Here is the trailer for the new Michael Moore movie, SiCKO about the American health care system:
While I am not a fan of Michael Moore at all, this movie seems kind of interesting, and should be interesting to members of ImmInst, I would think.
Posted 25 May 2007 - 01:04 AM
Posted 25 May 2007 - 01:38 AM
Posted 25 May 2007 - 04:39 PM
Posted 25 May 2007 - 06:15 PM
Posted 25 May 2007 - 06:33 PM
I wonder if Moore addresses the implications of the RAND Health Insurance Experiment, which suggests that most of the healthcare we consume doesn't do us any good.
Posted 27 May 2007 - 05:17 AM
I wonder if Moore addresses the implications of the RAND Health Insurance Experiment, which suggests that most of the healthcare we consume doesn't do us any good.
News Source: UPI
Published: May 24, 2007 at 9:36 PM
Analysis: Docs back Clinton plan
By ROSALIE WESTENSKOW
UPI Correspondent
WASHINGTON, May 24 (UPI) -- Presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., presented a seven-part plan Thursday aimed at lowering healthcare costs -- a roadmap that several doctors deemed encouraging.
The proposal focuses solely on cutting costs, which Clinton identified as one of three areas critical to healthcare reform.
Addressing students and faculty at the George Washington University Medical Center in Washington, Clinton said she would outline at a later time the other two key components of her reform agenda, improving quality and covering the uninsured.
Clinton acknowledged her first rocky encounter with healthcare reform during her tenure as first lady but said she won't make the same mistakes this time around.
"I have tangled with this issue before, and I've got the scars to show for it, but I learned some valuable lessons from that experience," Clinton told attendees. "One is that we can't achieve reform without the participation and commitment of healthcare providers, employers, employees and other citizens who pay for, depend upon and actually deliver healthcare services."
Public attitudes have shifted as well, with healthcare emerging as one of the paramount issues of the day and one that affects every American -- a fact Clinton is banking on to help build support for her plan.
"I think we finally have a recognition (of healthcare problems)," she said. "Everyone sees there is an economic imperative to rein in cost, there is a moral imperative to extend coverage to all Americans and there is a practical necessity to promote wellness and prevent illness wherever possible."
The senator laid out seven steps to mitigate costs: increase disease prevention, convert from paper to electronic medical records, provide comprehensive care for chronically ill patients, eliminate insurance discrimination, create a "best practices" institute, drive down prices for prescription drugs and reform medical malpractice.
All together, Clinton estimates her plan would lower national healthcare spending by $120 billion, or $2,200 per family.
Physicians at the event expressed enthusiasm for the plan.
"Senator Clinton is right on the money, so to speak, of identifying waste in the system," Richard Becker, CEO of the George Washington University Hospital, told United Press International. "Our resources are not used efficiently."
Unnecessary treatment riddles the system and often causes more harm than good, Clinton said, pointing to a California-based study that found one in every five X-rays and lab tests were performed simply because earlier results were unavailable.
Similarly, The Atlantic Monthly reported a $15,000 surgery that is routinely performed to prevent strokes showed no evidence of lessening risk for two-thirds of the patients who received it.
Clinton's plan to translate the old paper records kept by many practices into electronic documents would help alleviate some of this waste and constitutes one of the most important elements of the proposal, said Jim Scott, dean of the GWU School of Medicine and Health Services.
In order to push hospitals toward implementing electronic recordkeeping, Clinton's plan allocates $3 billion in federal money to help fund the switch. A lack of national organization has been the key factor holding many doctor's offices and hospitals back from using health information technology, Scott said.
"The problem here is compatibility," he told UPI.
Different electronic record systems often cannot communicate with each other, making it ineffective for many medical organizations to use them because they can't be shared between offices or hospitals.
"Wouldn't it just be better if we had some (government) mandate that all these systems 'talk' to each other on the same level?" Scott asked.
But some large organizations, most notably GWU's Medical Faculty Associates, have successfully implemented an electronic system with positive results.
"It has dramatically improved our practice from a patient perspective and from a physician perspective," said Stephen Badger, CEO of MFA, an academic, multi-specialty group practice.
The new system allows MFA to handle payments, test results, prescriptions and many other documents electronically. And it costs less. Healthcare claims made electronically cost 85 cents each, compared with $1.60 for paper claims.
