Interesting review of Sicko

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Doctor Peloncito

Family Physician
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2002
Messages
976
Reaction score
1
I saw this interesting review of Sicko. Tells of some of the less known facts about socialized medicine.

'Sicko': Heavily Doctored, By Kurt Loder
Is Michael Moore's prescription worse than the disease?

By Kurt Loder


Michael Moore may see himself as working in the tradition of such crusading muckrakers of the last century as Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell and Upton Sinclair — writers whose dedication to exposing corruption and social injustices played a part in sparking much-needed reforms. In his new movie, "Sicko," Moore focuses on the U.S. health-care industry — a juicy target — and he casts a shocking light on some of the people it's failed.

There's a man who mangled two of his fingers with a power saw and learned that it would cost $12,000 to save one of them, but $60,000 to save the other. He had no health insurance and could only scrape together enough money to salvage the $12,000 finger.

There's a woman whose husband was prescribed new drugs to combat his cancer, but couldn't get their insurance company to pay for them because the drugs were experimental. Her husband died.

Then there's a woman who made an emergency trip to a hospital for treatment and subsequently learned her insurance company wouldn't pay for the ambulance that took her there — because it hadn't been "pre-approved." And there's a middle-aged couple — a man, who suffered three heart attacks, and his wife, who developed cancer — who were bankrupted by the cost of co-payments and other expenses not covered by their insurance, and have now been forced to move into a cramped, dismal room in the home of a resentful son. There's also a 79-year-old man who has to continue working a menial job because Medicare won't cover the cost of all the medications he needs.

Moore does a real service in bringing these stories to light — some of them are horrifying, and then infuriating. One giant health-maintenance organization, Kaiser Permanente, is so persuasively lambasted in the movie that, on the basis of what we're told, we want to burst into the company's executive suites and make a mass citizen's arrest. This is the sort of thing good muckrakers are supposed to do.

Unfortunately, Moore is also a con man of a very brazen sort, and never more so than in this film. His cherry-picked facts, manipulative interviews (with lingering close-ups of distraught people breaking down in tears) and blithe assertions (how does he know 18 million people will die this year because they have no health insurance?) are so stacked that you can feel his whole argument sliding sideways as the picture unspools. The American health-care system is in urgent need of reform, no question. Some 47 million people are uninsured (although many are only temporarily so, being either in-between jobs or young enough not to feel a pressing need to buy health insurance). There are a number of proposals as to what might be done to correct this situation. Moore has no use for any of them, save one.

As a proud socialist, the director appears to feel that there are few problems in life that can't be solved by government regulation (that would be the same government that's already given us the U.S. Postal Service and the Department of Motor Vehicles). In the case of health care, though, Americans have never been keen on socialized medicine. In 1993, when one of Moore's heroes, Hillary Clinton (he actually blurts out the word "sexy!" in describing her in the movie), tried to create a government-controlled health care system, her failed attempt to do so helped deliver the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives into Republican control for the next dozen years. Moore still looks upon Clinton's plan as a grand idea, one that Americans, being not very bright, unwisely rejected. (He may be having second thoughts about Hillary herself, though: In the movie he heavily emphasizes the fact that, among politicians, she accepts the second-largest amount of political money from the health care industry.)

The problem with American health care, Moore argues, is that people are charged money to avail themselves of it. In other countries, like Canada, France and Britain, health systems are far superior — and they're free. He takes us to these countries to see a few clean, efficient hospitals, where treatment is quick and caring; and to meet a few doctors, who are delighted with their government-regulated salaries; and to listen to patients express their beaming happiness with a socialized health system. It sounds great. As one patient in a British hospital run by the country's National Health Service says, "No one pays. It's all on the NHS. It's not America."

That last statement is even truer than you'd know from watching "Sicko." In the case of Canada — which Moore, like many other political activists, holds up as a utopian ideal of benevolent health-care regulation — a very different picture is conveyed by a short 2005 documentary called "Dead Meat," by Stuart Browning and Blaine Greenberg. These two filmmakers talked to a number of Canadians of a kind that Moore's movie would have you believe don't exist:

A 52-year-old woman in Calgary recalls being in severe need of joint-replacement surgery after the cartilage in her knee wore out. She was put on a wait list and wound up waiting 16 months for the surgery. Her pain was so excruciating, she says, that she was prescribed large doses of Oxycontin, and soon became addicted. After finally getting her operation, she was put on another wait list — this time for drug rehab.

A man tells about his mother waiting two years for life-saving cancer surgery — and then twice having her surgical appointments canceled. She was still waiting when she died.

A man in critical need of neck surgery plays a voicemail message from a doctor he'd contacted: "As of today," she says, "it's a two-year wait-list to see me for an initial consultation." Later, when the man and his wife both needed hip-replacement surgery and grew exasperated after spending two years on a waiting list, they finally mortgaged their home and flew to Belgium to have the operations done there, with no more waiting.

Rick Baker, the owner of a Toronto company called Timely Medical Alternatives, specializes in transporting Canadians who don't want to wait for medical care to Buffalo, New York, two hours away, where they won't have to. Baker's business is apparently thriving.

