SICKO

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Saw it last night. It is worth seeing. It will make you laugh and have tears welling up in your eyes. The only reasons I can see why anyone would not find a great interest in this movie are: 1. An extreme dislike of Michael Moore so much that if he did a film showing how wonderful your grandmother was that you would spit on her grave, and 2. If you make a lot of money off medical insurance companies.

Personally, I haven't had the same level of poor service from the insurance companies that some of the people featured in the film have encountered, but I have had some experiences that allow me to completely understand that these people are not one in 300 million mistakes.

I have had an insurance company deny an emergency room visit because it was "Not life threatening" (I could barely breathe and had all the symptoms of walking pneumonia... turned out to be a nasty intestinal virus.) I had to argue that an ambulance that picked me up was necessary after it was initially denied (only approved because a broken back would make it difficult to get up and go to a hospital on my own.) That same broken back was not caught in two ER visits due to (from what I understand) the insurance only covering a specific number of x-rays... they x-rayed my pelvis and lower back up to L3, the break was in L2, which was only caught when a doctor finally realized that two days after an accident I was still barely able to move even full of pain killers. Since they had just put my wrist back together he ordered additional x-rays of my back.

This film should be a must see.

[SunDevil]

Just saw it today, and completely agree that everyone should see it.

[rowech]

Sadly then, how many people will miss this because it's him?

[k0ruptr]

havent seen it, but I've heard its his best film yet.

[BrianD]

havent seen it, but I've heard its his best film yet.

That sounds like one hell of a straight line.

[Swaggs]

I saw this last weekend and felt like I learned a lot that I did not know.

Unfortunately, I didn't leave the theater feeling like there was much of a chance of a change happening in the U.S. in my lifetime.

[Swaggs]

BTW, I'd be interested in hearing about some of the medical experiences of some of our friends from Canada, England, France, etc. to see if things are as simple and beneficial as they appeared in the film.

[ISiddiqui]

The interesting thing is that I've read reports of Republicans and conservatives who went to see the film and were deeply moved by it as well. People get screwed over in the system we currently have and it is almost always because the insurance company wants to save a few bucks. From working for the US Dept of Labor on health care issues, there are plenty of instances that make you want to tear your hair out about what the insurance companies can get away with.

I haven't seen the movie, but I plan to.

[Mustang]

Sadly then, how many people will miss this because it's him?

Me for one. I don't need Michael Moore to tell me that our healthcare system has flaws.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Unfortunately, I didn't leave the theater feeling like there was much of a chance of a change happening in the U.S. in my lifetime.

I have feared for some time that we may be past the point of no return in this nation. The principles are sound, but the people in control at most levels don't give a damn about anything but having more money than the normal man can even conceive of. We are too lazy, afraid or stupid to do anything about it. The only option seems to allow the system to play itself out and result in a depression that sends this country reeling like a heroin addict tied to a basement pipe.

Hopefully we learn from... and survive our mistakes.

(This is not just regarding health care.)

[molson]

Sadly then, how many people will miss this because it's him?

Even though I believe this is a hugely important issue, and I probably even side with the film's message, I wouldn't be able to get past wondering what's real and what's made up, what's as it's presented and what's orchestrated.

Anybody who thinks Moore has more than zero credibility hasn't been paying attention.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

BTW, I'd be interested in hearing about some of the medical experiences of some of our friends from Canada, England, France, etc. to see if things are as simple and beneficial as they appeared in the film.

I haven't seen the movie. But in Canada, for the patient, things are simple and always covered; it really is that simple.

The only drawback is wait times. If your affliction is non life threatening (say a torn ACL or meniscus from sports, or a bad hip with old age), you could be waiting 4 months (or even much longer) for your scope surgery. However, if you get hurt at work or in a motor vehicle accident, you get fixed up quite quickly because the government, who not only provides health insurance, but also provides worker's compensation and auto insurance, doesn't want to be paying you for lost wages.

[Groundhog]

I haven't seen the movie. But in Canada, for the patient, things are simple and always covered; it really is that simple.

The only drawback is wait times. If your affliction is non life threatening (say a torn ACL or meniscus from sports, or a bad hip with old age), you could be waiting 4 months (or even much longer) for your scope surgery. However, if you get hurt at work or in a motor vehicle accident, you get fixed up quite quickly because the government, who not only provides health insurance, but also provides worker's compensation and auto insurance, doesn't want to be paying you for lost wages.

This is very similiar to how things run in Australia - ie. quite smoothly.

[Icy]

I haven't seen the movie. But in Canada, for the patient, things are simple and always covered; it really is that simple.

The only drawback is wait times. If your affliction is non life threatening (say a torn ACL or meniscus from sports, or a bad hip with old age), you could be waiting 4 months (or even much longer) for your scope surgery. However, if you get hurt at work or in a motor vehicle accident, you get fixed up quite quickly because the government, who not only provides health insurance, but also provides worker's compensation and auto insurance, doesn't want to be paying you for lost wages.

Exactly the same than in Spain, everything is covered here by the public health insurance, the only problem is up to 3 months of waiting time for some specialties but usually less than a month if it's life threating. We can also pay for private health, that is usually better for simple stuff, to avoid the waiting times, but for something worse, nothing beats the public health as they have better hospitals, machines etc.

[Ksyrup]

Even though I believe this is a hugely important issue, and I probably even side with the film's message, I wouldn't be able to get past wondering what's real and what's made up, what's as it's presented and what's orchestrated.

Anybody who thinks Moore has more than zero credibility hasn't been paying attention.

Precisely. When you make "documentaries" that are as misleading as an Oliver Stone movie, you shouldn't be surprised when people don't just take everything you have to say at face value. It's not that I don't think there's some truth in what he puts on the screen, it's that I don't feel like I should have to figure out what's the truth and what's being purposely hidden/distorted. This guy could have been an important figure; instead, he's just a joke.

The reviews I've read (both professional and individual) say it does a good job pointing out our system's problems, but also glosses over the issues in other countries and consistently beats you over the head with repeated, "What? You mean that's FREE in your country?!" faux outrage/incredulity. And most importantly, it does nothing to suggest even one helpful solution to our system's issues. It's basically half-our system sucks, half-their systems are great. Um...no thanks.

[Toddzilla]

The reviews I've read (both professional and individual) say it does a good job pointing out our system's problems, but also glosses over the issues in other countries and consistently beats you over the head with repeated, "What? You mean that's FREE in your country?!" faux outrage/incredulity. And most importantly, it does nothing to suggest even one helpful solution to our system's issues. It's basically half-our system sucks, half-their systems are great. Um...no thanks.Um...it's a *documentary*. As such, the filmmaker has no obligation to (1) present every possible point-of-view or scenario - so there's no "glossing over" as you say, or (2) present solutions to the problems.

This is a documentary, people. The director is *documenting* facts. That's it. If you are expecting more, then your expectations are out of whack - it's not the director's fault.

On the other hand, is the director purposefully showing only the most extreme cases and outrageous examples? Well, duh, of course he is. Don't *all* documentaries do that?

[Ksyrup]

No...?

I'd say if you're confirming what I understand to be the "facts" he's documenting, then I really don't need to see this. I know (a) that people in our country have issues getting the care they need either because they don't have insurance, or because of the way certain insurance plans are set up, and (b) that people in other countries get many services provided for free. To me, that's not really an eye-opener.

[MrBigglesworth]

This guy could have been an important figure; instead, he's just a joke.
I'd say you have a pretty high bar for important figures. His last documentary grossed over $200M worldwide.

And most importantly, it does nothing to suggest even one helpful solution to our system's issues. It's basically half-our system sucks, half-their systems are great. Um...no thanks.
Perhaps it leaves it up to the viewer to connect the dots?

[Ksyrup]

I'd say you have a pretty high bar for important figures. His last documentary grossed over $200M worldwide.


Perhaps it leaves it up to the viewer to connect the dots?

If "connect-the-dots" is as challenging as he was intending, then yes, I'd say he got it right. Seriously...what's there to connect? Us=bad; them=good? Was it part of his "connect-the-dots" theory to completely leave out any of the good points about our system, or the bad points about other systems? I'd say such a simplistic (or as you say it perfectly, "connect-the-dots") viewpoint pretty much negates any good he could do by highlighting the issue. If people come away from this with such a black and white view of the relative merits of these systems, I'd say we just took a step backwards.

When I say "important," I'm talking about someone with credibility on both sides of issues. Instead, he's decided to take on important issues and make them so one-sided that any legit point he may have is buried in his deception and agenda. I'd say that makes him less important than he could have been.

[miked]

My good friend is a lawyer in Florida and does some work with insurance companies. It's borderline criminal as an industry. Apparently, they screw over lawyers too. He says they pay crap because they think there are enough law firms where they can always find a better deal. At the same time, they lobby for reduced ability to sue. So basically, even the insurance defense lawyers don't want the lobbying to to change anything.

I've never really understood the industry as a whole. It's designed to make money, and you don't get money by paying claims.

[MrBigglesworth]

If "connect-the-dots" is as challenging as he was intending, then yes, I'd say he got it right. Seriously...what's there to connect? Us=bad; them=good? Was it part of his "connect-the-dots" theory to completely leave out any of the good points about our system, or the bad points about other systems? I'd say such a simplistic (or as you say it perfectly, "connect-the-dots") viewpoint pretty much negates any good he could do by highlighting the issue. If people come away from this with such a black and white view of the relative merits of these systems, I'd say we just took a step backwards.
I don't see how making a more nebulous distinction between the two systems would further his purpose, considering his purpose is to induce change in the system.

Universal healthcare should be the next big issues that both left and right can rally behind, because it serves both populism and big business.

[Ksyrup]

I don't see how making a more nebulous distinction between the two systems would further his purpose, considering his purpose is to induce change in the system.

Exactly. Paint a simplistic, misleading, worst-case vs. best-case scenario to get people up in arms about the issue using half-truths and unfairly harping on the strengths of one system and the weaknesses of another, while ignoring the same on the other side because it doesn't fit your agenda.

That's great. Yep, I really want to see this movie now, because I'll come away with a better understanding of such a complex issue...! :confused:

[Ksyrup]

My good friend is a lawyer in Florida and does some work with insurance companies. It's borderline criminal as an industry. Apparently, they screw over lawyers too. He says they pay crap because they think there are enough law firms where they can always find a better deal. At the same time, they lobby for reduced ability to sue. So basically, even the insurance defense lawyers don't want the lobbying to to change anything.

I've never really understood the industry as a whole. It's designed to make money, and you don't get money by paying claims.

The thing with lawyers is fairly simple - supply and demand. As far as lawyering goes, it's probably the furthest thing from rocket science you could do. They don't pay a lot because pretty much anyone who has a law degree could step in and do it. I charge almost 3 times as much an hour as a buddy of mine in Orlando who does workers' comp. It's simply because there are fewer attorneys who know the regulatory side of insurance than there are those who can navigate the courts.

[sterlingice]

That's great. Yep, I really want to see this movie now, because I'll come away with a better understanding of such a complex issue...! :confused:

I think this line of reasoning is coming from a really faulty premise: that all things have two equal sides. Not that we're a perfect cross section, certainly, but have you seen a substantial number of people in this thread or in any thread on this board actually speak up for insurance? It does seem like it's a mostly (not entirely, but mostly) one sided issue. Some times a spade is just a spade.

SI

[rowech]

For those of you in other countries, how much money comes out of your paycheck in taxes for your systems?

[ISiddiqui]

I think this line of reasoning is coming from a really faulty premise: that all things have two equal sides. Not that we're a perfect cross section, certainly, but have you seen a substantial number of people in this thread or in any thread on this board actually speak up for insurance? It does seem like it's a mostly (not entirely, but mostly) one sided issue. Some times a spade is just a spade.

SI

Exactly. It seems the only supporters the insurance companies have are themselves... and their large pocketbooks to give to Congressmen/Senators.

Everyone else seems to hate them, from the right and left alike.

[Ksyrup]

And that's why I said I really don't need to see this, because the problems are well-known. And that's also why I think it's incumbent upon someone who wants "change" to not simply say "look, here's a system that's great!" and to actually offer some suggestions for how we would change our system to benefit our country that are both realistic and that take into account the shortcomings of the systems you are touting as alternatives. Anything else, and this guy might as well be writing speeches for a politico.

Simply put, I expect more, like perhaps elevating the discussion beyond the typical bash the system talking points.

[ISiddiqui]

And that's why I said I really don't need to see this, because the problems are well-known. And that's also why I think it's incumbent upon someone who wants "change" to not simply say "look, here's a system that's great!" and to actually offer some suggestions for how we would change our system to benefit our country that are both realistic and that take into account the shortcomings of the systems you are touting as alternatives. Anything else, and this guy might as well be writing speeches for a politico.

Simply put, I expect more, like perhaps elevating the discussion beyond the typical bash the system talking points.

Sometimes you need to show just how bad the system actually is. I think most people aren't aware at the depths of the problem. Moore has a suggestion on how to change the system Sure, he's not talking about the shortcomings, but who does when they are advocating something? Does any documentary go into why what they are backing (explicitly or implicitly) has problems?

[RedKingGold]

I'll go see it after PSUColonel sees it first.

[Ksyrup]

Sometimes you need to show just how bad the system actually is. I think most people aren't aware at the depths of the problem. Moore has a suggestion on how to change the system Sure, he's not talking about the shortcomings, but who does when they are advocating something? Does any documentary go into why what they are backing (explicitly or implicitly) has problems?

