Xoutpost.com - Good movie review of "Sicko"

Xoutpost.com (https://xoutpost.com/forums.php)

- The Lounge (https://xoutpost.com/off-topic/lounge/)

- - Good movie review of "Sicko" (https://xoutpost.com/off-topic/lounge/33366-good-movie-review-sicko.html)

For those interested you can see the movie there http://websearch.about.com/gi/dynami...et/freemovies/
I did not want to comment in this thread before having seen the movie. I always looked at Micheal Moore's movies with some suspicion on some of the statements he is used to make in them. I did look at Sicko yesterday evening. I do not know anything about the Canadian, Cuban, German health care systems. However, I can say that what Moore says about the French and British health system is true. I had been taking advantage of the French health care system for 38 years before I moved to the USA in 1998 without realizing how good it was. Knowing that whatever illness you may have you will be taking care off without the fear of not being able to pay for it is a big big plus. As an example 2 years ago I went back to France for a business trip. On the first night in the hotel I got seriously sick. I called "SOS medecins" (doctors who make house calls) from the hotel in the middle of the night. 20mns later a doctor was there and his diagnostic was blood poisoning. He called an ambulance and I was sent to the hospital where I spent the next 2 days before my father came to pick me up. I spent the following 5 days at my parent's with a nurse coming every day to give me a shot. Although I was not registered with the French health system anymore I did not pay anything for the hospital stay nor for the ambulance. I paid $20 euros for 'SOS medecin' doctor ($26) and 15 euros ($20) a day for the 5 days the nurse came at my parent's home. I paid 80 euro ($105) for all the drugs I received. Do not get me wrong, I appreciate many good things here in the USA but I must say that the health care system based on private insurances really sucks. I am lucky enough to work for a big company and to have good health care coverage over here but in my opinion it is a shame that so many people in a country like the USA do not get this chance.

I'm glad French healthcare is working, but British healthcare seems to be having trouble:

Quote:

NHS funding for kids' braces slashed by 20 per cent
12/17/06 The Daily Mail

Some news from socialized medicine and dentistry in Great Britain:

Parents are being forced to pay thousands of pounds for braces for their children's teeth after the Government slashed the number of youngsters eligible for free treatment.

Rationing of orthodontic treatment means more than 7,000 children and teenagers with crooked teeth are being turned down for braces and other corrective dental work each month, orthodontists have warned.

Many have no option but to go private - a path that costs their parents up to £4,500 for a set of braces.

Quote:

Arthritis patients denied drugs

10/11/06 Reuters

LONDON (Reuters) - Many British arthritis patients are still being denied a new generation of medicines, despite a government pledge four years ago to make them universally available, according to research published on Wednesday.

Although the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) approved anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) drugs for rheumatoid arthritis in 2002, access to them still varies widely.

Quote:

Doctors opt to have private operations

3/26/06 Times Online

More news from the socialized medical system of Britain:

HOSPITAL consultants are spurning the National Health Service by paying for medical insurance so they can be treated privately if they become ill.

A survey of 500 consultants, commissioned by Bupa, the health insurer, found that 41% of senior hospital doctors have invested in private health cover.

Quote:

British Clinic Is Allowed to Deny Medicine

2/6/06 New York Times

An article detailing how a British citizen, who has had taxes forcibly confiscated from her her whole life, is now unable to get a drug that she wants and her doctor recommends. She can't afford it privately, but I wonder if she could afford it if she had access to all the money she has paid into the health care system.

Quote:

Posted 11/24/05

No new hips or knees for fat patients

11/23/05 Time

More news from Great Britain's socialized medical paradise:

The team agreed that patients with a body mass index of 30 or more — recognised by the World Health Or ganisation as obese — should not be referred to surgeons for hip and knee replacements. In Britain, a fifth of men and a quarter of women are estimated to be obese. Despite paying taxes to the system all their lives, these 'obese' citizens, as defined by government, cannot receive these transplants

Quote:

Go private or wait 80 weeks, patient told

6/18/05
UK Times
Britian's vaunted Health System is suffering from the same effects Canada's Health system faces. Socialism fails again. A hospital told a road accident victim that she would have to wait a year and a half for an NHS brain scan, but could have the procedure done privately at the same unit in two weeks,

Those snips of articles that you posted indicate that the British health care system is underfunded and having problems due to budget cuts. The solution to that is simple: give the program proper funding. The problems they are having in Canada are the same.

If they had enough funding to hire enough medical personel, then there would be no waits for anything. The simple statistic to look at is number of doctors per capita. Regardless of the system (socialized or privatized), if there are higher numbers of doctors per capita, then waits will be less or non-existant. Same goes for other statistics like number of available hospital beds. If there are only a limited number, then there will be waits. If there are enough available, no waits.