And Dr. Brian Day, now the president of the Canadian Medical Association, muses about the bizarre distortions created by a law that prohibits Canadians from paying for even urgently-needed medical treatments, or from obtaining private health insurance. "It's legal to buy health insurance for your pets," Day says, "but illegal to buy health insurance for yourself." (Even more pointedly, Day was quoted in the Wall Street Journal this week as saying, "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years.")

Actually, this aspect of the Canadian health-care system is changing. In 2005, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled in favor of a man who had filed suit in Quebec over being kept on an interminable waiting list for treatment. In striking down the government health care monopoly in that province, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said, "Access to a waiting list is not access to health care." Now a similar suit has been filed in Ontario.

What's the problem with government health systems? Moore's movie doesn't ask that question, although it does unintentionally provide an answer. When governments attempt to regulate the balance between a limited supply of health care and an unlimited demand for it they're inevitably forced to ration treatment. This is certainly the situation in Britain. Writing in the Chicago Tribune this week, Helen Evans, a 20-year veteran of the country's National Health Service and now the director of a London-based group called Nurses for Reform, said that nearly 1 million Britons are currently on waiting lists for medical care — and another 200,000 are waiting to get on waiting lists. Evans also says the NHS cancels about 100,000 operations each year because of shortages of various sorts. Last March, the BBC reported on the results of a Healthcare Commission poll of 128,000 NHS workers: two thirds of them said they "would not be happy" to be patients in their own hospitals. James Christopher, the film critic of the Times of London, thinks he knows why. After marveling at Moore's rosy view of the British health care system in "Sicko," Christopher wrote, "What he hasn't done is lie in a corridor all night at the Royal Free [Hospital] watching his severed toe disintegrate in a plastic cup of melted ice. I have." Last month, the Associated Press reported that Gordon Brown — just installed this week as Britain's new prime minister — had promised to inaugurate "sweeping domestic reforms" to, among other things, "improve health care."

Moore's most ardent enthusiasm is reserved for the French health care system, which he portrays as the crowning glory of a Gallic lifestyle far superior to our own. The French! They work only 35 hours a week, by law. They get at least five weeks' vacation every year. Their health care is free, and they can take an unlimited number of sick days. It is here that Moore shoots himself in the foot. He introduces us to a young man who's reached the end of three months of paid sick leave and is asked by his doctor if he's finally ready to return to work. No, not yet, he says. So the doctor gives him another three months of paid leave — and the young man immediately decamps for the South of France, where we see him lounging on the sunny Riviera, chatting up babes and generally enjoying what would be for most people a very expensive vacation. Moore apparently expects us to witness this dumbfounding spectacle and ask why we can't have such a great health care system, too. I think a more common response would be, how can any country afford such economic insanity?

As it turns out, France can't. In 2004, French Health Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy told a government commission, "Our health system has gone mad. Profound reforms are urgent." Agence France-Presse recently reported that the French health-care system is running a deficit of $2.7 billion. And in the French presidential election in May, voters in surprising numbers rejected the Socialist candidate, Ségolène Royal, who had promised actually to raise some health benefits, and elected instead the center-right politician Nicolas Sarkozy, who, according to Agence France-Presse again, "plans to move fast to overhaul the economy, with the deficit-ridden health care system a primary target." Possibly Sarkozy should first consult with Michael Moore. After all, the tax-stoked French health care system may be expensive, but at least it's "free."

Having driven his bring-on-government-health care argument into a ditch outside of Paris, Moore next pilots it right off a cliff and into the Caribbean on the final stop on his tour: Cuba. Here it must also be said that the director performs a valuable service. He rounds up a group of 9/11 rescue workers — firefighters and selfless volunteers — who risked their lives and ruined their health in the aftermath of the New York terrorist attacks. These people — there's no other way of putting it — have been screwed, mainly by the politicians who were at such photo-op pains to praise them at the time. (This makes Moore's faith in government medical compassion seem all the more inexplicable.) These people's lives have been devastated — wracked by chronic illnesses, some can no longer hold down jobs and none can afford to buy the various expensive medicines they need. Moore does them an admirable service by bringing their plight before a large audience.

However, there's never a moment when we doubt that he's also using these people as props in his film, and as talking points in his agenda. Renting some boats, he leads them all off to Cuba. Upon arrival they stop briefly outside the American military enclave on Guantanamo Bay so that Moore can have himself filmed begging, through a bullhorn, for some of the free, top-notch medical care that's currently being lavished on the detainees there. Having no luck, he then moves on to Cuba proper.

Fidel Castro's island dictatorship, now in its 40th year of being listed as a human-rights violator by Amnesty International, is here depicted as a balmy paradise not unlike the Iraq of Saddam Hussein that Moore showed us in his earlier film, "Fahrenheit 9/11." He and his charges make their way — their pre-arranged way, if it need be said — to a state-of-the-art hospital where they receive a picturesquely warm welcome. In a voiceover, Moore, shown beaming at his little band of visitors, says he told the Cuban doctors to "give them the same care they'd give Cuban citizens." Then he adds, dramatically: "And they did."