For me, I don't give much credence to anyone who argues for a particular position without at least acknowledging that position's shortcomings. Part of making a strong presentation for your side is taking on adverse issues. As a lawyer, I have to do that all the time. You don't acknowledge every single argument against your position, and you certainly don't want to highlight those arguments, but you have to take the most legit of those arguments into account when stating your position. Simply ignoring a valid adverse point is not an option.

Of course, the underlying point of my comment is that if Moore really does just want to scrap our system completely and take on X country's system...then that's a non-starter for me and incredibly unrealistic. And, in that case, I think he has an even bigger obligation to point out the shortcomings of such a system. But that's just me.

[Brillig]

Besides. For all the "It's FREE?" incredulity in the films, I note that going to see the film itself isn't FREE. You'd think if Moore really cared about exposing the flaws in our health-care system he'd have sold the film to PBS or something.

Anyone with half a brain knows there are serious problems with our health-care system. Moore is just making a quick buck off our misery, that's all.

[Warhammer]

Even though I believe this is a hugely important issue, and I probably even side with the film's message, I wouldn't be able to get past wondering what's real and what's made up, what's as it's presented and what's orchestrated.

Anybody who thinks Moore has more than zero credibility hasn't been paying attention.

This is my sentiment as well. It could all be true, but based upon the source, I really doubt it. Moore to me is like reading the Enquirer, sure there may be a kernel of truth, but I know a bunch of it is crap. The sad part is at least with the Enquirer I can differentiate the crap from the kernels of truth.

What I really think we need to do in the medical industry is make doctors publish prices. What other industry do you not get a quotation prior to having work done? If we went in to doctors offices and had a chart that said this:

$80 checkup/standard diagnosis
$115 physical
$150 advanced diagnosis
$55 follow up

You would know on the front end what the cost of your medical care was. As it is, there is some fraud on both fronts. Each time I go to the doctor, he does a white count. Now, I know that this can be helpful, but when I go in for a sinus infection, and he prescribes medication for a sinus infection, but he still does the white count I can't help but think that it is for two reasons:
1) To cover his ass.
2) To have something additional to charge the insurance companies for something that he can charge them for.

It would also open things up to competition. You could shop doctors just like we shop for everything else. Better doctors could charge more for their care, etc. It would be a capitalistic system, rather than the quasi-socialist system we have now. By that, I mean we could control our choices rather than being dictated where we need to go, etc.

My previous doctor didn't do this all the time. He would check you out, check your symptoms, if it was something going around, he'd treat you for it. If it was something new, then he'd perform the tests.

I can't help but think that insurance companies are part of this problem. When your company pays for your coverage, you don't realize how much it costs. Additionally, what other industry makes sure you have insurance coverage, and then discriminates based upon insurance, before performing any services. Its like going to get an oil change and having to provide your auto insurance info.

I don't have a problem with anyone making money, but the way the system works now is terrible. I think doctors initially enjoyed the insurance companies because they made sure they got paid for their work, but I can't help but think that now the insurance companies have the upper hand and are holding both the patients and doctors hostage.

[Warhammer]

I'd say you have a pretty high bar for important figures. His last documentary grossed over $200M worldwide.


Perhaps it leaves it up to the viewer to connect the dots?


Damn, looks like George Lucas and Steven Spielburg are more important than Al Gore. :eek:

EDIT: I just couldn't resist.

[Brillig]

It's not just the insurance companies though. I think Big Pharma has a lot to answer for as well.

[ISiddiqui]

For me, I don't give much credence to anyone who argues for a particular position without at least acknowledging that position's shortcomings. Part of making a strong presentation for your side is taking on adverse issues. As a lawyer, I have to do that all the time. You don't acknowledge every single argument against your position, and you certainly don't want to highlight those arguments, but you have to take the most legit of those arguments into account when stating your position. Simply ignoring a valid adverse point is not an option.

Of course, the underlying point of my comment is that if Moore really does just want to scrap our system completely and take on X country's system...then that's a non-starter for me and incredibly unrealistic. And, in that case, I think he has an even bigger obligation to point out the shortcomings of such a system. But that's just me.

The reason you have to do it as a lawyer is because the other side will bring it up and you want to put the best spin on it before they get to define the fact in their own way.

Advocates for a policy hardly ever bring up shortcomings unless they are debate and realize the other guy is going to bring it up during that format. Otherwise, as in documentaries, they realize that pointing out the shortcomings is the opponent's responsibility, not their own. Then they can respond afterwards to those attacks later.

Anyone with half a brain knows there are serious problems with our health-care system. Moore is just making a quick buck off our misery, that's all.

Then, you'd imagine we'd actually do something to change that. But even that isn't done. Maybe this movie will spur people to demand change.

[ISiddiqui]

It would also open things up to competition. You could shop doctors just like we shop for everything else. Better doctors could charge more for their care, etc. It would be a capitalistic system, rather than the quasi-socialist system we have now. By that, I mean we could control our choices rather than being dictated where we need to go, etc.

Huh? :confused:

Quasi-socialist? We have an incredibly capitalistic health care system. Most capitalistic among western countries, I'm sure. What exactly is quasi-socialist about our system? The fact that your employer decides which insurance to offer? Or that your insurance only has a few doctors? That's part and parcel of any capitalist system. You are quite free to not be covered by the company and go and get insurance yourself. It's just that doctors will only agree to take certain kinds of insurance, which is their right under a capitalist system (in any quasi-socialist one, they wouldn't have a choice).

[Alan T]

I don't really have a dog in this fight, Just like everyone else I know that nothing is perfect, and the current health care system probably needs work.. but speaking from the other viewpoint, the only time I've ever really needed health care was earlier this year when my wife caught pneumonia and nearly died. She had actually switched health insurance just the previous month, had paid only 2 months of it ($600 roughly), before this all happened.

Without any question, fuss or hassle from the insurance company, over the next few months they've paid about $500,000 worth of medical bills while I've had only about $800-$900 worth of co-pays myself, which I don't really see as a big deall all things considering. So I guess for my own experiences I am pretty satisfied with the system, but obviously know its not perfect and can be improved upon.

[BrianD]

Um...it's a *documentary*. As such, the filmmaker has no obligation to (1) present every possible point-of-view or scenario - so there's no "glossing over" as you say, or (2) present solutions to the problems.

This is a documentary, people. The director is *documenting* facts. That's it. If you are expecting more, then your expectations are out of whack - it's not the director's fault.

On the other hand, is the director purposefully showing only the most extreme cases and outrageous examples? Well, duh, of course he is. Don't *all* documentaries do that?

There is a difference between documenting facts and painting a specific picture. When you pick out only certain facts to show, especially those which show your point of view in a good light, the documentary loses credibility. A documentary shouldn't be obvious in what it wants me to think. It should give me the facts and let me decide what to think.

Documentaries shouldn't be providing solutions. To provide a solution means there was a specific point made which documentaries shouldn't do.

[Warhammer]

Huh? :confused:

Quasi-socialist? We have an incredibly capitalistic health care system. Most capitalistic among western countries, I'm sure. What exactly is quasi-socialist about our system? The fact that your employer decides which insurance to offer? Or that your insurance only has a few doctors? That's part and parcel of any capitalist system. You are quite free to not be covered by the company and go and get insurance yourself. It's just that doctors will only agree to take certain kinds of insurance, which is their right under a capitalist system (in any quasi-socialist one, they wouldn't have a choice).

That's why I said quasi-socialist. The problem is that what other industry can you be discriminated based upon having insurance for something? You have to have insurance. If you have insurance you have to see X doctor. Yes, it might be more capitalist than other nations health care systems, but I want it to be more capitalist.

Do doctors have competition? Essentially no. We don't know what we really pay for our health care. We don't know what the insurance company pays. We don't have knowledge of the market. In this case, the insurance company is functioning in an anti-capitalistic fashion because they pay X amount for X service. Why should doctors try to become better or more efficient. The heck of it is that the doctors decide which insurance they will accept. So if I go to Dr. X, he says that I need insurance, but I have Y insurance, he can tell me that he refuses that insurance and will not accept my money for his services. How is this any different than segregation? He can't discriminate on race or religion, but he sure as hell can based upon insurance or cash.

Again, if doctors were like auto shops, at least I could shop them around. I go to one for a diagnosis. He says I need X, I can then go to another doctor to see if I need it, and if I do, what will he charge? I can then compare and see whether I want to go back to X or Y. As it is, I have to go see doctor X, who then tells me I need something and that I need to go to doctor Y. I can't go anywhere else because I need the referral for the insurance company to pay for it.

[ISiddiqui]

There is a difference between documenting facts and painting a specific picture. When you pick out only certain facts to show, especially those which show your point of view in a good light, the documentary loses credibility. A documentary shouldn't be obvious in what it wants me to think. It should give me the facts and let me decide what to think.

Documentaries shouldn't be providing solutions. To provide a solution means there was a specific point made which documentaries shouldn't do.

I think that people aren't all that familiar with political documentaries. You are looking for an ideal that doesn't exist. People make political documentaries BECAUSE it wants to make you think a certain way and back a certain viewpoint. Otherwise, what's the point in making a documentary? No one does it to show both sides of a controversy.

[BrianD]

I think that people aren't all that familiar with political documentaries. You are looking for an ideal that doesn't exist. People make political documentaries BECAUSE it wants to make you think a certain way and back a certain viewpoint. Otherwise, what's the point in making a documentary? No one does it to show both sides of a controversy.

I'm aware of them, I just don't think they should be thought of as documentaries. Wouldn't propaganda be a more accurate term?

[ISiddiqui]

That's why I said quasi-socialist. The problem is that what other industry can you be discriminated based upon having insurance for something? You have to have insurance. If you have insurance you have to see X doctor. Yes, it might be more capitalist than other nations health care systems, but I want it to be more capitalist.

How exactly do you want it to be more capitalist?! Doctors decide which organizations they want to be associated with. NO ONE is telling them which ones they should take. Unless you are arguing for 'trust busting', which some may consider anti-capitalist.

Do doctors have competition? Essentially no. We don't know what we really pay for our health care. We don't know what the insurance company pays. We don't have knowledge of the market. In this case, the insurance company is functioning in an anti-capitalistic fashion because they pay X amount for X service. Why should doctors try to become better or more efficient. The heck of it is that the doctors decide which insurance they will accept. So if I go to Dr. X, he says that I need insurance, but I have Y insurance, he can tell me that he refuses that insurance and will not accept my money for his services. How is this any different than segregation? He can't discriminate on race or religion, but he sure as hell can based upon insurance or cash.

Doctors have a TON of competition. Take out your phone book and look at all the doctors listed. And how is the insurance company functioning in anti-capitalist fashion because they pay X amount for X service?! Do employers function in anti-capitalist fashion because they pay X amount for X service (why should employees become better or more efficient if they know what they are getting for what level of service)?

And a doctor telling you that he doesn't accept your insurance and thus will not accept your money for his services (which is ridiculous, every doctor accepts your services, you are just on the hook for the total amount if your insurance is not covered), anti-capitalist?! It seems to be incredibly capitalist to me. The doctor decides who to serve... he's not at the whim of a government telling him he must serve you (ER doctors are different because they do have to serve the people who come in).

Discrimination on cash is one of the primary aspects of capitalism. If you can't pay, you don't get it.

Again, if doctors were like auto shops, at least I could shop them around. I go to one for a diagnosis. He says I need X, I can then go to another doctor to see if I need it, and if I do, what will he charge? I can then compare and see whether I want to go back to X or Y. As it is, I have to go see doctor X, who then tells me I need something and that I need to go to doctor Y. I can't go anywhere else because I need the referral for the insurance company to pay for it.

You've never had a second opinion done? Besides, if the doctor X tells you do need to go to doctor Y because that's the only thing the ins company pays for, well then you chose poorly. That's all. You can do self-insurance if you don't like that model. I know my employer's insurance doesn't require me to go to doctor X to see doctor Y (though doc Y may wish me to see someone before going straight to him).

The problem is that you hate the ultra-capitalist nature of the health care industry in the US. You forget that 'trusts' are usually the end result of unrestricted capitalism. And insurance companies are basically a trust. They coordinate doctors to get you a lower price... and they'll pay a good portion of the lower negotiated price in exchange for you paying them do so.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm aware of them, I just don't think they should be thought of as documentaries. Wouldn't propaganda be a more accurate term?

So you'd basically have no 'documentaries' :p.

[BrianD]

So you'd basically have no 'documentaries' :p.

There are plenty of documentaries that aren't intending on pushing an agenda...just probably not in the political arena. It is the same way that most political talk radio is generally propaganda.

[ISiddiqui]

There are plenty of documentaries that aren't intending on pushing an agenda...just probably not in the political arena. It is the same way that most political talk radio is generally propaganda.

Realistically, documentaries were created to show a point in a more powerful manner than can be done in fiction. To capture the personal reactions of people going through a sort of crisis. Now, granted, some are of nature and animals ("March of Penguins" being an example), though some of that has a political bent as well.

[Ksyrup]

Huh? :confused:

Quasi-socialist? We have an incredibly capitalistic health care system. Most capitalistic among western countries, I'm sure. What exactly is quasi-socialist about our system?

Ever heard of Medicare/Medicaid?

[PSUColonel]

Just saw it today, and completely agree that everyone should see it.

Mr. Moore will not be seeing one red penny from me.

[BrianD]

Realistically, documentaries were created to show a point in a more powerful manner than can be done in fiction. To capture the personal reactions of people going through a sort of crisis. Now, granted, some are of nature and animals ("March of Penguins" being an example), though some of that has a political bent as well.

