore Receives Cheers at Cannes, Boos From Canadian Crtics Michael Moore received a standing -- and sustained -- ovation following the screening of his latest documentary, Sicko, at the Cannes Film Festival Saturday. But some critics suggested that in censuring the U.S. health system, Moore was overly generous in his praise of other countries'. At a news conference, Canadian journalists harangued Moore for, as Toronto Star film critic Peter Howell wrote, making "it seem as if Canada's socialized medicine is flawless and that Canadians are satisfied with the status quo." Apparently taken aback by the assault from the Canadian journalists, Moore said, "You Canadians! You used to be so funny! ... You gave us all our best comedians. When did you turn so dark?" Later, he suggested that the U.S. ought to adopt the best parts of other countries' health systems. "We should steal from them," he said.

already the fat man is sticking his foot in his mouth.....SOURCE

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Shakka...yes it is the quality/affordability/accessibility triangle. Limited resources mean you can have two of the properties at the expense of the third. You can try your hardest to limit the effects of not having the third (which I argue is the government's only job in health care), but it will always be a problem. What do I think needs to be done? 1. Reduce government regulation. As I've already said, more people in the health care industry work with paper than with patients. Half of the money we spend on health care goes to people who never see a patient. I think this is one of the greatest areas where money can be saved, simply by having the government stay the hell out of the way. 2. Allow doctors to dictate patient care, not the government, fear of litigation or insurance companies. Millions of patients receive care which does not meet the standards the doctor wishes, because an insurance company representative denies it, or their government health care plan (medicare/medicaid) will not pay for it. At the same time, billions of dollars are wasted by doctors who perform unnecessary tests and procedures because the fear of being sued demands it. If you come into the ER with simple indigestion, and even if the doctor is sure that's all it is, you'll also be checked for an ulcer, hiatal hernia, esophageal/gastric cancer, appendicitis, cardiac issues and that's just to name a few. A fifty dollar visit soon turns into a five-thousand dollar visit. 2b. Get rid of EMTALA. This goes along with allowing doctors to dictate patient care. Currently, if you go to an emergency room, you have to be seen. If you're a drug seeker and this is your 10th visit this week, you'll be seen. If you've had one bout of diarrhea, you'll be seen. If you fell and scraped your knee, you'll be seen. All of these cases have no need to be seen in an emergency room, yet they will be. A triage nurse/doctor can't simply say, "you have no business being here, go home and see your family doctor or go to a clinic." 3. Make the government responsible for protecting subscribers from health care fraud. This is by far the biggest headache for both insurance subscribers and for health care providers. Don't let insurance companies decide "on the fly" what they will and will not pay for. Heck, make health insurance companies non-profit only, if you have to. The government cannot manage the health care of all 300 million of its citizens, but it may be able to oversee the actions of a few hundred (or less) insurance providers. 4. If you want a universal health care system fine, but only have it for those who cannot afford traditional care. If you make over a certain amount of money, be required to have insurance, either by putting the responsibility on the individual or the employer. The fastest growing population of the uninsured, now rivaling those who cannot pay for it, are those who could afford health insurance, but simply choose not to have it. If you're making 60,000+ a year, you have no business bitching about not having health insurance simply because you'd rather spend your money on something else. We require drivers to have car insurance, why can't we require those who can afford it to have health insurance?

Nice post.

neo post the source please?

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid neo post the source please?

You could probably get the info from lots of places, but here's one.

source

A few excerpts...

quote:

Researchers found that black and Hispanic students who were admitted to the five medical schools had on average significantly lower undergraduate grades and Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) scores than white and Asian students who were granted admittance. At each of the universities included in the study, the median grade point average for blacks was consistently lower than that for whites, and in some cases the discrepancy was extreme. For example, at Michigan State University's College of Medicine in 1999, the median grade point average (GPA) for white admittees was 3.61, nearly an A-, while the median GPA for black admittees was 2.93, slightly below a B. Furthermore, the median MCAT score for blacks admitted to Michigan State that year was 29 (out of a possible 51 points) compared to 36 for whites. Discriminatory admissions practices were also clearly in evidence with regard to Hispanic applicants, who, at four of the five schools, were admitted with lower scores than whites, though the differential in grades and scores between whites and Hispanics was less than that between whites and blacks. These differences in admissions rates mirror the racial disparities in accomplishment on the first stage of the medical licensing exam. Scores from Michigan State averaged over a three year period show that 14% of black students failed the Step 1 of the exam, and 10% failed to take it, while among white students the failure rate was only 1% and the untested rate, 4%. Thus cumulatively, 24% of black medical students at Michigan State failed to complete the first stage of obtaining a medical license compared to only 5% of white students. Among Hispanics the combined rate was 8% and among Asians, 2%.

Here's more along what I've said...

source

quote:

Combining MCAT and GPA data, researchers Lerner and Nagai found that, in 1999, 19 Asians, 2 Hispanics, and 36 whites were rejected despite having higher scores for both than the median black admittee. These 57 students would have made up a significant chunk of the 262-member entering class.

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX already the fat man is sticking his foot in his mouth.....SOURCE

Let it be known that, while we do enjoy our health coverage for the most part, it definitely is NOT without it's flaws and a source of constant debate.

Having said that, we do have it good when it comes to having a choice of either using the provided government care, or funds pending, going to a private clinic if we choose.

The government doesn't like saying we have a two tier system, or heavens even suggesting it, but in reality, we do.

@ Neo

Don't you think more doctos(of any field) should once that they retire go to school and become teachers? Wouldn't that help fix the problem. More teachers=more students

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid @ Neo Don't you think more doctos(of any field) should once that they retire go to school and become teachers? Wouldn't that help fix the problem. More teachers=more students

You can't mandate something like that! Talk about taking away personal freedoms. Shit, let a person retire if they want. Maybe that shit flies in Venezuela, but then again their infrastructure is shit.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka You can't mandate something like that! Talk about taking away personal freedoms. Shit, let a person retire if they want. Maybe that shit flies in Venezuela, but then again their infrastructure is shit.

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.

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