If Moore really believes this, he may be a greater fool than even his most feverish detractors claim him to be. Nevertheless, medical care is provided to the visiting Americans, and it is indeed excellent. Cuba is in fact the site of some world-class medical facilities (surprising in a country that, as Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar noted in the Los Angeles Times last month, "imprisoned a doctor in the late 1990s for speaking out against government failure to respond to an epidemic of a mosquito-borne virus"). What Moore doesn't mention is the flourishing Cuban industry of "health tourism" — a system in which foreigners (including self-admitted multimillionaire film directors and, of course, government bigwigs) who are willing to pay cash for anything from brain-surgery to dental work can purchase a level of treatment that's unavailable to the majority of Cubans with no hard currency at their disposal. The Cuban American National Foundation (admittedly a group with no love for the Castro regime) calls this "medical apartheid." And in a 2004 article in Canada's National Post, writer Isabel Vincent quoted a dissident Cuban neurosurgeon, Doctor Hilda Molina, as saying, "Cubans should be treated the same as foreigners. Cubans have less rights in their own country than foreigners who visit here."

As the Caribbean sun sank down on Moore's breathtakingly meretricious movie, I couldn't help recalling that when Fidel Castro became gravely ill last year, he didn't put himself in the hands of a Cuban surgeon. No. Instead, he had a specialist flown in — from Spain.

Members don't see this ad.
 
There is a point that I don't think was mentioned that should be added. No one looked at the doctors point of view. If we would switch over to a socialist system for health care, what would happen to doctors salaries? Currently insurance companies are eating doctors alive. With the cost of medical school rising and many physician salaries staying stagnant or dropping, it soon may not be worth it to go into the medical profession. If we switch over to a socialized medicine doctors salaries will only drop. Every health care system has its problems.
 
If we switch over to a socialized medicine doctors salaries will only drop. Every health care system has its problems.

Is this really true, or just a myth? I know that taxes would go up to support the health care system, but then that means you wouldn't be paying out of pocket for your own policy, deductible, prescription...etc. I have 2 family members that practice medicine in Europe and they do quite well, just about on par with us over here. Obviously taxes are higher since education and health care are socialized. But I agree every system has its own problems.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I saw this interesting review of Sicko. Tells of some of the less known facts about socialized medicine.

These seem to be two opposite polarizing views of socialized healthcare, both of which has it's own problems. But what about a system that meets in the middle. One in which you can have both a private sector, so those that can afford expensive health insurance dont have problems waiting for treatment because they can pay for it, and then have a socialized system for those that can't afford it. Yeah they might have to wait longer but, better late than never right...Taxes will increase, and yes you might be paying for some strangers healthcare through them, but would it not make our society better overall. Isn't that the ultimately goal. Not the I worked for it, I want to keep for myself attitude that many people have. I think many of democrats support "universal" healthcare but not necessarily a completely socialized system...any thoughts?
 
These seem to be two opposite polarizing views of socialized healthcare, both of which has it's own problems. But what about a system that meets in the middle. One in which you can have both a private sector, so those that can afford expensive health insurance dont have problems waiting for treatment because they can pay for it, and then have a socialized system for those that can't afford it. Yeah they might have to wait longer but, better late than never right...Taxes will increase, and yes you might be paying for some strangers healthcare through them, but would it not make our society better overall. Isn't that the ultimately goal. Not the I worked for it, I want to keep for myself attitude that many people have. I think many of democrats support "universal" healthcare but not necessarily a completely socialized system...any thoughts?

I think that this is a good idea. I believe Germany has something similar? Where each citizen has basic socialized healthcare and whoever wants to can purchase a plan above and beyond that. I still hate seeing HMO's who take and take and hardly give back. To have corporations who make money off the healthcare system and provide no service is mind boggling. Maybe we should think more about cutting out the middle man?
 
I say we have a system like car insurance where everyone is required to have it. That way everyone gets care and no AWFUL socialized medicine. Obviously it's easier said than done but if everyone was required to have it, health insurance costs would go WAY down.

My $0.02



Cheers!
 
I say we have a system like car insurance where everyone is required to have it. That way everyone gets care and no AWFUL socialized medicine. Obviously it's easier said than done but if everyone was required to have it, health insurance costs would go WAY down.

My $0.02



Cheers!

This would not solve the "waiting" issue that the article discussed. If everyone had really cheap insurance, everyone would go to the hospital for every small little problem, and for every case where surgery may be optional, more people would opt for it because it would be a lot cheaper, hence the waiting problem and ultimately I dont think you can force people to pay for health insurance if they ultimately dont want it in the first place. In car insurance, when an accident occurs it involves other people, so it is required to have. The problem now is people that WANT health insurance but cant afford it (ie. 72000 dollars to have your two fingers back)
 
You absolutely can require people to pay for health insurance, it's called taxes. Why is the fact that health care in America has been turned into a corporate profit making machine just accepted by everyone?

By the way, the current corporate health care system is driving down doctor's salaries and creating systems and positions to replace docs with lower paying mid levels, etc wherever possible. We need a change!
 
You absolutely can require people to pay for health insurance, it's called taxes. Why is the fact that health care in America has been turned into a corporate profit making machine just accepted by everyone?

By the way, the current corporate health care system is driving down doctor's salaries and creating systems and positions to replace docs with lower paying mid levels, etc wherever possible. We need a change!