I think you are making my point. Documenting something as it happens and filming people it is happening to is real and it is honest. If you want to show the horrors of a hurricane, you show houses flooded and aftermath devistation...of course they also tend to tell you the classification of hurricanes so you can conceptualize how a particular hurricane may be bigger than normal. Documentaries don't need to present everything in a perfectly balanced manner, but they should present it in a fair manner. If there is more good than bad to say about a subject, they should say more good than bad about it. But they shouldn't eliminate the bad completely.

[PSUColonel]

Even though I believe this is a hugely important issue, and I probably even side with the film's message, I wouldn't be able to get past wondering what's real and what's made up, what's as it's presented and what's orchestrated.

Anybody who thinks Moore has more than zero credibility hasn't been paying attention.

Exactly, Mr. Moore kind of has a track record in this regard.

[timmynausea]

I'm glad to hear the people that haven't seen the movie weigh in. I think they have a fair and balanced, informative take. The people that have seen it are so biased.

[BrianD]

I'm glad to hear the people that haven't seen the movie weigh in. I think they have a fair and balanced, informative take. The people that have seen it are so biased.

You should really read a thread before you comment. Nobody is claiming bias on the part of people who have seen the movie. Most of us that haven't seen the movie are discussing documentaries in general and Moore's reputation based on previous works. Thanks for the troll though.

[timmynausea]

You should really read a thread before you comment. Nobody is claiming bias on the part of people who have seen the movie. Most of us that haven't seen the movie are discussing documentaries in general and Moore's reputation based on previous works. Thanks for the troll though.

I happen to think it's ironic for people to criticize a movie by claiming it to be biased when they haven't seen the movie. That's all.

[Ksyrup]

I'm glad to hear the people that haven't seen the movie weigh in. I think they have a fair and balanced, informative take. The people that have seen it are so biased.

I don't think there is a disagreement over the content of the movie. I think the disagreement is more conceptual. Not to mention I would have to pay to see it, and seeing as though I haven't seen a non-kids movie in the theater for well over 5 years, I won't be starting with this one.

I've read enough pro and con reviews to understand what it looks like. When I watch a movie, I like to be entertained. This would not be entertaining. In fact, it would be incredibly frustrating, knowing the agenda and what was purposely not being shown/discussed. Therefore, I have no interest in seeing it. Same reason why I don't play golf - I want to have fun, not get so pissed I ruin the rest of my day.

[ISiddiqui]

Ever heard of Medicare/Medicaid?

That wasn't exactly his complaint about it being 'quasi-socialist'. He's talking about the insurance aspects.

[timmynausea]

I don't think there is a disagreement over the content of the movie. I think the disagreement is more conceptual. Not to mention I would have to pay to see it, and seeing as though I haven't seen a non-kids movie in the theater for well over 5 years, I won't be starting with this one.

I've read enough pro and con reviews to understand what it looks like. When I watch a movie, I like to be entertained. This would not be entertaining. In fact, it would be incredibly frustrating, knowing the agenda and what was purposely not being shown/discussed. Therefore, I have no interest in seeing it. Same reason why I don't play golf - I want to have fun, not get so pissed I ruin the rest of my day.

I wasn't necessarily trying to single anyone out. I just thought it was weird that this discussion is being dominated by people that haven't seen the movie.

[Ksyrup]

That's because it's more a discussion about documentaries than it is about the specifics of this one. Whether we've seen it or not, I think we all understand what the movie is about and how he goes about portraying the issues. The question - for me, anyway - is whether that is appropriate and whether he is doing a disservice to his credibility by being so gung-ho about his agenda.

[Swaggs]

It is unfortunate that the director is so polarizing, as I didn't feel like this particular film had much of a political bent and, as previously mentioned, there is really just a small handful of the population that would be strongly opposed to his "agenda" in this film, in my opinion.

I consider myself to be fairly up-to-speed on issues, I'm a college graduate, and a taxpayer and, as I mentioned, I learned quite a bit from Sicko. I think others, regardless of their feelings on Moore, could learn some things from it, as well.

All that said, Michael Moore has created his own persona and has to live with it and I'm sure he expects a significant segment of the population to write-off his content without seeing it. As I said, it is unfortunate.

[Logan]

I haven't seen the movie. But in Canada, for the patient, things are simple and always covered; it really is that simple.

The only drawback is wait times. If your affliction is non life threatening (say a torn ACL or meniscus from sports, or a bad hip with old age), you could be waiting 4 months (or even much longer) for your scope surgery. However, if you get hurt at work or in a motor vehicle accident, you get fixed up quite quickly because the government, who not only provides health insurance, but also provides worker's compensation and auto insurance, doesn't want to be paying you for lost wages.

Just out of curiousity...where does simple stuff like "I have a cold/cough and I need prescription meds" fit in on the timeframe?

[path12]

For those of you in other countries, how much money comes out of your paycheck in taxes for your systems?

I may not pay taxes for my healthcare, but I do pay around $120 a paycheck, which is quite a chunk. And it is the premium that my company offers, but still would be only somewhat above average as far as I can tell benefit-wise.

I don't think that universal coverage would be more in taxes than I already pay, but freely admit I don't know that for sure.

[path12]

Exactly, Mr. Moore kind of has a track record in this regard.

Much like PSUColonel. ;)

[Ksyrup]

It is unfortunate that the director is so polarizing, as I didn't feel like this particular film had much of a political bent and, as previously mentioned, there is really just a small handful of the population that would be strongly opposed to his "agenda" in this film, in my opinion.

I consider myself to be fairly up-to-speed on issues, I'm a college graduate, and a taxpayer and, as I mentioned, I learned quite a bit from Sicko. I think others, regardless of their feelings on Moore, could learn some things from it, as well.

All that said, Michael Moore has created his own persona and has to live with it and I'm sure he expects a significant segment of the population to write-off his content without seeing it. As I said, it is unfortunate.

It's not just his persona, it's his credibility. I bet if someone paid for me to watch this movie, I might learn something, too. But you know what - I think I'd have a hard time trying to figure out whether what I learned was true, or whether it was some sort of manipulation of the facts to fit the agenda. That's why this guy's stuff is fairly useless to me. I have to view it under that umbrella of suspicion, if you will.

And yes, it is unfortunate, seeing as though I think we all agree healthcare is an issue. But he's painted himself into that corner.

[Surtt]

It is unfortunate that the director is so polarizing, as I didn't feel like this particular film had much of a political bent and, as previously mentioned, there is really just a small handful of the population that would be strongly opposed to his "agenda" in this film, in my opinion.

I consider myself to be fairly up-to-speed on issues, I'm a college graduate, and a taxpayer and, as I mentioned, I learned quite a bit from Sicko. I think others, regardless of their feelings on Moore, could learn some things from it, as well.

All that said, Michael Moore has created his own persona and has to live with it and I'm sure he expects a significant segment of the population to write-off his content without seeing it. As I said, it is unfortunate.


If you can not trust the messenger, how can you trust the message?

I agree it is unfortunate,
It seems his films are timely and socially relevant but ultimately pointless because of Moore's reputation.
I don't see much reason to watch a documentary when I know I am being manipulated by a skilled directer, I won't trust anything.

[Warhammer]

How exactly do you want it to be more capitalist?! Doctors decide which organizations they want to be associated with. NO ONE is telling them which ones they should take. Unless you are arguing for 'trust busting', which some may consider anti-capitalist.

Doctors have a TON of competition. Take out your phone book and look at all the doctors listed. And how is the insurance company functioning in anti-capitalist fashion because they pay X amount for X service?! Do employers function in anti-capitalist fashion because they pay X amount for X service (why should employees become better or more efficient if they know what they are getting for what level of service)?.

Obviously you haven't gone for care in Memphis. They won't see you unless you have insurance. Even if you want to give them a check or cash, sorry, you have to have insurance.

And a doctor telling you that he doesn't accept your insurance and thus will not accept your money for his services (which is ridiculous, every doctor accepts your services, you are just on the hook for the total amount if your insurance is not covered), anti-capitalist?! It seems to be incredibly capitalist to me. The doctor decides who to serve... he's not at the whim of a government telling him he must serve you (ER doctors are different because they do have to serve the people who come in).

Discrimination on cash is one of the primary aspects of capitalism. If you can't pay, you don't get it.

If it was based on cash I wouldn't have an issue. I understand that. This is about having insurance.

You've never had a second opinion done? Besides, if the doctor X tells you do need to go to doctor Y because that's the only thing the ins company pays for, well then you chose poorly. That's all. You can do self-insurance if you don't like that model. I know my employer's insurance doesn't require me to go to doctor X to see doctor Y (though doc Y may wish me to see someone before going straight to him).

The problem is that you hate the ultra-capitalist nature of the health care industry in the US. You forget that 'trusts' are usually the end result of unrestricted capitalism. And insurance companies are basically a trust. They coordinate doctors to get you a lower price... and they'll pay a good portion of the lower negotiated price in exchange for you paying them do so.

I actually wish that it was ultra-capitalist. Ultra-capitalist means publishing costs and letting the customer know what he is getting. Ultra-capitalist means finding a way to reduce costs and either pass them on to your customer or pocket the profit yourself.

What has happened is that we have to do business with insurance companies. Take them out of the equation. Publish your prices and allow the consumer to decide whether or not they choose to do business with a health care company. Heck, a health care savings plan would be fine by me.

What the health insurance companies are to a large extent are an insurance for the doctors to ensure that they get paid. My guess is that is what they originally were, but they morphed into something else. 20 years ago, you didn't need health insurance. I remember going to the doctor and being able to pay cash for the visit, but none of the doctors around here allow that anymore. Heck, back then I remember seeing a summary of charges on the bill, you don't see that any more. All the doctor receipts I have seen have the list of procedures, but no prices like they used to have. Then again, my experience could be due in large part to a doctor who hated insurance companies, he was a country doctor in an area that became suburbia in the 70s and 80s.

[ISiddiqui]

Obviously you haven't gone for care in Memphis. They won't see you unless you have insurance. Even if you want to give them a check or cash, sorry, you have to have insurance.

And that's the doctor's choice. Fully compatible with capitalism. Sign on with their business partners and then come back and see them.

If it was based on cash I wouldn't have an issue. I understand that. This is about having insurance.

And how that's socialist at all is something I don't understand at all.

I actually wish that it was ultra-capitalist. Ultra-capitalist means publishing costs and letting the customer know what he is getting. Ultra-capitalist means finding a way to reduce costs and either pass them on to your customer or pocket the profit yourself.

No... it really doesn't. Ultra-capitalism means the business can run whatever type of business it wants. If they don't want to publish costs, its the consumer who decides if the place gets his business. And the capitalist insurance companies do pocket plenty of profit.

I mean who forces you to have insurance?! Not the government. So how can it be "quasi-socialist" at all? It's other private business which tells you get insurance. I fail to see what is anti-capitalist about that.

What has happened is that we have to do business with insurance companies. Take them out of the equation. Publish your prices and allow the consumer to decide whether or not they choose to do business with a health care company. Heck, a health care savings plan would be fine by me.

In a capitalist system that's the doctor's choice, isn't it?

What the health insurance companies are to a large extent are an insurance for the doctors to ensure that they get paid. My guess is that is what they originally were, but they morphed into something else. 20 years ago, you didn't need health insurance. I remember going to the doctor and being able to pay cash for the visit, but none of the doctors around here allow that anymore. Heck, back then I remember seeing a summary of charges on the bill, you don't see that any more. All the doctor receipts I have seen have the list of procedures, but no prices like they used to have. Then again, my experience could be due in large part to a doctor who hated insurance companies, he was a country doctor in an area that became suburbia in the 70s and 80s.

Health insurance companies are partly for doctors to ensure they get paid, but also for individuals to make sure they are covered in the event of catastrophic events. They didn't come about because the government mandated it.

I still fail to see how anything can be "quasi-socialist" if the government isn't involved and it's private companies contracting with other private companies. The government isn't making you get insurance (unless you live in Massachusetts), the doctors are or your employer is.

[molson]

I happen to think it's ironic for people to criticize a movie by claiming it to be biased when they haven't seen the movie. That's all.

Nobody's doing anything of the sort. I think you're misunderstanding the Moore criticism. It's not that he's "biased". Everyone, especially anyone who makes documentaries, obviously has a viewpoint, that's fine.

The issue with Moore is credibility. There's a difference between "telling only one side of the story", and being deliberately misleading.

[larrymcg421]

I think people would be surprised at how much is made up or how much footage is distorted in the average documentary. Moore's films get more attention and scrutiny but he doesn't use techniques that are different from most documentary filmmakers.

[timmynausea]

I think people would be surprised at how much is made up or how much footage is distorted in the average documentary. Moore's films get more attention and scrutiny but he doesn't use techniques that are different from most documentary filmmakers.

QFT

[st.cronin]

I don't really have a dog in this fight, Just like everyone else I know that nothing is perfect, and the current health care system probably needs work.. but speaking from the other viewpoint, the only time I've ever really needed health care was earlier this year when my wife caught pneumonia and nearly died. She had actually switched health insurance just the previous month, had paid only 2 months of it ($600 roughly), before this all happened.

Without any question, fuss or hassle from the insurance company, over the next few months they've paid about $500,000 worth of medical bills while I've had only about $800-$900 worth of co-pays myself, which I don't really see as a big deall all things considering. So I guess for my own experiences I am pretty satisfied with the system, but obviously know its not perfect and can be improved upon.

I think the current system is pretty good, too. There are ways to improve it, but I would be against any revolutionary approach.