Prevention received perhaps the greatest attention from Clinton, who emphasized the lack of pre-emptive care in today's healthcare system.
"Our country spends only an estimated 1 to 3 percent of national health expenditures on preventive healthcare services and health promotion per year," Clinton said. "That is about the same percentage we spent in the 1920s."
This system leads to higher costs and more health problems, said Matthew Mintz, associate professor of medicine at GWU.
"Our current system is very reactionary," Mintz told UPI. "If we set up a system that encourages (preventative) behavior, I think that we'd all be better off and costs would go down."
Clinton pointed to insurance companies as one of the main culprits behind the lack of pre-emptive care.
"Many insurance companies won't pay for someone who's pre-diabetic or who's been diagnosed with diabetes to go to a nutritionist to learn how to eat properly, to get preventive medicine or to go to a podiatrist to have their feet checked," she said. "But the companies will pay if you have to have your foot amputated."
Not surprisingly, insurance companies disagree.
"For a very long time, the (insurance) industry has had a very strong focus on prevention," said Mohit Ghose, vice president of public affairs for America's Health Insurance Plans, a trade group representing insurance companies. "There are millions of Americans that today have access to disease management programs that our industry has basically pioneered."
March 28, 2007
Call to Increase M.R.I. Use for Breast Exam
By DENISE GRADY
Two reports being published today call for greatly expanded use of M.R.I. scans in women who have breast cancer or are at high risk for it.
The recommendations do not apply to most healthy women, who have only an average risk of developing the disease.
Even so, the new advice could add a million or more women a year to those who need breast magnetic resonance imaging — a demand that radiologists are not yet equipped to meet, researchers say. The scans require special equipment, software and trained radiologists to read the results, and may not be available outside big cities.
...
Posted 27 May 2007 - 06:28 AM
Posted 27 May 2007 - 07:00 AM
None of that kind of stuff is available in the US.As a non-American, I'm not clear on what all the debate is about. Can someone summarize briefly?
From my perspective, I just pay a mandatory percentage of my salary into the Japanese national health insurance scheme. I'm sure there are issues, especially as the population ages, but overall it seems quite equitable and everyone is covered, regardless of their level of wealth. I can go to any medical institution I choose for treatment, and each year I get a free comprehensive medical checkup, blood tests, review, etc, to spot any issues.
Edited by Live Forever, 27 May 2007 - 07:15 AM.
Posted 27 May 2007 - 08:33 AM
How would a laissez-faire free market health care system work, and would it benefit and strengthen society? What if you are unemployed or working in a low-paying job? There seems to be a certain class of services and infrastructure that are best provided by the government.... (not that I have any evidence, its just a feeling) What countries have very good health care systems? What do they do right?... universal healthcare as the type you address. I am not necessarily in favor of that approach
...
I, personally, am of the opinion that all of the bad effects are because the free market is not allowed to operate. (and the system is a government run monopoly)
Posted 27 May 2007 - 09:05 AM
Thanks for the summary LF,
How would a laissez-faire free market health care system work, and would it benefit and strengthen society? What if you are unemployed or working in a low-paying job? There seems to be a certain class of services and infrastructure that are best provided by the government.... (not that I have any evidence, its just a feeling) What countries have very good health care systems? What do they do right?... universal healthcare as the type you address. I am not necessarily in favor of that approach
...
I, personally, am of the opinion that all of the bad effects are because the free market is not allowed to operate. (and the system is a government run monopoly)
Edited by Live Forever, 27 May 2007 - 07:23 PM.
Posted 27 May 2007 - 05:30 PM
To start, I feel I can say one thing for sure; and that's the following: if the amount of US resources and energy was spent trying to solve health care problems
Posted 27 May 2007 - 06:44 PM
Posted 27 May 2007 - 07:39 PM
The health care system i.e. the gov't can't create physical wellness any more than the gov't can create social wellness.
Posted 27 May 2007 - 08:42 PM
Scott, as a physician do you agree with my description of our current state of affairs as more curative than preventative?
and that we're on our way to a more prevention based approach to pathologies?
Posted 27 May 2007 - 08:48 PM
Another question to ask is how do we ensure that individuals are accountable for their own health? I think we can all agree that no one wants to take care of someone who abuses him/herself. For example, smokers and people who eat horrible diets. There has to be some element of personal responsibility with any health care plan.