Yes...i find it very disturbing that health care has become a huge corporate profit machine...if we somehow get a cancer drug developed, how expensive is it going to be...can only the rich cancer patients be able to pay for it? or to make it cheaper for everyone will they wait to develop a pill that would be required to be taken on a regular basis so at least people would have to buy them over and over. When the inventor of the polio vaccine was asked if he would patent his invention, he made sure that people knew that no he didnt want to patent it, he wanted to be sure that it became available to everyone who needed it. Nowadays I doubt anything of that sort would ever happen.

This sorta reminds me of Fight Club (just an example, not saying this is what really happens), about how car companies go through this complex formula to determine if a safety defect in a car would be more cost efficient to replace the part in every single vehicle or to pay for the incoming lawsuits for the inevitable accidents. If it cost less to just pay the lawsuits from the eventual injured or dead, then that was the decided course of action...profit should play no role when peoples lives are at stake...
 
Yes...i find it very disturbing that health care has become a huge corporate profit machine...if we somehow get a cancer drug developed, how expensive is it going to be...can only the rich cancer patients be able to pay for it. When the inventor of the polio vaccine was asked if he would patent his invention, he made sure that people knew that no he didnt want to patent it, he wanted to be sure that it became available to everyone who needed. Nowadays I doubt anything of that sort would ever happen.

I would love to study the history of how this mindset came into being. It doesn't seem so long ago that this change was made. Maybe 30yrs?
 
I would love to study the history of how this mindset came into being. It doesn't seem so long ago that this change was made. Maybe 30yrs?

Is it just me that find it disturbing that health insurance companies make MORE money the less health care people receive. The less doctor visits you have, the less they would have to pay for whatever it is you are covered under. For-profit companies and people's health should not be connected, a conflict of interest would occur at some point. Either they make more money and we receive less health care, or we receive more health and they make less money...something tells me they would opt for the first option
 
For-profit companies and people's health should not be connected, a conflict of interest would occur at some point. Either they make more money and we receive less health care, or we receive more health and they make less money...something tells me they would opt for the first option

This basically sums it up. I have had issues with this as well. Basically a insurance company is suppose to serve as a "bank". Members pay money into the HMO and when they need a procedure they can "take" money out. I don't know how HMO's have the ability to deny claims when the customer doesn't have the same ability to deny paying their premiums/statements if they don't want to and retain their insurance. This is a very bad idea all around. In "Sicko" their was a brief clip alluding to Nixon and some policy allowing Permanente to start the first HMO. I need to do some more reading about that to see how the beast was created.
 
There is a point that I don't think was mentioned that should be added. No one looked at the doctors point of view. If we would switch over to a socialist system for health care, what would happen to doctors salaries? Currently insurance companies are eating doctors alive. With the cost of medical school rising and many physician salaries staying stagnant or dropping, it soon may not be worth it to go into the medical profession. If we switch over to a socialized medicine doctors salaries will only drop. Every health care system has its problems.

He did actually. He speaks with a Brit doc who drives an Audi and lives in a million dollar home. Basically saying "Here these doctors still do well." He then throws in a backhanded statement saying "I guess American docs have nothing to worry about since your driving an Audi and living in a million dollar home. Unless they want 5 luxury cars and a 5 million dollar home."

There is some truth in that I suppose. I couldn't see salaries dropping below 120K but you would not be seeing Cardiologist and Gas docs pulling in 500K+.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
There is a point that I don't think was mentioned that should be added. No one looked at the doctors point of view. If we would switch over to a socialist system for health care, what would happen to doctors salaries? Currently insurance companies are eating doctors alive. With the cost of medical school rising and many physician salaries staying stagnant or dropping, it soon may not be worth it to go into the medical profession. If we switch over to a socialized medicine doctors salaries will only drop. Every health care system has its problems.

You are not qualified to make that claim. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Medicare/Medicaid set the reimbursement rates anyway. Socialized health care wouldn't effect our precious salaries in any significant way. If you are in a specialty that is fee-for-service now, it would likely be fee-for-service in the future (ie plastics...) and would accordingly still be paid big money for elective procedures.
 
Average annual income of all physicians in the US, compared to countries with a socialized medical system:

1996 Data:

United States: $199,000
Germany: $105,000
Canada: $101,000
Japan: $63,000
France: $62,000
Denmark: $59,000
Australia: $55,000
UK: $53,000
Sweden: $41,000


Most Recent Data:

(Salaries representative of large cities)

United States
Cardiology: $275,000
Dermatology: $220,000
Emergency Medicine: $225,000
Family Practice: $170,000
General Surgery: $275,000
Radiology: $310,000
Neurology: $190,000
Orthopedic Surgery: $300,000
Pediatrics: $155,000
Internal Medicine: $165,000
Heme/Onc: $250,000
Anesthesiology: $300,000
Neurosurgeon: $360,000

Pharmacist: $102,000
Physical Therapist: $64,000
Occupational Therapist: $64,000
RN: $58,000
Respiratory Therapist: $51,000


Canada (converted to US dollars)
Cardiology: $116,000
Emergency Medicine: $103,000
Family Practice: $92,000
Internal Medicine: $100,000
Neurology: $107,000
Pediatrics: $105,000
Heme/Onc: $90,000
Neurosurgeon: $130,000

Pharmacist: $75,000
Physical Therapist: $58,000
Occupational Therapist: $50,000
RN: $56,000
Respiratory Therapist: $50,000


As you can see, the discrepancy between what physicians in the US make and what physicians in Canada make is FAR greater than the discrepancy between salaries of allied health practitioners in both countries.