[flere-imsaho]

Just out of curiousity...where does simple stuff like "I have a cold/cough and I need prescription meds" fit in on the timeframe?

When I was a student in England I saw the doc a few times for this kind of thing and it was all same-day. The best example probably was the time I came down with strep throat. I walked-in to the office of the GP I was registered with, without an appointment, and although he couldn't see me, one of the other doctors did, about 30 mins later. Did the test, talked about my med history, wrote out a prescription that I got filled around the corner pretty much immediately.

[Young Drachma]

I would be a lot happier if the burden for health care was shifted away from employers. But only if it meant that they would be able to invest more in wages and other QOL improvements. Because if health care is a benefit that most folks consider when taking a job (unless they're making huge bucks...), then I'd much rather see that money invested by me, especially since I'm pretty healthy at this point in my life, rather than having to pay for the health care of other coworkers who get sick all of the time.

Speaking of socialized care, it's weird in a small population state like Wyoming where really if you can find some way to get a state job or even a county job, you'll still get on the state health insurance system...and there isn't coverage anywhere in the state that really matches it.

It's almost unfair in the context of such a small place.

[MrBigglesworth]

And yes, it is unfortunate, seeing as though I think we all agree healthcare is an issue. But he's painted himself into that corner.
I think it's unfortunate that SiCKO couldn't have been released first, so that the first film of his that people saw was one where they agreed with him on the issue.

[Ksyrup]

I think it's unfortunate that SiCKO couldn't have been released first, so that the first film of his that people saw was one where they agreed with him on the issue.

I agree it is AN issue, but don't agree with him ON the issue.

[sabotai]

Obviously you haven't gone for care in Memphis. They won't see you unless you have insurance. Even if you want to give them a check or cash, sorry, you have to have insurance.

That's pretty messed up. I've been without health insurance for about 8 years now, and not once have I had service denied to me by anyone. General doctor, specialist, the emergency room, etc. have all seen me just as fast as they did when I did have insurance.

EDIT: I guess that's another reason New Jersey is the best state in the country. :)

[MrBigglesworth]

Do doctors have competition? Essentially no. We don't know what we really pay for our health care. We don't know what the insurance company pays. We don't have knowledge of the market. In this case, the insurance company is functioning in an anti-capitalistic fashion because they pay X amount for X service. Why should doctors try to become better or more efficient. The heck of it is that the doctors decide which insurance they will accept. So if I go to Dr. X, he says that I need insurance, but I have Y insurance, he can tell me that he refuses that insurance and will not accept my money for his services. How is this any different than segregation? He can't discriminate on race or religion, but he sure as hell can based upon insurance or cash.

Again, if doctors were like auto shops, at least I could shop them around. I go to one for a diagnosis. He says I need X, I can then go to another doctor to see if I need it, and if I do, what will he charge? I can then compare and see whether I want to go back to X or Y. As it is, I have to go see doctor X, who then tells me I need something and that I need to go to doctor Y. I can't go anywhere else because I need the referral for the insurance company to pay for it.
Universal healthcare would get rid of this problem, you would be able to see any doctor you wanted to all for the same price.

[Warhammer]

That's pretty messed up. I've been without health insurance for about 8 years now, and not once have I had service denied to me by anyone. General doctor, specialist, the emergency room, etc. have all seen me just as fast as they did when I did have insurance.

I had all sorts of problems when we switched insurances. My son was sick and rather than allowing me to pay by check or cash, I had to get all the new insurance info. Thankfully, my wife was in a place I could reach her and she gave me the info off of her card (my card had bad info, so I couldn't use it).

In reference to Mr. Bigglesworth, I worry about what would happen to the medical system if the government took it over. Everything else the government touches turns to crap, I don't want them touching healthcare.

If we could get the insurance companies out of the picture I would be much happier, but I don't see that happening.

[Ksyrup]

Universal healthcare would get rid of this problem, you would be able to see any doctor you wanted to all for the same price.

Yes, freaking expensive.

[MrBigglesworth]

Yes, freaking expensive.
Every country with universal healthcare pays less than we do per capita. What makes you think universal healthcare in the US would be an anomaly and actually cost more?

[MrBigglesworth]

In reference to Mr. Bigglesworth, I worry about what would happen to the medical system if the government took it over. Everything else the government touches turns to crap, I don't want them touching healthcare.

If we could get the insurance companies out of the picture I would be much happier, but I don't see that happening.
Similar to what I said to Ksyrup, every industrialized country with universal healthcare has better outcomes than ours. Medicare and Medicaid in this country is well-respected, and prior to the latest war the most highly rated US insurer was the government VA system. So what makes you think universal healthcare in the US would be an anomaly?

[Ksyrup]

Every country with universal healthcare pays less than we do per capita.

To me, there's a price beyond money that we would pay for moving to a state-run healthcare system. It is not necessary for everyone, to a large degree - I can afford and want to pay for my healthcare. I do not want to rely on the government to provide for me. Rather than give someone else my money and let them spend it, I'd rather retain the freedom myself.

I believe a more reasoned and less drastic approach is to work to make the current system better, not scrap it for a state-run healthcare program that most of us don't need. While I agree that there is a segment of our population that needs assistance, and that things like drug costs, etc., need to be brought under control, I see a danger in taking self-sufficient people and putting them on wealthcare.

[MrBigglesworth]

To me, there's a price beyond money that we would pay for moving to a state-run healthcare system. It is not necessary for everyone, to a large degree - I can afford and want to pay for my healthcare. I do not want to rely on the government to provide for me. Rather than give someone else my money and let them spend it, I'd rather retain the freedom myself.

I believe a more reasoned and less drastic approach is to work to make the current system better, not scrap it for a state-run healthcare program that most of us don't need. While I agree that there is a segment of our population that needs assistance, and that things like drug costs, etc., need to be brought under control, I see a danger in taking self-sufficient people and putting them on wealthcare.
What if we instituted a system that was more like France, where there was a base level of coverage (that covered, say, emergency care and preventative care) and a private insurance system above and beyond the base level for people to take advantage of if they wanted to and could afford it? Is that something that you could get behind?

[ISiddiqui]

In reference to Mr. Bigglesworth, I worry about what would happen to the medical system if the government took it over. Everything else the government touches turns to crap, I don't want them touching healthcare.

That's overstating it. I think our military is pretty damned good. And the aforementioned VA care has been good as well.

I think the government can do very well in providing the basic, minimum service to everyone and then you can have private (or company) insurance for some of the extra stuff. That way, its the best of both worlds. I think whatever crap the basic level turns into, at least everyone gets the chance to get a checkup at a doctor or get basic perscriptions filled. It's worth it to me to make that trade off.

And then for the extra stuff, you can have your own insurance, so you can pick what you want beyond the minimum.

[st.cronin]

I believe a more reasoned and less drastic approach is to work to make the current system better, not scrap it for a state-run healthcare program that most of us don't need.

+1

[Ksyrup]

I still don't understand why I would need any level of coverage from the government. Why would we insist that those who can afford healthcare nonetheless receive coverage from the government, and more importantly, why would people want to pay for it? All I hear from Democrats is how rich people get all sorts of tax breaks, etc., yet here we are discussing a plan where we all pay into a system that will provide free healthcare for even the richest Americans.

I just don't get it. For me, the goal is self-sufficiency in all aspects of life, so I don't understand why we would take a step back and force government dependency on people who are otherwise self-sufficient.

[st.cronin]

Not sure if this is the right thread, but what do people think of Mass's new law? It seems fairly sensible to me, but I haven't given it a lot of thought.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I haven't read this whole thread, but will simply observe that because it has already reached 3 pages in less than a day, Mr. Moore has already succeeded with his two main goals.

To raise awareness of the health situation in the U.S. and get people talking about it.

To get people talking about it so that some will go see his film, and make him some money -- so he can get a nicer house and make another documentary.

[ISiddiqui]

I still don't understand why I would need any level of coverage from the government. Why would we insist that those who can afford healthcare nonetheless receive coverage from the government, and more importantly, why would people want to pay for it? All I hear from Democrats is how rich people get all sorts of tax breaks, etc., yet here we are discussing a plan where we all pay into a system that will provide free healthcare for even the richest Americans.

I just don't get it. For me, the goal is self-sufficiency in all aspects of life, so I don't understand why we would take a step back and force government dependency on people who are otherwise self-sufficient.

Well, because businesses would like it? ;) One of the HUGE problems American companies are suddenly starting to face in competing with foreign companies around the world is health care costs. As health care premiums are shooting through the roof in the US, the businesses are on the hook... and thus businesses in foriegn countries, who are not subject to such have a competitive advantage.

The other (and just as big) reason is that it is far easier to provide it for everyone than to just go around and see who's covered and who's not and who should get "the free healthcare". That would require a nationwide database to see who has health insurance, which would have to be constantly updated and would cost a TON, probably as much as covering all those folk for basic health care, and would be hard as Hell to administer (I can see unscrupulous companies saying they don't have healthcare so the government pays). And of course other companies may simply stop giving health care benefits to be competitive in the world, while knowing basic coverage will be covered for their employees (eliminating any moral quandries).

And you are fooling yourself if you think citizens aren't fully dependant on the government already. I'd like to see what would happen if all of a sudden the government disappeared and people realized they'd have to be truly "self-sufficient". There is a reason we moved away from that thousands of years ago. Of course that doesn't mean you have to go to the other extreme, but a balance must be struck. I don't see a basic level of health care for all, by itself, making the populace overly dependant on the government.

[ISiddiqui]

Not sure if this is the right thread, but what do people think of Mass's new law? It seems fairly sensible to me, but I haven't given it a lot of thought.

I'm not sold on making everyone get health insurance, without some really, really tough regulation of insurance companies. Without the regulation, the insurance companies really have the people of the state over a barrel.

Interestingly enough the Massachusetts Plan, with tough regulatory oversight, is basically an evolution from a more well known plan, commonly refered to as "HillaryCare" :D.

[st.cronin]

I'm not sold on making everyone get health insurance, without some really, really tough regulation of insurance companies. Without the regulation, the insurance companies really have the people of the state over a barrel.

Interestingly enough the Massachusetts Plan, with tough regulatory oversight, is basically an evolution from a more well known plan, commonly refered to as "HillaryCare" :D.

What regulation is necessary?

[ISiddiqui]

What regulation is necessary?

Well, when you are basically mandating everyone have insurance, you have to make sure the insurance companies don't implicitly agree to jack up rates by 100% or something, for starters (because the demand for insurance goes through the roof, while supply will likely remain the same in the short run). Other regulation includes making sure the insurance companies don't play games, like denying claims above a certain $$ for everyone the first time they come through, and only paying for those who appeal. And other little games insurance companies like to play.

Basically you want to make sure that people who are covered don't get jerked around by the insurance companies in order to get their claims paid, and that the companies or individuals don't get jerked around by insurance companies realizing that everyone has to be covered and all deciding they can raise rates together (figuring out the way out to the prisoners' dilemma).

Sure, you are inhibiting the free market. Ideally, when rates are initally jacked up because high demand and stagnant supply, other insurance suppliers will enter the market and drive prices down. But insurance is a market where economies of scale play a large role and that entry of lower cost suppliers may not happen... or at least not as quickly as policy makers would like to. So some of the free market may have to be inhibited a bit for what is considered the social good. Not like that's shocking, we do so on other things (ie, minimum wage).

[MrBigglesworth]

I still don't understand why I would need any level of coverage from the government. Why would we insist that those who can afford healthcare nonetheless receive coverage from the government, and more importantly, why would people want to pay for it? All I hear from Democrats is how rich people get all sorts of tax breaks, etc., yet here we are discussing a plan where we all pay into a system that will provide free healthcare for even the richest Americans.

I just don't get it. For me, the goal is self-sufficiency in all aspects of life, so I don't understand why we would take a step back and force government dependency on people who are otherwise self-sufficient.
Under the French-like system I proposed earlier, you'd still be going to the same primary care doctors you are going to now, only instead of your insurance paying for it, it would be paid for through taxes. What are you afraid will happen to your doctor if his check comes from the government instead of from Blue Cross? Why is being under the thumb of the insurance company, who has a vested interest in not giving you care, better than being dependent on the government?

[st.cronin]

Well, when you are basically mandating everyone have insurance, you have to make sure the insurance companies don't implicitly agree to jack up rates by 100% or something, for starters (because the demand for insurance goes through the roof, while supply will likely remain the same in the short run). Other regulation includes making sure the insurance companies don't play games, like denying claims above a certain $$ for everyone the first time they come through, and only paying for those who appeal. And other little games insurance companies like to play.

Basically you want to make sure that people who are covered don't get jerked around by the insurance companies in order to get their claims paid, and that the companies or individuals don't get jerked around by insurance companies realizing that everyone has to be covered and all deciding they can raise rates together (figuring out the way out to the prisoners' dilemma).

Sure, you are inhibiting the free market. Ideally, when rates are initally jacked up because high demand and stagnant supply, other insurance suppliers will enter the market and drive prices down. But insurance is a market where economies of scale play a large role and that entry of lower cost suppliers may not happen... or at least not as quickly as policy makers would like to. So some of the free market may have to be inhibited a bit for what is considered the social good. Not like that's shocking, we do so on other things (ie, minimum wage).


So, the problem is what "should" health care cost. If you know what that answer is, there's no reason the state can't set the rates.

Still, it seems reasonable to me - its basically an analogue to auto insurance, and that seems to work well. Is that industry heavily regulated? I admit I don't have any idea.

[ISiddiqui]

So, the problem is what "should" health care cost. If you know what that answer is, there's no reason the state can't set the rates.