It's simple logic.

Here are graphs comparing the US to a number of other countries in terms of doctors per capita & hospital beds per capita:

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/DocsPer1000.gif

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/BedsPer1000.gif

After looking at those graphs, it's easy to see why the French health care system is ranked #1 in the world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Those snips of articles that you posted indicate that the British health care system is underfunded and having problems due to budget cuts. The solution to that is simple: give the program proper funding. The problems they are having in Canada are the same.

If they had enough funding to hire enough medical personel, then there would be no waits for anything. The simple statistic to look at is number of doctors per capita. Regardless of the system (socialized or privatized), if there are higher numbers of doctors per capita, then waits will be less or non-existant. Same goes for other statistics like number of available hospital beds. If there are only a limited number, then there will be waits. If there are enough available, no waits.

It's simple logic.

So where's the savings from nationalizing the private health care companies?

Looks like they need to raise taxes...

Gee... I wonder why there aren't more doctors? Could it be the market, i.e. a complete and total lack of incentive for anyone to become a doctor?

You do enjoy shooting yourself in the foot, eh? :rofl:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebound

Did you even look at the graphs I posted? :rolleyes:

Most of the countries have far more doctors than we do, with France having 50% more per capita.

As for savings, the US spends by far the most money on health care of any country in the world. I personally spent $4600 last year so I can have lousy HMO coverage for myself (I'm single, no kids or wife included), and I went to the doctor once for a checkup.

You want to see the savings? Here you go:

http://www.who.int/whosis/database/c...indicators=nha

Total per capita cost of health care (same countries as above):

Australia: $3,123.30
Canada: $3,037.60
Finland: $2,664.30
France: $3,464.00
Japan: $2,823.20
Spain: $1,971.20
Sweden: $3,532.00
United Kingdom: $2.899.70
United States: $6,096.20

Well, obviously Britain and Canada do not spend as much as France does, so they have fewer doctors. And here in the US, we spend double what these other countries spend, and our results are far inferior to ALL of these other countries.

Infant Mortality Rate (per 1,000 live births):

Australia: 4.57
Canada: 4.63
Finland: 3.52
France: 3.41
Japan: 2.80
Spain: 4.31
Sweden: 2.76
United Kingdom: 5.01
United States: 6.37

Life Expectancy:

Australia: 80.62
Canada: 80.34
Finland: 78.66
France: 80.59
Japan: 82.02
Spain: 79.78
Sweden: 80.63
United Kingdom: 78.70
United States: 78.00

So rather than argue about this, let me just ask you this: If we spend so much more than all of these other countries (more than double some of them), then why are our results far worse than all of them? What is your theory?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Did you even look at the graphs I posted?

Most of the countries have far more doctors than we do, with France having 50% more per capita.

Well, obviously Britain and Canada do not spend as much as France does, so they have fewer doctors. And here in the US, we spend double what these other countries spend, and our results are far inferior to ALL of these other countries.

hey - don't get bitchy at me. Here's what you said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

If they had enough funding to hire enough medical personel, then there would be no waits for anything. The simple statistic to look at is number of doctors per capita. Regardless of the system (socialized or privatized), if there are higher numbers of doctors per capita, then waits will be less or non-existant. Same goes for other statistics like number of available hospital beds. If there are only a limited number, then there will be waits. If there are enough available, no waits.

So then I says:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebound

Gee... I wonder why there aren't more doctors? Could it be the market, i.e. a complete and total lack of incentive for anyone to become a doctor?

What's hard to understand about that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

So rather than argue about this, let me just ask you this: If we spend so much more than all of these other countries (more than double some of them), then why are our results far worse than all of them? What is your theory?

:rolleyes:

Eric, if you spent $4600 last year just for HMO coverage and went to the doctor only once, you got ripped off. When I wasn't under my wife's PPO, I was paying $80/month for basic health insurance (assurant health) with a 2k max out of pocket. I was on that plan for almost a year and never made any visits. If I needed to I would pay the office fee.

In our economy there are other, cheaper options. :rofl:

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjo

I paid $900 last year for car insurance, and I didn't make any claims. One could say I got ripped off there as well. That is the way insurance works. They are there to make a profit. Most people get "ripped off". If that wasn't the case, then they would not make any profit and would be out of business. Unfortunately, I cannot predict how healthy or unhealthy I will be in the future. I could get cancer or cut off my fingers like the guy in the movie, and I want to be sure that I am properly cared for, although after watching that movie, I wonder if having the insurance will even make much of a difference.

I don't know about NY, but in Texas it is mandatory to have auto insurance. Even if you didn't make a claim, you have to pay for it.

Besides, having health and car insurance is a good thing. You never plan on needing it, but its nice to know you have it when you do.