Posted 27 May 2007 - 11:06 PM
Edited by Live Forever, 27 May 2007 - 11:17 PM.
Posted 28 May 2007 - 07:42 AM
Michael Moore on Real Time with Bill Maher talking about the movie SiCKO, (only the first part has him, the rest is just the rest of the show for anyone that wants to watch the rest of it; Ron Paul is on in the discussion section):
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Edited by adam_kamil, 30 May 2007 - 08:53 AM.
Posted 29 May 2007 - 04:02 PM
Posted 29 May 2007 - 10:09 PM
Universal healthcare is a bad idea for the U.S. For starters it would be way too expensive and we would never be able to afford it. European countries have a much more homogeneous population so they can get away with it, but it still sucks. The U.S. government is talking about legalizing 12 million illegal immigrants. Who do you think is going to pay for their healthcare? The taxpayer will have to foot the bill. Many of the 47 million uninsured are immigrants or their children. We are importing a million legal immigrants a year. Most of them are relatively poor and end up among the uninsured. Universal healthcare is not free, someone has to pay for it. It is just common sense that you can't have open immigration and a welfare state. It is unfair to the people who work hard to have the government take their wealth and give it to newly minted immigrants. We already have massive welfare programs. If we let the government run the healthcare it will only increase inefficiency and waste. Costs will become hidden or they will be transferred to the taxpayer. In countries with universal healthcare, the wait times for treatment are horrendous. Universal healthcare will kill innovation because all treatments are ultimately based on money. The government will most likely f*ck everything up as opposed to helping. One thing I have learned about economics is that its principles are very counterintuitive. What should we do to improve healthcare? Abolish health insurance altogether. I am serious about this too. Insurance makes healthcare more expensive. If it was pay as you go, we would cut out all the middle men. Market based system will beat out a socialist system everytime. We just need to allow the market to work. In the long run it would be much cheaper.
Edited by adam_kamil, 29 May 2007 - 10:23 PM.
Posted 30 May 2007 - 03:58 AM
Thanks for the summary LF,
How would a laissez-faire free market health care system work, and would it benefit and strengthen society? What if you are unemployed or working in a low-paying job? There seems to be a certain class of services and infrastructure that are best provided by the government.... (not that I have any evidence, its just a feeling) What countries have very good health care systems? What do they do right?... universal healthcare as the type you address. I am not necessarily in favor of that approach
...
I, personally, am of the opinion that all of the bad effects are because the free market is not allowed to operate. (and the system is a government run monopoly)
The country rankings that Michael Moore was using in the above video was the World Health Organization's ranking, which can be found here: http://www.photius.c...ealthranks.html
Apart from that, I believe that other rankings can be taken into effect, including infant mortality: http://www.geography...y_Rate_aall.htm
...and Life expectancy per country: http://en.wikipedia....life_expectancy
Using the WHO's ranking (which Michael Moore was going by in the above clip), France is the best, but going by other factors, there might be others that are better. )
Posted 30 May 2007 - 05:25 AM
Universal healthcare is a bad idea for the U.S. For starters it would be way too expensive and we would never be able to afford it. European countries have a much more homogeneous population so they can get away with it, but it still sucks. The U.S. government is talking about legalizing 12 million illegal immigrants. Who do you think is going to pay for their healthcare?
The taxpayer will have to foot the bill. Many of the 47 million uninsured are immigrants or their children. We are importing a million legal immigrants a year. Most of them are relatively poor and end up among the uninsured. Universal healthcare is not free, someone has to pay for it.
It is just common sense that you can't have open immigration and a welfare state. It is unfair to the people who work hard to have the government take their wealth and give it to newly minted immigrants.
agreedWe already have massive welfare programs.
If we let the government run the healthcare it will only increase inefficiency and waste.
Costs will become hidden or they will be transferred to the taxpayer. In countries with universal healthcare, the wait times for treatment are horrendous.
Utter BS. It does not matter where healthcare innovation happens as long as the treatments end up here as well. Pharmaceutical companies want you to believe that you pay high prices on prescription drugs to help fund their research and tell you that if they didn't price their research in there they would stop researching new medicines, this is BS as well. The United States ends up subsidizing drug research for other countries because other countries will bargain to allow certain drugs in their country. Other countries end up with the same quality drugs that we develop but at a fraction of the cost. If we put a stop to this and regulated it more we would stop being raped on pharmaceuticals.Universal healthcare will kill innovation because all treatments are ultimately based on money.