Still, it seems reasonable to me - its basically an analogue to auto insurance, and that seems to work well. Is that industry heavily regulated? I admit I don't have any idea.

Under that system, it is true, there is no reason why the state can't set the rates. But the state generally won't set the rates, just, probably set some sort of max... or, similarly, negotiate with all the insurance companies for the rates for the poor (I think under any system, the poor will have to have their insurance paid for by the government... we have it in our system where the poor have their emergency room visits paid, though its highly expensive to the government) and use that as the max level... seeing as how the poor are generally the highest risk.

As for auto insurance, I guess it depends on the state.

[MrBigglesworth]

So, the problem is what "should" health care cost. If you know what that answer is, there's no reason the state can't set the rates.
If you are going to have the state setting rates and all, what exactly is the purpose of the insurance companies? They aren't there to competitively lower costs if rates are fixed. Instead they take a profit for doing what the government could do for free. The government also doesn't have a vested interest in denying you care. Better to do away with the health insurance companies.

Still, it seems reasonable to me - its basically an analogue to auto insurance, and that seems to work well. Is that industry heavily regulated? I admit I don't have any idea.
I was going to paraphrase this, but I'll just copy it because he says it better than I can:
Among the disanalogies between the two kinds of insurance is that it's not such a big deal if insurance costs cause people to forgo owning cars. Insurance is among the many hassles and expenses that caused me to opt out of car ownership. Instead, I pay up to live within walking distance of campus. Obviously, I'm lucky to have this option. But in my case, it's the way markets are supposed to work -- prices create incentives for efficient behavior.

But no matter how healthy you live, you can't opt out of being subject to a sudden medical catastrophe. And the massive non-financial costs of medical catastrophe will provide strong incentives to avoid it, whether you have insurance or not. Here's a situation where everybody needs something, and prices don't incentivize a lot of efficient individual behavior. So the case for a government system guaranteeing universal coverage is a lot stronger.
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/06/health-insuranc.html

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I've now been thinking that since this great nation has no chance of actually putting in a good, legitimate and honest health care system that works... what if they would amend laws so health care insurers would be non-profit corporations so what is paid would go toward health care rather than billion dollar retirement bonuses? That might be a start...

[st.cronin]

Among the disanalogies between the two kinds of insurance is that it's not such a big deal if insurance costs cause people to forgo owning cars. Insurance is among the many hassles and expenses that caused me to opt out of car ownership. Instead, I pay up to live within walking distance of campus. Obviously, I'm lucky to have this option. But in my case, it's the way markets are supposed to work -- prices create incentives for efficient behavior.

But no matter how healthy you live, you can't opt out of being subject to a sudden medical catastrophe. And the massive non-financial costs of medical catastrophe will provide strong incentives to avoid it, whether you have insurance or not. Here's a situation where everybody needs something, and prices don't incentivize a lot of efficient individual behavior. So the case for a government system guaranteeing universal coverage is a lot stronger.

That's almost completely unconvincing. Car ownership is rising, and has been pretty much forever. People own more cars and drive longer distances.

At a guess, the number of people who will own a car (or be part of a household that does) and the number of people who will suffer a medical catastrophe that they can't afford is roughly the same.

[Ksyrup]

Why is being under the thumb of the insurance company, who has a vested interest in not giving you care, better than being dependent on the government?

I'm not under anyone's thumb. There are going to be underwriting guidelines applicable to the care I receive whether under a private or public system. At least I hope there is - if not, then I have cost control issues with a government system. There is going to be financial pressure/restraint under either system. And I've seen firsthand how effective rate regulation is - rate are actuarially justified, and company profits are not out of hand, in most cases. What we need to attack are the underlying issues - cost of services, drug benefits, etc., that are forcin companies to raise rates. Yes, they are raising rates to be able to continue to make a profit, but they don't just get to raise their rates whenever they want.

I don't see any reason why we can't have an affordable private healthcare system. Fundamental changes would have to be made, yes, but I would rather try that first then go to the other extreme. In fact, it makes no sense to first go to the extreme before taking less drastic measures.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't see any reason why we can't have an affordable private healthcare system. Fundamental changes would have to be made, yes, but I would rather try that first then go to the other extreme. In fact, it makes no sense to first go to the extreme before taking less drastic measures.

The problem is that we don't think we ARE going to the "other extreme". I think a floor for basic health coverage and then private insurance on top of that is a very sensible middle ground in health care, avoid both extremes.

[st.cronin]

If you are going to have the state setting rates and all, what exactly is the purpose of the insurance companies? They aren't there to competitively lower costs if rates are fixed. Instead they take a profit for doing what the government could do for free. The government also doesn't have a vested interest in denying you care. Better to do away with the health insurance companies.

Other things the government could provide us with for free:

Food
Plastic Surgery
Porn
Ipods
Bicycles
Underwear
Tropical Fish
Vegas Vacations

[larrymcg421]

Other things the government could provide us with for free:

Food
Porn
Vegas Vacations

If the government only gave me this, they could tax me whatever they want.

[MrBigglesworth]

I don't see any reason why we can't have an affordable private healthcare system. Fundamental changes would have to be made, yes, but I would rather try that first then go to the other extreme. In fact, it makes no sense to first go to the extreme before taking less drastic measures.
I'm also curious as to why you think that what I am proposing would be an extreme measure. It wouldn't be anything more in essence than expanding Medicare and Medicaid to cover everyone. That's not very extreme.

What do you think should be done?

[MrBigglesworth]

That's almost completely unconvincing. Car ownership is rising, and has been pretty much forever. People own more cars and drive longer distances.

At a guess, the number of people who will own a car (or be part of a household that does) and the number of people who will suffer a medical catastrophe that they can't afford is roughly the same.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. The basic point is that you can opt out of car ownership if things like insurance gets to be too much of a hassle, which helps to keep things competitive, something you can't do with health insurance. Furthermore, you can control your auto insurance costs by being a more careful driver, but in most cases you can't control whether or not you develop cancer.

[MrBigglesworth]

Other things the government could provide us with for free:

Food
Plastic Surgery
Porn
Ipods
Bicycles
Underwear
Tropical Fish
Vegas Vacations
Healthcare, obviously, is different than any of those. You won't be sitting at home one day, and all of a sudden have to find a way to pay $20,000 for underwear. Or pay nothing for food for 10 years until you suddenly are forced by circumstances beyond your control to go bankrupt paying for caviar. Healthcare is an area that can have sudden huge unexpected costs beyond your control. So insurance companies came to be to help spread out the costs. The free market however failed, because the people that need it the most can't get it, the costs have spiraled out of control, and the results have been subpar. The companies also have an incentive to screw you. So in steps the federal government to take over as the insurer. They have more bargaining power, lower overheard (because they don't have to spend money trying to deny you care), and no profits. They also have no need for innovation: there really isn't much to innovate in terms of insurance. It's the perfect situation for a government to get involved.

[st.cronin]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. The basic point is that you can opt out of car ownership if things like insurance gets to be too much of a hassle, which helps to keep things competitive, something you can't do with health insurance. Furthermore, you can control your auto insurance costs by being a more careful driver, but in most cases you can't control whether or not you develop cancer.

Surely the bolded part is a joke. Probably the #1 factor in what your medical expenses are is your actual behavior - do you smoke, do you eat at Popeye's 10 times a week, do you exercise.

[MrBigglesworth]

Surely the bolded part is a joke. Probably the #1 factor in what your medical expenses are is your actual behavior - do you smoke, do you eat at Popeye's 10 times a week, do you exercise.
Surely you jest. The most common forms of cancer in men and women are prostate and breast, respectively, and the risk factors for both are overwhelmingly genetic and age related. Most of the real debilitating injuries that would cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars are from factors beyond your control, though there definitely is some personal responsibility to it.

[Swaggs]

I'd be interested in hearing EF27's take on this.

My wife is a physician and I know that she feels she has to spend way too much on the phone (and doing followup paperwork) trying to justify expenses to insurance companies, rather than providing care for the patients. Granted, she is in a field (psych) that would probably be impacted little by universal healthcare, whereas folks like surgeons would probably be more impacted.

Still, one of the big points in the film (and I think most of us can relate to it) is that many of us, after recognizing symptoms of an illness or suffering an injury, often have to judge whether or not to see a doctor based on our current finances.

For example, my wife was very ill with a cold last year and begin vomitting at like 4:00 AM one morning and could not stop. We both generally recognized that it was not life threatening, but we had to decide whether to take her to the ER now (where we have a $250 copay--not a crippling amount to spend, but a fair chunk of our budget nonetheless) or to wait a few hours and go to the urgent care (which has a $20 copay). It is sad that we have to consider the financial impact of an illness or injury, rather than just seeking good care.

[lynchjm24]

What has happened is that we have to do business with insurance companies. Take them out of the equation. Publish your prices and allow the consumer to decide whether or not they choose to do business with a health care company. Heck, a health care savings plan would be fine by me.


Don't worry there is a transparency movement in the insurance industry. Most people don't bother to look at the information when it made available though.

[CamEdwards]

Haven't seen Moore's movie, nor do I plan to. I'd rather read op/ed's on both sides of the issue than sit through his movie, frankly. It's not so much that I'd be offended or bothered by what I saw as much as I'd be wondering what was left out. I know enough about gun laws and the 2nd Amendment that I could pick apart "Bowling for Columbine" pretty well. Healthcare? Not one of my strong points.

I also have to say that Mr. Bigglesworth's use of the word "free" in describing government-run healthcare (he's done it twice in this thread that I remember) is extremely annoying. Nothing the government does is "free". And I guess my biggest question regarding a government-run healthcare system is this: what makes us think this system wouldn't be rife with bureaucracy, pork barrel spending (Robert Byrd Cancer Center in Morgantown, WV perhaps?), and bad decisions? And when the GOVERNMENT fucks you over in the name of bureaucracy... who do you appeal to then?

[lynchjm24]

I'm not sold on making everyone get health insurance, without some really, really tough regulation of insurance companies. Without the regulation, the insurance companies really have the people of the state over a barrel.


I price this stuff for a living. State mandates and state insurance bureaus only serve to make things much more expensive. That is why ERISA was so important. Allowing self-insured groups to dictate their own benefits and not have state mandates apply is a huge deal.

states like New Jersey, New York and Mass are ridiculous. For example insured groups in NJ HAVE to offer Advanced Reproductive Technologies like Zygote transfers. How the hell does it make any sense that the state forces groups who purchase insurance to offer expensive hit or miss techniques that drive up the cost of coverage for everyone across the board. Treating the underlying causes of infertility is one thing, forcing groups to offer ART is just plain fiscally stupid.

[lynchjm24]

It is sad that we have to consider the financial impact of an illness or injury, rather than just seeking good care.

You pretty much have put in one sentence why universal healthcare won't work. If people don't have a financial stake in how they access coverage then the healthcare spend is only going to go up.

Now it's a tricky situation - as you shift too much money to the individual you can cause longer term problems. For example, if you raise RX copays too high, then people stop taking maintenance medications, ensuring that you then have higher medical costs in the future.

The root cause of the problem is not going to change in America. Look at the amount of money that is spent in the US on terminal patients to extend life for only a short amount of time. In most of Europe many of these late procedures and expenses are avoided. It's a tough call - is it worth extending life for say 2 months for $100,000? Sure if it's your life or your loved one's life - how about if everyone's life is extended by 2 months for $100,000 - where the hell does the money come from?

Rich employer benefits are probably to blame for the situation. After WWII when these types of plans were rolled out it changed the way people acted. Insurance should be for unplanned large expenses, not for every visit you make because you sneezed three times in the last half hour.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

You pretty much have put in one sentence why universal healthcare won't work. If people don't have a financial stake in how they access coverage then the healthcare spend is only going to go up.

You are partially right. In the "free" universal healthcare system (and to be clear it is not free but paid for through taxes), like Canada, the lack of copays o user fees does create problems because a lot of money is spent on someone who goes to the doctor because they have a cold. That's why I am in favor of of copays even in the universal healthcare system. That way the system can work. You just have to peg the copay at the right amount where it is not too burdensome to have to pay but enough to make someone think twice for something minor. Finally, even copays can be difficult for the poor, so you need to have an income cutoff for no copays below a certain income level. The problem in Canada is that copays should have been introduced years ago, but there is a fundamental psychological opposition to paying such things. Actually, many years back some provinces were going to go to them, but the federal government threatened to deduct the copays from the huge transfer payments for healthcare they give out, so it killed that plan. Up there, each province manages and pays for the healthcare, but the federal government gives them huge dollars to help run it.

[MalcPow]

Cost and efficacy transparency and consumer-driven care are where the system has been trying to move, but a large portion of the problem is that consumers often don't want the responsibility of making informed decisions about their care or the burden of taking a preventive approach to health care problems through lifestyle changes. Diabetes, heart disease, and most other chronic diseases that require years of costly care, increase the risk of developing other conditions, and drive increasing expenses to maintain accustomed lifestyles are very much preventable by choosing to change one's behavior. A large part of having a healthier population (the real goal) is going to require commitment and sacrifice on the part of that population, meaning a commitment to actually take responsibility for their lifestyles, not a stern resolve to complain ever more aggressively.