In other words, NON-physician health care workers in both the US and Canada have relatively similar salaries.

Physicians in Canada, on the other hand, are compensated far less than the physicians in the US. In the case of Neurosurgeons, you can make nearly 3 times as much money working in the US.
 
Medicare/Medicaid set the reimbursement rates anyway.

Medicare does set reimbursement rates, but those rates only apply to approved procedures/visits for Medicare patients. Other insurance companies are free to reimburse what they chose.

Socialized health care wouldn't effect our precious salaries in any significant way.

I disagree.

A socialized system will reimburse physicians a set amount based on the procedures performed. Sounds a lot like what we have now, except without the competing insurance companies you are looking at a government controlled monopoly on what you will get paid.


If you are in a specialty that is fee-for-service now, it would likely be fee-for-service in the future (ie plastics...) and would accordingly still be paid big money for elective procedures.

Thats true, but how many physicians work in a fee-for-service practice?

Plastic surgeons who perform cosmetic procedures do. Their resontructive cases are often insurance based.

Who else?

FP, IMED, EM, Surgeons, Peds, OB/GYN, Cards, Nephro, Pulm, GI, Anesth, Neurosurgery, Ortho. None of these guys have much as far as elective, fee-for-service. They get paid a set dollar amount based on what they do. Who pays that amount? Whatever insurance company the patient has.
 
Now I really want to see the movie!

I taught in an Urban Public high school for four years before starting medical school. In our city anyone with any money moves to the suburbs for better schools or sends there kids to private schools. The quality of public education has been steadily going down. There are many parrallels with the health care system.

Those with money (insurance) go to the best hospitals, those without go to the ER (or if there lucky Community Health Clinics) only when there problems have become exacerbated. Think of all the money saved if ERs didn't have to treat the uninsured who are only there because they have no other option. It cost much more to treat an asthma attack at an ER than to have ongoing care at a clinic. With universal health care the system there would be more preventitive medicine (helping to control or prevent diabetes, heart conditions, etc.) thus saving tax payer dollars. Drug companies might realize that with more people being taken care of they can sell more drugs. (hopefully larger volume can result in discounted prices)

Do you spend money on education to put kids in a good position for college /jobs or spend the money on prisons and police for when they resort to criminal activity. Should we spend more money on ER care or provide preventive medicine and ongoing care?

I realize its all more complicated than this, but I'm glad the issue is becoming more prevalent on the national scene.
 
In my experience these inner city clinics whose design was to offer preventive care to the poor population often turn into places where people come to get disability and workmans compensation forms filled out.

I spent some time working in a clinic seeing dozens of patients per day.

Pregnancy tests, free prescription samples, disability paperwork and noncompliant patients were all I encountered. 8 weeks and I can only think of one person who I truly helped.

Worth it to that one patient? Definately.

Worth it to the taxpayers? Not a chance.

Forgive me for sounding callous and uncaring, but I think healthcare is a privelage not a right.

Why should you be able to take out of the system (office visits, surgery, meds, etc) if you dont put in to the system?

Universal healthcare would work just fine if the system held everyone accountable, but it doesnt.

The other day I saw a young woman who was on disability and couldnt afford to go see her doctor for a moderate reaction to poison ivy. She says she couldnt afford the prescription steroids or the topical cream. She says she is on disability and cant work...she needs to stay home with her 3 kids, all of which get free healthcare from one of the many state sponsored programs.

But she had the money to get breast implants.

Peculiar, isnt it?

Again, if you dont put into the system you shouldnt take out of the system. There are few exceptions.

Healthcare is a privelage, not a right.

Those who put the most in should get the most out.
 
JP, care to post where you got your data from? Also, are the salaries before taxes or after? Having family in Sweeden, one of whom is a FP, I can honestly say that they make way more than the $41k that you have listed. They probably make 2x times that amount.
 
In my experience these inner city clinics whose design was to offer preventive care to the poor population often turn into places where people come to get disability and workmans compensation forms filled out.

I spent some time working in a clinic seeing dozens of patients per day.

Pregnancy tests, free prescription samples, disability paperwork and noncompliant patients were all I encountered. 8 weeks and I can only think of one person who I truly helped.

Worth it to that one patient? Definately.

Worth it to the taxpayers? Not a chance.

Forgive me for sounding callous and uncaring, but I think healthcare is a privelage not a right.

Why should you be able to take out of the system (office visits, surgery, meds, etc) if you dont put in to the system?

Universal healthcare would work just fine if the system held everyone accountable, but it doesnt.

The other day I saw a young woman who was on disability and couldnt afford to go see her doctor for a moderate reaction to poison ivy. She says she couldnt afford the prescription steroids or the topical cream. She says she is on disability and cant work...she needs to stay home with her 3 kids, all of which get free healthcare from one of the many state sponsored programs.

But she had the money to get breast implants.

Peculiar, isnt it?

Again, if you dont put into the system you shouldnt take out of the system. There are few exceptions.