If the government gets involved in health care it should be to drive more cost transparency, mandate results reporting, and force the creation of interoperable electronic medical record standards. The problem here is that the government is ineffective in shaping this kind of critical change, as its response to these kinds of issues is to create useless czars who do nothing for years and then leave to raise private equity funds (thanks David Brailer!), and we're back where we started. So we have to hope that the market slowly can innovate to bring greater efficiency to its processes and protocols, and that mounting pressure for results data and more demanding consumers creates a more competitive environment for docs and centers of care. The current system is so inefficient that it incentivizes hospitals to offer procedures and treatments that they are only marginally competent to handle because the distortions in reimbursement rates (which the government, as the largest payor in the country, plays a big role in driving) make it profitable to do so, and moving to universal care certainly wouldn't help the problem because it would encourage an erosion of the move toward specialized centers of excellence and create a system of do everything (poorly) care centers. The government's forays into health care can create bizarre laws that mandate ambulances must take patients to the nearest hospital, even if one a couple miles further the other way is a world class center of care for the condition in question and the "closest" hospital is categorically terrible.

To really make health care more effective the government should be forcing these providers to compete on results and medical outcomes, and the best way to do that is to mandate that the information be available and transparent. Instead of legislating this or that, they should just make sure that the information is out there, like the trans fat content on my Frosted Mini Wheats. Something like tax credits and other programs geared toward helping the uninsured get insurance makes sense to me, universalizing care just doesn't. (Looking at public education in this country makes me just a bit wary.) A catastrophic accident that requires emergency care is actually something our current system handles sufficiently, provided you're insured. So let's focus on making it easier for the uninsured that simply cannot afford insurance to receive welfare assistance, and provide tax credits to the individuals (or the insurers offering plans catered to them) that for whatever reason find the current cost-benefit analysis of seeking insurance unattractive. No need to go all crazy, and if we do go crazy it should be to drive more efficient care, not to create a universal system that has no incentives for centers and providers to pursue excellence in the treatment of particular medical conditions, or for individuals to take real responsibility for their own long term health.

All that basically to say that there are flaws in the system for sure, but I think universal care systems are hopelessly misguided. *Shurg*

[MrBigglesworth]

I also have to say that Mr. Bigglesworth's use of the word "free" in describing government-run healthcare (he's done it twice in this thread that I remember) is extremely annoying.
When I used 'free' in the context of administering insurance, I meant that the government would do it without taking a profit. Insurance company profits are a substantial chunk of healthcare spending.

[flere-imsaho]

Good post, MalcPow.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Good post, MalcPow.

He used big words an' stuff!

[sabotai]

Michael slams CNN on The Situation Room

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JpKoN40K7mA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JpKoN40K7mA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

(Note: They did say they got the $25 per Cuban thing wrong, and that they transcribed it incorrectly when viewing Sicko)

Apparently he's going to be on again at 4 today to do more blasting away at Wolf.

[BrianD]

Michael slams CNN on The Situation Room

(Note: They did say they got the $25 per Cuban thing wrong, and that they transcribed it incorrectly when viewing Sicko)

Apparently he's going to be on again at 4 today to do more blasting away at Wolf.

Is the second half of the clip any better than the first half? Moore annoyed me enough that I had to turn it off. If his facts are good, he should be able to easily counter any argument brought up by CNN. Instead, he attacked them for not asking hard questions and being bought by the pharmaceutical companies. This may all be true (I have no idea), but he isn't going to win people to his side through his presentation. Seems like Moore is much like Rush and others who love to make their points in a vacuum and then not let any discussion happen...just talk over anyone that might disagree with you.

[NoMyths]

Haven't seen Moore's movie, nor do I plan to. I'd rather read op/ed's on both sides of the issue than sit through his movie, frankly. It's not so much that I'd be offended or bothered by what I saw as much as I'd be wondering what was left out.

My own sense is that it's good to do the reading AND the viewing -- opinions should be based on primary, as well as secondary, sources.

Of course, you were probably also the guy using CliffsNotes in college. ;)

[path12]

Is the second half of the clip any better than the first half? Moore annoyed me enough that I had to turn it off. If his facts are good, he should be able to easily counter any argument brought up by CNN. Instead, he attacked them for not asking hard questions and being bought by the pharmaceutical companies. This may all be true (I have no idea), but he isn't going to win people to his side through his presentation. Seems like Moore is much like Rush and others who love to make their points in a vacuum and then not let any discussion happen...just talk over anyone that might disagree with you.

Did that clip include the pre-interview report by Sanjay Gupta? I think that was what he was most pissed about, though I don't disagree that he overdid the aggressiveness.

[molson]

When I used 'free' in the context of administering insurance, I meant that the government would do it without taking a profit. Insurance company profits are a substantial chunk of healthcare spending.

The government has their own overhead when getting things done. It's called waste. I have no idea which expense is greater (private profit or government waste), but I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it's the latter.

If I believed the government was as efficient as you seem to, I'd be a hard-core liberal.

Edit - I didn't mean that last statement to be harsh or anti-liberal. I just thought it was interesting that perhaps one of the biggest difference between liberals and conservatives (fiscally speaking) is faith in the government, rather than say, what citizens need or deserve (which is how the argument is often framed, usually by the left).

[BrianD]

Did that clip include the pre-interview report by Sanjay Gupta? I think that was what he was most pissed about, though I don't disagree that he overdid the aggressiveness.

Yes it did. I'm not familiar with Gupta, so I'm not sure what his credibility is. I'm just surprised that Moore would go into an inverview without expecting to be challenged. Clearly he has a reputation for twisting the facts to his viewpoint so I would expect him to be prepared for something like this and have counter-examples all ready.

Seeing that clip made me even less interested in seeing his movie.

[PSUColonel]

Where is his straggly beard and stupid looking Micigan State hat?

[path12]

Where is his straggly beard and stupid looking Micigan State hat?

Maybe the Muslims got them.

[Arles]

Even though I believe this is a hugely important issue, and I probably even side with the film's message, I wouldn't be able to get past wondering what's real and what's made up, what's as it's presented and what's orchestrated.

Anybody who thinks Moore has more than zero credibility hasn't been paying attention.
It's more the "boy who cried wolf" analogy. Maybe this is the time where the wolf is coming, or maybe this is just another set of bold assertions not well-supported once people dive into both sides. Either way, I agree if this spurs discussion it's probably a good thing.

Under the French-like system I proposed earlier, you'd still be going to the same primary care doctors you are going to now, only instead of your insurance paying for it, it would be paid for through taxes. What are you afraid will happen to your doctor if his check comes from the government instead of from Blue Cross? Why is being under the thumb of the insurance company, who has a vested interest in not giving you care, better than being dependent on the government?
There is a difference here. My employer offers four different plans, each with 2-3 different levels of coverage (and expense). When I was just of college and single, I wanted just the base plan with no frills (no family). When I got married, we changed to the middle plan. Now that I have a child, we went up to the top plan. Where are these choices for a national plan?

Plus, most "universal" systems charge you for a base health care level that's similar (in taxes) to what people pay for their PPO's now (if not more). Then, to get better/quicker coverage, you have pay additional premiums for private coverage or wait longer for services. So, while the small percentage of people who don't have insurance may benefit - a bulk of the working population (between 30 and 70K) will have to pay twice (taxes and private) for the same level of care they have now (assuming the gov't runs it as well as private).

A catastrophic accident that requires emergency care is actually something our current system handles sufficiently, provided you're insured. So let's focus on making it easier for the uninsured that simply cannot afford insurance to receive welfare assistance, and provide tax credits to the individuals (or the insurers offering plans catered to them) that for whatever reason find the current cost-benefit analysis of seeking insurance unattractive. No need to go all crazy, and if we do go crazy it should be to drive more efficient care, not to create a universal system that has no incentives for centers and providers to pursue excellence in the treatment of particular medical conditions, or for individuals to take real responsibility for their own long term health.
This is a good point. I don't mind making changes to our health care system, but there are certain things to keep in mind:

1. I would rather not end up paying more (through taxes/premiums) than I am now for similar or worse coverage via the government.
2. I don't want long waits for procedures that are now done within days of notifying.
3. I don't want to see US medical research lose funding because there is less money in prescription drugs.
4. I don't want to see the quality of doctors decrease because it's now a less lucrative profession - with many of the more qualified people driven to other professions (ie, like the public school system).

If someone can come up with a plan that keeps the above 4 points in mind and offers improvements on our current system, I'd be glad to check it out. But, I think the focus should not be on finding a way to insure every covered American, but instead find a way to improve the "safety net insurance" available and education on how to get coverage (esp for the lower income population). Negatively impacting the coverage/cost/quality that 80% of the population gets to improve the coverage 20% get seems to be a little like throwing out the baby with the bath water.

[CamEdwards]

My own sense is that it's good to do the reading AND the viewing -- opinions should be based on primary, as well as secondary, sources.

Of course, you were probably also the guy using CliffsNotes in college. ;)

But based on Moore's past, I can't rely on him to present anything close to a documentary. It's a visual op/ed, but there's nothing to counter his side. I'd rather stick with secondary sources that I somewhat trust than a primary source that I KNOW is bullshit.

And no, CliffsNotes weren't really my thing in college. I've always been fine with reading. Everything except poetry really. :p

[st.cronin]

But, I think the focus should not be on finding a way to insure every American,

Generally agree with everything you wrote except this. I mean, I don't think its necessary for Bill Gates to have insurance, but no American should get wiped out by a medical crisis - to me that should be an essential point of policy.

[NoMyths]

But based on Moore's past, I can't rely on him to present anything close to a documentary. It's a visual op/ed, but there's nothing to counter his side. I'd rather stick with secondary sources that I somewhat trust than a primary source that I KNOW is bullshit.

And no, CliffsNotes weren't really my thing in college. I've always been fine with reading. Everything except poetry really. :p

But...he's not bullshit. Quibble with the details, but he was right in Bowling for Columbine, he was right in Fahrenheit 9/11, and it sounds like he's on target in Sicko. I guarantee you read and buy into sources far more doubtful than Moore. Why not trust your internal BS meter when watching the primary source, rather than have your internal misgivings reinforced by people who have various agendas?

[Arles]

But, I think the focus should not be on finding a way to insure every American,
Generally agree with everything you wrote except this. I mean, I don't think its necessary for Bill Gates to have insurance, but no American should get wiped out by a medical crisis - to me that should be an essential point of policy.
Sorry, I should have said "every covered American". I edited the post to reflect that.

[ISiddiqui]

Generally agree with everything you wrote except this. I mean, I don't think its necessary for Bill Gates to have insurance, but no American should get wiped out by a medical crisis - to me that should be an essential point of policy.

I agree. I think that it is absolutely essential that every American has basic coverage. To me that needs to be the cornerstone of any new health plan policy. After that, do what you will.

[Arles]

I agree. I think that it is absolutely essential that every American has basic coverage. To me that needs to be the cornerstone of any new health plan policy. After that, do what you will.
If this is true (which most people seem to agree with in this thread), why not focus on ways to make basic coverage available for the small % that lack it instead of throwing the entire system away and starting over?

[ISiddiqui]

If this is true (which most people seem to agree with in this thread), why not focus on ways to make basic coverage available for the small % that lack it instead of throwing the entire system away and starting over?

Who's throwing the system away? Biggie and I are advocating the French model, which isn't that drastic of a change at all.

I know you are complaining about the costs, but having databases and information for who exactly is covered and who is not (so that we only make basic coverage available for the uninsured) would be just as costly, if not more. It'd probably require some sort of mandatory reporting by employers and insurance companies, but you'd need a bureaucracy to get that information, process it, and then use it. Furthermore, the uninsured are a pretty high risk, therefore, any attempts to negotiate a good deal for them is going to be difficult (spreading the risk through basic coverage for everyone, creating large negotiating blocks for insurance coverage, would result in cheaper premiums).

What is the alternative if you want to cover the uninsured? Have the government pay for all medical bills for folks who fall under the poverty line and mandate that companys offer health insurance? Find out which tax payers aren't listed as covered by the insurance companies in a nationwide database and give them "insurance stamps"?

Covering the uninsured is just going to cost a good amount of money, no matter what you do. There is NO getting around that fact.

[st.cronin]

Why not simply make it an addition to the tax code? If your income is at or below a certain level, you and your dependents are insured. For all its critics, the IRS is one government agency that works really, really well.

[ISiddiqui]

Why not simply make it an addition to the tax code? If your income is at or below a certain level, you and your dependents are insured. For all its critics, the IRS is one government agency that works really, really well.

That is a simple and easy way to cover the poor, but not all the uninsured are poor. Plenty of middle class folks get wiped out by catastrophic medical emergencies.

[st.cronin]

That is a simple and easy way to cover the poor, but not all the uninsured are poor. Plenty of middle class folks get wiped out by catastrophic medical emergencies.

Hence the appeal of the Mass. plan.

[JW]

Count me in for national health care. Don't ask me for the specifics. People here have done a very good job in one of the forum's better threads of spelling out the problems of national health care as well as some reasons for reforming the system. It is a very complicated issue.

Having spent most of my adult life -- well, really all of it, since age 19 -- in the military and VA health care systems, I have no problem with some form of government-managed health care. I've always received excellent care, though I have had to wait sometimes for non-essential care.

Thanks for some really interesting points.

[st.cronin]

Who's throwing the system away? Biggie and I are advocating the French model, which isn't that drastic of a change at all.

This would be a lot more appealing to me if it were called the "Serbian" model or the "Bolivian" model or even the "You will all die of the plague" model instead of the "French" model.

[molson]

But...he's not bullshit. Quibble with the details, but he was right in Bowling for Columbine, he was right in Fahrenheit 9/11,

I'm not sure what you mean by "right", but his half-truths and orchestrations are well-documented, and incredibly obnoxious in spots.

Moore is a skilled enough filmmaker that one's "BS meter" wouldn't necessarily go off the first time watching it. (Things like editing interviews to distort presented opinions, or Moore's favorite tactic, implying a falsehood without actually saying it, so that he can respond with "I never said X, watch the movie"). Other things you won't catch unless you have intimate knowledge of the topic presented. Whatever the viewpoint, I simply couldn't enjoy or appreciate a message he was creating - I would simply be looking for the crap.

[molson]

It's often overlooked that the US does provide medical benefits to almost 100 million people between medicaid and medicare, and spends a fortune on this coverage (over $500 billion between them annually).

I'm not knowledgeable enough in this area to propose a detailed solution, but I feel the answer is to design a smarter system, not one with an even greater government involvement.

[Toddzilla]

If this is true (which most people seem to agree with in this thread), why not focus on ways to make basic coverage available for the small % that lack it instead of throwing the entire system away and starting over?Small percentage? Over 45 MILLION people in the United States of America are uninsured. What are you talking about? That is what, 20% or more? That figure is anything but small....

[Arles]

Small percentage? Over 45 MILLION people in the United States of America are uninsured. What are you talking about? That is what, 20% or more? That figure is anything but small....
It's 85-15 that have it. So, while 45 million may lack it, nearly 250 million have it. I'd say 15% is fairly small. Out of that 45 million, about 1/3 make less than 30K. So, I think that's a good place to start. IMO, there's always going to be a certain % that has access to health insurance, but chooses not to use it. When I was in college, I had no health insurance for 3 years (just didn't worry about - I was 21). In my first job, a handful of salaried guys between the ages of 23 and 26 decided they didn't want to pay for health insurance. Right now, out of the 45 million, 14 million are between the ages of 18 and 24. If you take out the group inside the poverty line, I'm guessing the rest just really aren't that interested in getting health insurance. There's also around 4-5 million that make over 75K.

So, if I were king for a day, I would focus on doing the following:

1. provide a system that offers health care via the tax code for people under 30K (12-13 mil).
2. Focus on educating everyone on their health care options (especially younger people just entering the work force). A 23-year old single guy may choose to have an extra $200 a month in beer money than pay for their company's PPO. But, we should do what we can to try and prevent that.
3. Focus on setting up a gov't process to ensure the 5 million or so kids under the age of 18 are covered.

If you start with those three things, I think you can make a serious dent in the ininsured. At that point, take stock in who is left and see if maybe additional tax breaks for self employed or a slightly higher income range can help even further. Maybe even go so far as to give additional tax breaks to companies that provide health coverage for part time workers.

The point is that you can start a process that makes a serious difference without sweeping changes or even incurring massive tax hikes.

[sterlingice]

I would be a lot happier if the burden for health care was shifted away from employers. But only if it meant that they would be able to invest more in wages and other QOL improvements. Because if health care is a benefit that most folks consider when taking a job (unless they're making huge bucks...), then I'd much rather see that money invested by me, especially since I'm pretty healthy at this point in my life, rather than having to pay for the health care of other coworkers who get sick all of the time.

You know, I never thought of it from this angle. That said, if insurance were a "responsibility" taken away from employers, I doubt the money would go into wages. In fact, I'm guessing insurance offered by employers will get less and less over the next generation and possibly altogether gone. And I doubt wages will go up anywhere near the difference in cost.

SI

[MrBigglesworth]

The US government spends more per capita on healthcare than any other industrialized nation. That's just the US government, that doesn't even include private spending. One possible explanation is that our government bureaucracy is inherently multiple times more inefficient and wasteful than any other government bureaucracy in the world. That sounds far-fetched to me. Another possibility is that our patchwork system of insurers drives costs up everywhere, with such costs including profit, paperwork hassles, and decreased drug bargaining power. I think that is much more likely, as it is the thing that is unique about American healthcare. Any healthcare plan must address this issue, or else it will be a waste, like Medicare Part D, which may get drugs to seniors, but will cost us an arm and a leg. It's easy to say that we need to cover any uninsured American, but we need to find the money to do that.

[Buccaneer]

It's 85-15 that have it. So, while 45 million may lack it, nearly 250 million have it. I'd say 15% is fairly small. Out of that 45 million, about 1/3 make less than 30K. So, I think that's a good place to start. IMO, there's always going to be a certain % that has access to health insurance, but chooses not to use it. When I was in college, I had no health insurance for 3 years (just didn't worry about - I was 21). In my first job, a handful of salaried guys between the ages of 23 and 26 decided they didn't want to pay for health insurance. Right now, out of the 45 million, 14 million are between the ages of 18 and 24. If you take out the group inside the poverty line, I'm guessing the rest just really aren't that interested in getting health insurance. There's also around 4-5 million that make over 75K.

So, if I were king for a day, I would focus on doing the following:

1. provide a system that offers health care via the tax code for people under 30K (12-13 mil).
2. Focus on educating everyone on their health care options (especially younger people just entering the work force). A 23-year old single guy may choose to have an extra $200 a month in beer money than pay for their company's PPO. But, we should do what we can to try and prevent that.
3. Focus on setting up a gov't process to ensure the 5 million or so kids under the age of 18 are covered.

If you start with those three things, I think you can make a serious dent in the ininsured. At that point, take stock in who is left and see if maybe additional tax breaks for self employed or a slightly higher income range can help even further. Maybe even go so far as to give additional tax breaks to companies that provide health coverage for part time workers.

The point is that you can start a process that makes a serious difference without sweeping changes or even incurring massive tax hikes.

Very, very nice work.

[Arles]

I look at this in a somewhat similar light to unemployment. I'm sure everyone would unemployment to be 0%, but 4-6% is a fairly healthy level of unemployment from a macro standpoint. For health insurance, the focus should be on giving as many people insurance options as possible, but also understanding that some people may choose to go uninsured. It's going to somewhat expensive to go from 15% to 10%, extremely expensive to go from 10% to 5% and potentially back breaking to get to 0%.

So, instead of mandating that every person have health insurance, I'd rather try to setup a way to reduce the number of uninsured from 15% to 7-10% (focusing on poverty and children). At that point, I think you will be creeping on the "equilibrium" point for uninsured (much like 5% is for unemployment).

[MrBigglesworth]

I look at this in a somewhat similar light to unemployment. I'm sure everyone would unemployment to be 0%, but 4-6% is a fairly healthy level of unemployment from a macro standpoint. For health insurance, the focus should be on giving as many people insurance options as possible, but also understanding that some people may choose to go uninsured. It's going to somewhat expensive to go from 15% to 10%, extremely expensive to go from 10% to 5% and potentially back breaking to get to 0%.

So, instead of mandating that every person have health insurance, I'd rather try to setup a way to reduce the number of uninsured from 15% to 7-10% (focusing on poverty and children). At that point, I think you will be creeping on the "equilibrium" point for uninsured (much like 5% is for unemployment).
It's my opinion that your system would end up costing more than just having a blanket coverage of everyone, because you'd still have to pay for a majority of the healthcare for them, plus you'd have the overhead of administering the system. Say that there are only ten to twenty million uninsured people in the United States. What happens when one of them has a catastrophic injury? Get in a car crash, get cancer, etc. If they can't pay, do we have the hospitals refuse them coverage? Let them die? That's one way to go about it, but I don't know if it's morally the best thing to do. So if you treat them, everyone else ends up paying for it anyway. And these people are going to most likely lack preventative care, so they will be more likely to cost a lot of money down the road.

All of the data we have from countries that have already adopted universal healthcare say that a universal healthcare system costs less and gives better health outcomes.

[Arles]

It's my opinion that your system would end up costing more than just having a blanket coverage of everyone, because you'd still have to pay for a majority of the healthcare for them, plus you'd have the overhead of administering the system. Say that there are only ten to twenty million uninsured people in the United States. What happens when one of them has a catastrophic injury? Get in a car crash, get cancer, etc. If they can't pay, do we have the hospitals refuse them coverage? Let them die? That's one way to go about it, but I don't know if it's morally the best thing to do. So if you treat them, everyone else ends up paying for it anyway. And these people are going to most likely lack preventative care, so they will be more likely to cost a lot of money down the road.

All of the data we have from countries that have already adopted universal healthcare say that a universal healthcare system costs less and gives better health outcomes.
Finding a way to cover an extra 5-7% made up mostly of poverty and kids is not going to be more expensive than covering the 15% that don't receive care + the 85% that do. It's like saying "well, welfare is kind of tricky for the poverty level, so let's just send everyone (including Bill Gates) a welfare check every two weeks."

I think there are many very good ideas without prohibitive costs that can get the uninsured under 10%. At that point, you can focus on education and maybe take a targeted "tax policy stab" at more small reductions (ie, with self-employed).

[MrBigglesworth]

Finding a way to cover an extra 5-7% made up mostly of poverty and kids is not going to be more expensive than covering the 15% that don't receive care + the 85% that do. It's like saying "well, welfare is kind of tricky for the poverty level, so let's just send everyone (including Bill Gates) a welfare check every two weeks."

I think there are many very good ideas without prohibitive costs that can get the uninsured under 10%. At that point, you can focus on education and maybe take a targeted "tax policy stab" at more small reductions (ie, with self-employed).
I think it will be more expensive. I think examples around the world show that universal coverage will reduce costs. I don't see what would make the US different.

I think its possible to get under 10% or whatever insured, but that still doesn't address the problem of costs that out pace the rest of the world, and the hassles that people go through trying to get things covered from an industry that has a vested interest in not being helpful.

[Galaril]

Well, I finally rented this and watch it. I agree with Moore's view here overall. Our system is broke and if we weren't so concerned as a nation about making the most money possible which I am as guilty as the next guy this problem could be fixed. I also, agree that the movie paints these other countries health care systems to be utopias which I am certain is not the case. Having lived in two countries that follow a 3/4 implemented universal healthcare systems I can attest these sysetms aren't perfect. That being said they are much better IMHO then what we have now. I am not talking about the fact that people don't have any healthcare which is a problem. What I am just looking at is the fact so many peope have "good" healthcare that the pay alot of money to have and doesn't pay for much.

Funny, scary and ironic related note. As I am wtaching this I go through my mail for that day and see aletter from my HMO, Aetna. It is a letter and questionaire telling me that the 10 physical therapy visits I had a few months ago for a terrible sciatic back problem I had was being investigated for the fact it was a preexisting condition. Now this is true this was a pre-existing conditon and I think I did put down on my sign up form for AETNA that I had past slight back pain but nothing serious however, I am not sure I may have forgot ot mention it. In either case I don't have a huge problem in going back and paying for these out of pocket though I shouldn't have to. The thing that has me a little worried after seeing this movie is that AETNA may take this opportunity to try to cancel my policy or at least wait until when or if I get a more serious illness and then thy cancel it. I am even thinking about moving to another HMO since it is open enrollment time at my company. I am worried if they cancel me, I may not be accepted by the other HMO my company uses due to the fact another HMO canceled me. Thus, I could wind up withou healthcare though I make a 6 figure income and have advanced degrees. So, anyone that thinks are system is acceptable is dead wrong.

[ISiddiqui]

It is a letter and questionaire telling me that the 10 physical therapy visits I had a few months ago for a terrible sciatic back problem I had was being investigated for the fact it was a preexisting condition. Now this is true this was a pre-existing conditon and I think I did put down on my sign up form for AETNA that I had past slight back pain but nothing serious however, I am not sure I may have forgot ot mention it.

Did AETNA send you anything saying the back issue was a preexisting condition that they won't cover for X months?

Speaking of which, did you have health coverage before the AETNA HMO? And how long had you been with this current coverage when you had those treatments

[Galaril]

Did AETNA send you anything saying the back issue was a preexisting condition that they won't cover for X months?

Speaking of which, did you have health coverage before the AETNA HMO? And how long had you been with this current coverage when you had those treatments


Answer to the first question is no they haven't sent me a notification they won't pay for it yet. All they sent me was this questionaire and a paper with a company which apparently is medical history investigation company which when I called the number was no longer is service.
And yes I did have medical healthcare before and I did go to see my primary care doctor once about a sore back which she just prescibed me to take a few aspirin.

I might be freaking out for no reason but with a wife that doesn't work and two young children (one 5 years old and another 6 months old) at home as well as my elderly mother living with us I can't afford to lose my healthcare.

[Warhammer]

My mother went in to the doctor for a routine checkup. She offered to pay up front what the insurance would pay, plus her co-pay for the checkup (long story there). She was told she could not pay that way.

This is my problem, why can't she pay them the same amount as the insurance company would pay?

[ISiddiqui]

Answer to the first question is no they haven't sent me a notification they won't pay for it yet. All they sent me was this questionaire and a paper with a company which apparently is medical history investigation company which when I called the number was no longer is service.
And yes I did have medical healthcare before and I did go to see my primary care doctor once about a sore back which she just prescibed me to take a few aspirin.

I might be freaking out for no reason but with a wife that doesn't work and two young children (one 5 years old and another 6 months old) at home as well as my elderly mother living with us I can't afford to lose my healthcare.

If you had medical healthcare before for 12 months and haven't had a break in coverage for over 63 days, then they can't assign preexisting condition exclusions on you. It'd violate HIPPA. Furthermore, if they were going to put an exclusion on you, you'd have to be notified of it when you join up, and for how long (they can only do 12 months, or 18 for late enrollees... which is offset by your prior coverage).

And if you are getting it through an employer, you won't lose your health care. They wouldn't be able to drop you due to a health factor (that'd also violate HIPPA).

[ISiddiqui]

My mother went in to the doctor for a routine checkup. She offered to pay up front what the insurance would pay, plus her co-pay for the checkup (long story there). She was told she could not pay that way.