Healthcare is a privelage, not a right.

Those who put the most in should get the most out.


Agree 100%. Thanks JP:thumbup:
 
A socialized system will reimburse physicians a set amount based on the procedures performed. Sounds a lot like what we have now, except without the competing insurance companies you are looking at a government controlled monopoly on what you will get paid.


JP, I think you read the article that I have attached. For the rest of you I would highly recommend that you read it. The article presents the fact that medicare/medicaid has actually become the best reimbursement rate over the past 15yrs. HMO's over time have cut their levels from what they were in the early 90's by 95%, using the medicare/medicaid level as a standard and reimbursing a percentage of that (ie. 100%, 80%...etc. of medicaid rate). So as a result you already have the government setting the level. Doesn't seem like the competition is doing us much good with reimbursement levels. If anything the profession is worse off.
 

Attachments

  • degroote0407.pdf
    280.4 KB · Views: 103
JP, care to post where you got your data from? Also, are the salaries before taxes or after? Having family in Sweeden, one of whom is a FP, I can honestly say that they make way more than the $41k that you have listed. They probably make 2x times that amount.

I looked at several online salary reporting services.

Keep in mind the numbers quoted above from Sweden are more than 10 years old.

And even if they are making twice the amount stated above, that is still less than half of what they would be making in the US
 
JP, I think you read the article that I have attached. For the rest of you I would highly recommend that you read it. The article presents the fact that medicare/medicaid has actually become the best reimbursement rate over the past 15yrs. HMO's over time have cut their levels from what they were in the early 90's by 95%, using the medicare/medicaid level as a standard and reimbursing a percentage of that (ie. 100%, 80%...etc. of medicaid rate). So as a result you already have the government setting the level. Doesn't seem like the competition is doing us much good with reimbursement levels. If anything the profession is worse off.

I have seen that article before. Veterinarians making more for the same procedure on dogs than real surgeons on people. :rolleyes:
 
I saw this interesting review of Sicko. Tells of some of the less known facts about socialized medicine.

02.jpg


I'm sorry Mr. Moore, the British healthcare system has neither the money
nor the desire to treat fat slobs who have never taken care of themselves.
I believe the term you yanks use is: "You're SOL."
 
My favorite part of the movie is his repeated emphasis on cubas 5 cent prescriptions. Apparently he feels that this stat accurately reflects how much better their health care system is. He seems to miss the fact that american pharmaceutical companies had to spend millions and millions of dollars on research, development, safety studies, and production techniques to provide these drugs to the public. The high prices are then paid (although admittedly too high of a markup) by americans to support the further research of more drugs. Without our hundred dollar payments these medications woudnt be available anywhere. Cuba just gets to produce the drug with no overhead costs.
 
Cuba just gets to produce the drug with no overhead costs.

And likely little regulation on content and quality control.
 
I have just started reading a pretty interesting book if you guys want to check it out its very good so far, its called "The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care." by David Gratzer.

Also check out www.capmag.com the have some great articles on health care and other stuff as well.

As for Michael Moore hes a waste of time.
 
My favorite part of the movie is his repeated emphasis on cubas 5 cent prescriptions. Apparently he feels that this stat accurately reflects how much better their health care system is. He seems to miss the fact that american pharmaceutical companies had to spend millions and millions of dollars on research, development, safety studies, and production techniques to provide these drugs to the public. The high prices are then paid (although admittedly too high of a markup) by americans to support the further research of more drugs. Without our hundred dollar payments these medications woudnt be available anywhere. Cuba just gets to produce the drug with no overhead costs.

Lots of the r&d is subsidized by the government. The real point here is that the countries that we don't have trade embargos with get the drugs at a lower cost because of their governments' restriction on the costs (ie. Canada). The consumers in the US subsidize this cost by paying more here.
 
Lots of the r&d is subsidized by the government. The real point here is that the countries that we don't have trade embargos with get the drugs at a lower cost because of their governments' restriction on the costs (ie. Canada). The consumers in the US subsidize this cost by paying more here.

Not only are we paying more here for the R&D, but we're subsidizing the safety research funded by the NIH with our taxes. The NIH budget is about $27 billion (most of which actually went to studying the safety of drugs, not actually development of new drugs per the Congressional Budget office). And American pharmaceutical companies spend $39 billion in 2004 on Research & Development.

Something needs to give, and I for one say that there are 2 things which can be done to have some immediate effects. Limit the amount Pharm companies spend on direct to consumer advertising (4 billion to consumers). and engage in trade deals which would spread out the cost and force other countries to incorporate the cost of R&D into the prise they pay for drugs instead of just manufacturing costs.
 
In my experience these inner city clinics whose design was to offer preventive care to the poor population often turn into places where people come to get disability and workmans compensation forms filled out.

I spent some time working in a clinic seeing dozens of patients per day.

Pregnancy tests, free prescription samples, disability paperwork and noncompliant patients were all I encountered. 8 weeks and I can only think of one person who I truly helped.

Worth it to that one patient? Definately.

Worth it to the taxpayers? Not a chance.

Forgive me for sounding callous and uncaring, but I think healthcare is a privelage not a right.