This is my problem, why can't she pay them the same amount as the insurance company would pay?

Because the insurance company negotiates a lower rate. They can do that because the insurance company represents a great mass of people. Doctors would prefer to get higher amounts, but realize the insurance companies have them over a barrel.

[Galaril]

If you had medical healthcare before for 12 months and haven't had a break in coverage for over 63 days, then they can't assign preexisting condition exclusions on you. It'd violate HIPPA. Furthermore, if they were going to put an exclusion on you, you'd have to be notified of it when you join up, and for how long (they can only do 12 months, or 18 for late enrollees... which is offset by your prior coverage).

And if you are getting it through an employer, you won't lose your health care. They wouldn't be able to drop you due to a health factor (that'd also violate HIPPA).


Awesome thanks for that .

[Mac Howard]

The US government spends more per capita on healthcare than any other industrialized nation. That's just the US government, that doesn't even include private spending. One possible explanation is that our government bureaucracy is inherently multiple times more inefficient and wasteful than any other government bureaucracy in the world. That sounds far-fetched to me. Another possibility is that our patchwork system of insurers drives costs up everywhere, with such costs including profit, paperwork hassles, and decreased drug bargaining power. I think that is much more likely, as it is the thing that is unique about American healthcare. Any healthcare plan must address this issue, or else it will be a waste, like Medicare Part D, which may get drugs to seniors, but will cost us an arm and a leg. It's easy to say that we need to cover any uninsured American, but we need to find the money to do that.

I think the reason may well be, MrBigglesworth, that your government isn't in control of pricing - it's the cosy deals between insurance companies and the medical providers that decide this and government has, to some extent, to go along with this.

The European systems do not have the government running the health systems - they are merely a very large insurance company. The hospitals, the doctors etc are all privately run businesses, with the efficiencies that go with that, and negotiate pricing with government. So bureaucracy is limited. The advantages of government negotiating prices are these:

1) Governments, unlike insurance companies, have no interest whatsoever in seeing high medical costs. That would mean high taxes and even socialist governmets know that loses them votes.

2) being by far the largest insurance companies that only a relatively few medical practitioners can ignore, they can nail down the prices. A GP gets just $30 from government for a single patient visit here. GPs can charge more which the patient will pay but he has to declare the charge and the patient can choose which ever GP he wishes. So few charge more than $10 a visit extra and some charge no excess.

3) Governnent has no "front office" costs. Because every tax payer is a "member" there are no selling or marketing costs. Because the money is collected through an already existing tax collection system there's little in the way of collection costs. Only the costs of price negotiations and paying the bills are involved.

Though most Europeans will complain about their systems they're merely complaining that they're not comprehensive enough. Any government that argued for even reducing the spend on the national system would be unelectable and many tax payers would forego tax cuts or agree to tax increases if they were sure they would go into the health system.

A study of the British and American health systems revealed that a UK citizen pays just less than half than that of the USA citizen for roughly equivalent health care.

Alongside the national, government run systems there are private insurance systems for those who can afford it and want to avoid waiting lists (the main advantage of private insurance). However, even these people, will use the national system before their insurance system in many cases where delays are not involved or weigh the cost of delay. That, in turn, keeps the cost of private insurance down.

Just to give you an idea of why Europeans (and I include Australia in these as their system is similar) love their health systems.

Some of the people reading this will suffer later on in life from prostate cancer. Even if it doesn't kill you it's a very nasty problem. There is drug treatment - it will cost you approximately $30,000 per treatment. To some Americans this is pocket money, others will need to re-mortgage the house and others simply will have to do without the drugs.

Two weeks ago the Australian government added these drugs to the PBS list (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) and an Australian will pay just $28 per treatment. If he's a pensioner he'll pay just $3.

Try telling an Australian this scheme should be dropped for a private funded system :)

[Warhammer]

Because the insurance company negotiates a lower rate. They can do that because the insurance company represents a great mass of people. Doctors would prefer to get higher amounts, but realize the insurance companies have them over a barrel.

This is the one area I would like to see the government involved in. Force the insurance companies to charge the consumer a lower rate, and have the doctors charge the insurance companies and the consumer the same price.

The way the insurance companies would make money would be the way they are supposed to now, through sound investment. The benefit to their customer is that any large unexpected expense is covered based upon the monthly fee and their investments. As it is, why should any insurance company charge good rates? I think they realize this, and that is why rates constantly go up.

[Mac Howard]

This is the one area I would like to see the government involved in. Force the insurance companies to charge the consumer a lower rate, and have the doctors charge the insurance companies and the consumer the same price.

The way the insurance companies would make money would be the way they are supposed to now, through sound investment. The benefit to their customer is that any large unexpected expense is covered based upon the monthly fee and their investments. As it is, why should any insurance company charge good rates? I think they realize this, and that is why rates constantly go up.

The insurance companies will charge whatever they can get away with.

Here in Oz, 3 years ago John Howard, in a pork-barreling move before the last election, gave a tax rebate on private health insurance premiums - the saving amounting to 30% of the premium (he argued that this would increase the take up of private insurance reducing the pressure on the Medicare system :rolleyes: ) but it took less than two years for the insurance companies to cancel out that 30% with premium increases. They effectively turned the tax rebate into a direct contribution to their bottom line.

[molson]

The insurance companies will charge whatever they can get away with.

Here in Oz, 3 years ago John Howard, in a pork-barreling move before the last election, gave a tax rebate on private health insurance premiums - the saving amounting to 30% of the premium (he argued that this would increase the take up of private insurance reducing the pressure on the Medicare system :rolleyes: ) but it took less than two years for the insurance companies to cancel out that 30% with premium increases. They effectively turned the tax rebate into a direct contribution to their bottom line.

With all the people in the world, you'd think at least some of the smart ones would go into politics.

[Mac Howard]

With all the people in the world, you'd think at least some of the smart ones would go into politics.

It helped win him the election so who are we mere mortals to say? :eek:

[lynchjm24]

As it is, why should any insurance company charge good rates? I think they realize this, and that is why rates constantly go up.

You are wrong. The rates go up because medical costs go up. Competitive pressures keep the rates from going higher.

[sterlingice]

You are wrong. The rates go up because medical costs go up. Competitive pressures keep the rates from going higher.

I think that's the really rosy picture painted every day in a lot of industries in this country which are more and more run by oligopolies. The entry barriers are so large that you can easily collude among the top few companies and not have to worry about competition from the little guys because they don't have the clout to get discount rates. So, in essence, they reap the rewards of the large entry barriers right into their pockets rather than having to use them to compete with other companies.

SI

[lynchjm24]

I think that's the really rosy picture painted every day in a lot of industries in this country which are more and more run by oligopolies. The entry barriers are so large that you can easily collude among the top few companies and not have to worry about competition from the little guys because they don't have the clout to get discount rates. So, in essence, they reap the rewards of the large entry barriers right into their pockets rather than having to use them to compete with other companies.

SI

The competition between the major carriers is as intense in the industry as it has ever been. While this might be true in other areas of the economy, major medical insurers are beating each other up every day.

[Galaril]

The competition between the major carriers is as intense in the industry as it has ever been. While this might be true in other areas of the economy, major medical insurers are beating each other up every day.

Sorry, I am not sure what your inference is but if it is related to giving accuses for healthcare/drug companies that are in it for the money and money alone than no thanks I don't have an sympathy for these a-holes.

[lynchjm24]

Sorry, I am not sure what your inference is but if it is related to giving accuses for healthcare/drug companies that are in it for the money and money alone than no thanks I don't have an sympathy for these a-holes.

Accuses? I'm not giving accuses for anything, but I can promise you not every person at health insurance companies are in it for money and money alone. They aren't all a-holes.

[Galaril]

Accuses? I'm not giving accuses for anything, but I can promise you not every person at health insurance companies are in it for money and money alone. They aren't all a-holes.

Point taken and you are right. I am referring mainly to the folks in senior management in these HMOs and those who set up these firms which includes alot politicians,

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I was thinking again of this film this past weekend. I found out that on another message board I post on occasionally, someone I knew from the board was going without insurance, and saving up to get insurance. She had been having some shortness of breath and was afraid of going to see a doctor before getting insurance. She figured that if she had asthma and it was diagnosed before she had insurance it would be classified as a pre-existing condition.

She finally got insurance and went to a doctor. Turns out she doesn't have asthma... Lung cancer. It has already spread to her spine.

All I can think of is that if she was in England she would have been diagnosed a long time ago and would not have been just told she has terminal cancer.

It's depressing just thinking about it...

[Warhammer]

I was thinking again of this film this past weekend. I found out that on another message board I post on occasionally, someone I knew from the board was going without insurance, and saving up to get insurance. She had been having some shortness of breath and was afraid of going to see a doctor before getting insurance. She figured that if she had asthma and it was diagnosed before she had insurance it would be classified as a pre-existing condition.

She finally got insurance and went to a doctor. Turns out she doesn't have asthma... Lung cancer. It has already spread to her spine.

All I can think of is that if she was in England she would have been diagnosed a long time ago and would not have been just told she has terminal cancer.

It's depressing just thinking about it...

With lung cancer by the time you get to see many of the symptoms its already too late.

[molson]

With lung cancer by the time you get to see many of the symptoms its already too late.

I was thinking that story sounds a little made-up (not by M GO BLUE!!!, but wherever he got it).

Who saves up for insurance? Do they know you have to pay every month (or quarter?). Lung Cancer is pretty rare in younger people who don't smoke (which I assume is the case here - someone posting on a message board, can't afford insurance, assuming asthma instead of worse).

Not that something like that couldn't happen in our system, but it sounds like someone was just trying to make a point here.

[Arles]

I was thinking again of this film this past weekend. I found out that on another message board I post on occasionally, someone I knew from the board was going without insurance, and saving up to get insurance. She had been having some shortness of breath and was afraid of going to see a doctor before getting insurance. She figured that if she had asthma and it was diagnosed before she had insurance it would be classified as a pre-existing condition.

She finally got insurance and went to a doctor. Turns out she doesn't have asthma... Lung cancer. It has already spread to her spine.

All I can think of is that if she was in England she would have been diagnosed a long time ago and would not have been just told she has terminal cancer.

It's depressing just thinking about it...
Just to play devil's advocate, but I'm guessing that she would have had some sort of wait (given her age and the fact it wasn't extremely serious from her standpoint) before getting the battery of tests in England required to determine she had lung cancer. So, in the end, her best bet for early detection was having some sort of PPO in the US as opposed to waiting in line for X-Rays/tests in England/Canada.

[Warhammer]

I was thinking that story sounds a little made-up (not by M GO BLUE!!!, but wherever he got it).

Who saves up for insurance? Do they know you have to pay every month (or quarter?). Lung Cancer is pretty rare in younger people who don't smoke (which I assume is the case here - someone posting on a message board, can't afford insurance, assuming asthma instead of worse).

Not that something like that couldn't happen in our system, but it sounds like someone was just trying to make a point here.

Not only that, but beating lung cancer very much depends upon which form of it you get. One is small cell and the other large cell (for lack of better terms) and if you get the small cell version (I could have them backwards, the rarer type is more deadly than the prevalent one) you are hosed. I've lost an uncle and my grandfather to lung cancer (grandfather's started as breast cancer which spread to his lungs) and in both cases no one suspected they had lung cancer until it was too late.

[flere-imsaho]

So, in the end, her best bet for early detection was having some sort of PPO in the US as opposed to waiting in line for X-Rays/tests in England/Canada.

I love a good battle of anecdotes. :p

[sabotai]

Who saves up for insurance? Do they know you have to pay every month (or quarter?).

I guess you could say I'm "saving up" for insurance. But not really. Just trying to pay off other debt that requires montly payments (namely credit cards) before I can afford it. I guess they could have meant that, even though it would be worded weirdly.

It also could mean that the person would have zero disposable income if they got insurance, so maybe she wanted to save up a few months worth of income in case of any emergencies.

[flounder]

An interesting tidbit (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/17/wikileaks-cuba-banned-sicko) from the Wikileaks cables.


Cuba banned Michael Moore's 2007 documentary, Sicko, because it painted such a "mythically" favourable picture of Cuba's healthcare system that the authorities feared it could lead to a "popular backlash", according to US diplomats in Havana.

The revelation, contained in a confidential US embassy cable released by WikiLeaks, is surprising, given that the film attempted to discredit the US healthcare system by highlighting what it claimed was the excellence of the Cuban system.

But the memo reveals that when the film was shown to a group of Cuban doctors, some became so "disturbed at the blatant misrepresentation of healthcare in Cuba that they left the room".

Castro's government apparently went on to ban the film because, the leaked cable claims, it "knows the film is a myth and does not want to risk a popular backlash by showing to Cubans facilities that are clearly not available to the vast majority of them."

[RainMaker]

Just to play devil's advocate, but I'm guessing that she would have had some sort of wait (given her age and the fact it wasn't extremely serious from her standpoint) before getting the battery of tests in England required to determine she had lung cancer. So, in the end, her best bet for early detection was having some sort of PPO in the US as opposed to waiting in line for X-Rays/tests in England/Canada.
I know this is an old, old, old post, but as someone who lived in Canada, this is just not true. You wouldn't have to wait that long for an X-ray/tests. Especially when it comes to something like your lungs.

There is a lot of misinformation about the health care system in Canada passed around by partisians in this country.

[sabotai]

An interesting tidbit (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/17/wikileaks-cuba-banned-sicko) from the Wikileaks cables.

Heh, awesome.