Why should you be able to take out of the system (office visits, surgery, meds, etc) if you dont put in to the system?

Universal healthcare would work just fine if the system held everyone accountable, but it doesnt.

The other day I saw a young woman who was on disability and couldnt afford to go see her doctor for a moderate reaction to poison ivy. She says she couldnt afford the prescription steroids or the topical cream. She says she is on disability and cant work...she needs to stay home with her 3 kids, all of which get free healthcare from one of the many state sponsored programs.

But she had the money to get breast implants.

Peculiar, isnt it?

Again, if you dont put into the system you shouldnt take out of the system. There are few exceptions.

Healthcare is a privelage, not a right.

Those who put the most in should get the most out.

Regardless of how you feel about the homeless, the underserved, or those "not putting into the system" you might still want to consider the ever increasing eldery demographic.

The babyboomers are about to retire and many are not insured. Many have only small pensions. Medicarea and Social Security help, but these do not have the capacity to cover all of them.

Because old people aren't working or putting anything into the system, should they also be denied medical care?

Would you have firefighters not exstinguish a fire in a run down building, just because the owners were't putting into the system. Of course not. Because we know that if it gets out of hand it'll leap to the next building. It is argued that Society will have to pay for the costs or effects of health care one way or another.

I am not sure if socialized medicine is the answer, but I do know that more could be done.
 
Because old people aren't working or putting anything into the system, should they also be denied medical care?


Most of them have put into the system for decades. It's not their fault that the government can not figure out to keep the system from crashing. But at the same time, it's not the hospital's responsibility either.
 
Most of them have put into the system for decades. It's not their fault that the government can not figure out to keep the system from crashing. But at the same time, it's not the hospital's responsibility either.

Exactly. Above you noticed I said there are exceptions. Elderly and mentally disabled are those exceptions.

25 year old "girl" with 4 kids, no job and a Coach purse is not exempt.

And its the 25 year old who has the greatest sense of entitlement to what she thinks she deserves. I see it every single day.

When I worked in a pharmacy I saw it too. They will buy a carton of cigarettes but bitch about a $2.00 copay for a non-formulary, brand name medicine that is supposed to be covered by the state plan. I've seen these same people reach in their pockets and pay cash for a Percocet or Vicodin prescription...they dont want that one to go through the insurance because then their narcotic purchases/usage can be tracked. But the antibiotic...well, thats just not necessary. :rolleyes:

If you want to become a physician you need to learn a few things.

1. Patients lie.
2. Bad people are bad, good people are only sometimes good.
3. As much as you think you know, youre still naive to something.

Sounds depressing, but if you ever spend one day in an inner city clinic, poor rural neighborhood or ER anywhere in the US you will see what I mean.
 
If you want to become a physician you need to learn a few things.

1. Patients lie.
2. Bad people are bad, good people are only sometimes good.
3. As much as you think you know, youre still naive to something.

Welcome aboard Dr. House. Nice to have you amongst our ranks. ;)
 
Another thing me and JP agree on. That socialized medicine will hurt physician salaries. :laugh:
 
From the movie:
"made me put away my freedom pride"...

Priceless
 
1. Patients lie.
2. Bad people are bad, good people are only sometimes good.
3. As much as you think you know, youre still naive to something.

Sounds depressing, but if you ever spend one day in an inner city clinic, poor rural neighborhood or ER anywhere in the US you will see what I mean.
Sad,
But absolutely true.
 
You are not qualified to make that claim. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Medicare/Medicaid set the reimbursement rates anyway. Socialized health care wouldn't effect our precious salaries in any significant way. If you are in a specialty that is fee-for-service now, it would likely be fee-for-service in the future (ie plastics...) and would accordingly still be paid big money for elective procedures.

Don't want to burst your bubble but, doctors in other countries do not make as much as they make here. JP brought down some figures and I've seen stats on other countries and physicians are payed much less. There is a reason why the US trains many foreign grads and many don't leave the US and practice in their native countries. The reason is because they will make double to triple the amount here than in their native country. In college I did a research report on the topic as well as having courses discussing the issue. I am coming from an informed position.
 
Bottom line,
Socialism looks good in theory but, in reality it does not work.
 
Don't want to burst your bubble but, doctors in other countries do not make as much as they make here. JP brought down some figures and I've seen stats on other countries and physicians are payed much less. There is a reason why the US trains many foreign grads and many don't leave the US and practice in their native countries. The reason is because they will make double to triple the amount here than in their native country. In college I did a research report on the topic as well as having courses discussing the issue. I am coming from an informed position.

They may be making less in dollars but in their home currency, they are making way too much money compare to ordinary citizens of their country and can live far better life.
 
They may be making less in dollars but in their home currency, they are making way too much money compare to ordinary citizens of their country and can live far better life.

That is true for some and not true for others it depends on the country. Even if they do make more their they can make 3 times the amount here so why should they go back?

The problems which Moore elucidated in the film are true. The insurance companies screw patients and doctors alike. The insurance companies have one goal in mind to take money from whoever they can get it from whether it is doctors or patients.
 
What if we start a non profit organization called Association of American Hospitals and invite every hospitals to join this organization. The goal of this organization is to provide best health care in the country by offering health insurance. Here we solve problem of middle man who tries to make money from patients and doctors but does little to nothing to solve the healthcare problems.
 
Again, if you dont put into the system you shouldnt take out of the system. There are few exceptions.

Healthcare is a privelage, not a right.

Those who put the most in should get the most out.

JP,

For the most part I would agree with you. But what about healthcare for children? What about lazy parents who choose to spend their money on frivolous enhancements or anything for that matter but do not choose to work? Or parents who are not educated enough to obtain good enough jobs for good health care insurance but make too much money to qualify for governmental aid? Should their children still be subject to the "pay to play" method of healthcare? Or should children have a better "standard of care" regardless of their parents' poor choices? Better yet what about children who are born in america (automatic citizens) and their parents are illegal immigrants who are affraid to apply for governmental aid and their child's health goes to down the tubes (pretty common theme in inner city KC elementary schools)?
 
JP,

For the most part I would agree with you. But what about healthcare for children? What about lazy parents who choose to spend their money on frivolous enhancements or anything for that matter but do not choose to work? Or parents who are not educated enough to obtain good enough jobs for good health care insurance but make too much money to qualify for governmental aid? Should their children still be subject to the "pay to play" method of healthcare? Or should children have a better "standard of care" regardless of their parents' poor choices? Better yet what about children who are born in america (automatic citizens) and their parents are illegal immigrants who are affraid to apply for governmental aid and their child's health goes to down the tubes (pretty common theme in inner city KC elementary schools)?

In my state (NY) their is a program available for children called child health plus. I don't know all the details about the program but, it basically leaves no child without any health care. I'm not sure if illegal immigrants children are covered or not. Maybe try to contact your congressman or local politician and have them look into the plan that is in place for NY or develop something similar. I will agree that some parents spend frivolously and by doing so put their family at risk and are not able to afford health care.

It is sad in this country that doctors have to turn patients away who can't afford treatment. I know as a future physician I will be faced with these choices. I will try to look to my dad as a role model, who I know countless of times has seen uninsured patients because he couldn't see them go without treatment. I will do whatever is in my power to follow in his footsteps. I hope there are others out there who share these views.
 
He did actually. He speaks with a Brit doc who drives an Audi and lives in a million dollar home. Basically saying "Here these doctors still do well." He then throws in a backhanded statement saying "I guess American docs have nothing to worry about since your driving an Audi and living in a million dollar home. Unless they want 5 luxury cars and a 5 million dollar home."

There is some truth in that I suppose. I couldn't see salaries dropping below 120K but you would not be seeing Cardiologist and Gas docs pulling in 500K+.

In the movie he did speak about it. I was referring to the points brought up in the article. The author should have refuted his finding on doctors. In Brittan they may have it decent but not in all other countries with socialized medicine.
 
In the movie he did speak about it. I was referring to the points brought up in the article. The author should have refuted his finding on doctors. In Brittan they may have it decent but not in all other countries with socialized medicine.


Based on the movie, you would not expect doctors to do much worse than in La France. After all, it was a middle class family the ones that were interviewed and were doing quite well. The Canadian doc looked happy. Perhaps the only place docs would not be doing as well would be Cuba, but that is another story all in itself with its reasons inherent to the economy of the island and a whole gamut of other politico-economic factors.

I would not mind the lifestyle of the british doc for a trade of loan repayment etc, and what about the french lady who comes in and would do my recently pregnant wife's laundry? crazyyy
 
Based on the movie, you would not expect doctors to do much worse than in La France. After all, it was a middle class family the ones that were interviewed and were doing quite well. The Canadian doc looked happy. Perhaps the only place docs would not be doing as well would be Cuba, but that is another story all in itself with its reasons inherent to the economy of the island and a whole gamut of other politico-economic factors.

I would not mind the lifestyle of the british doc for a trade of loan repayment etc, and what about the french lady who comes in and would do my recently pregnant wife's laundry? crazyyy

Go and move there. I would see you back here in a few years. The basics are covered well there, but if you need any sort of specialty care it can take years before you can get the treatment necessary. There are many Canadian doctors who come to the US and practice, but that side of the story wasn't shown. How many patients come to the US to get the best health care in the world, another part of the story that wasn't shown. Also do you think it is fair for a Canadian specialist who had more years of education to only make $10,000 more than someone in IM? I certainly don't.
 
JP,

For the most part I would agree with you. But what about healthcare for children? What about lazy parents who choose to spend their money on frivolous enhancements or anything for that matter but do not choose to work? Or parents who are not educated enough to obtain good enough jobs for good health care insurance but make too much money to qualify for governmental aid? Should their children still be subject to the "pay to play" method of healthcare? Or should children have a better "standard of care" regardless of their parents' poor choices? Better yet what about children who are born in america (automatic citizens) and their parents are illegal immigrants who are affraid to apply for governmental aid and their child's health goes to down the tubes (pretty common theme in inner city KC elementary schools)?

I put children in the category of "mentally disabled" as thats how most kids act.

The younger members of our society will never have trouble getting healthcare or federal and state money.

Why do you think its so popular to have a baby at 16 years old?

Cash money.
 
Has anyone else noticed the OPs article was written by Kurt Loder, of former MTV news fame?

Yeah, a joke indeed.

jd
 
Top