The government will most likely f*ck everything up as opposed to helping. One thing I have learned about economics is that its principles are very counterintuitive. What should we do to improve healthcare? Abolish health insurance altogether. I am serious about this too. Insurance makes healthcare more expensive. If it was pay as you go, we would cut out all the middle men. Market based system will beat out a socialist system everytime. We just need to allow the market to work. In the long run it would be much cheaper.
Posted 30 May 2007 - 05:27 AM
Posted 30 May 2007 - 08:24 AM
The New York Times: News Source
May 29, 2007
Obama Offers Health Care Plan
By ROBIN TONER
IOWA CITY, Iowa, May 29 — Senator Barack Obama proposed a major overhaul of the nation’s health care system today, aimed at covering the nearly 45 million uninsured Americans, reducing premium costs for everyone else, and breaking what he asserted was “the stranglehold” that the biggest drug and insurance companies have on the health care market.
Mr. Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, in a long-awaited speech on a signature issue for his party, acknowledged that similar efforts to create universal coverage had failed in the past, “crushed under the weight of Washington politics and drug and insurance industry lobbying.”
But he added, “This cannot be one of those years.”
Mr. Obama would pay for his plan by allowing President Bush’s tax cuts for the most affluent Americans — those making over $250,000 a year — to expire. Officials estimated that the net cost of the plan to the federal government would be $50 billion to $65 billion a year, when fully phased in.
The Obama proposal includes a new requirement that employers either provide coverage to their employees or pay the government a set proportion of their payroll to provide it. Similar requirements have proven intensely controversial in the past, notably in 1993-94, when the health care plan proposed by President Bill Clinton went down largely because of a small business backlash.
Obama advisers said the smallest businesses would be exempt from this requirement. The advisers said that those business might have under 15 employees, but that no number has been set.
Mr. Obama would create a new public plan open to individuals who cannot get group coverage through work or the existing government programs, like Medicaid or the State Childrens Health Insurance Program. He would also create a National Health Insurance Exchange, a regulated marketplace of competing private health plans that would aim at “reforming” the private insurance market and giving individuals other, more affordable options for coverage.
Under the Obama plan, the federal government would reimburse employer health plans for the cost of catastrophic health expenditures, to break the cycle of one seriously ill employee driving up the premium costs of what is often a small group. Because of this and other cost-containment proposals, Mr. Obama estimated his plan would save the typical family up to $2,500 a year in their health insurance costs.
The Democratic candidate threw down the gauntlet to the big insurance companies, asserting he would investigate the increasing concentration and monopolization of the industry. “And where we do find places where insurance companies aren’t competititive, we will make them pay a reasonable share of their profits on the patients they should be caring for in the first place,” he said. “Because that’s what’s the right thing to do.”
Mr. Obama’s speech was a marker in several ways. He has been criticized in recent months for a lack of specificity and policy heft, particularly on health care. It is also his first major foray into an area that is widely considered the home terrain of his leading opponent for the Democratic nomination, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The plan also shows his willingness to tap into a long line of Democratic policy thinking; it reflects elements of plans put forward by the Clintons, by Senator John Kerry in his 2004 presidential campaign, and by his rival, Senator John Edwards, earlier this year.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
Posted 30 May 2007 - 03:34 PM
Posted 30 May 2007 - 03:57 PM
Posted 30 May 2007 - 05:39 PM
If such technologically advanced anti-aging therapies as can be developed in the future are ever to come into existence and become reasonably affordable it will only happen in the context of a free market healthcare society. It is unreasonable and naïve to think that such technologies would be refined and distributed to the public by a healthcare bureaucracy. If such technologies are developed in the first place, in spite of there being dramatically less incentives to do so, only market forces can take an initially expensive and new product and turn into an easily affordable commodity.
Posted 30 May 2007 - 05:57 PM
The emphasis belongs on the moral principle. Universal (socialized) healthcare is not just impractical and destructive, it is unquestionably immoral. Healthcare is not a right, it is a value. A universal healthcare plan is forced redistribution of wealth (stealing) plain and simple. As with most of what is commonly referred to as ‘human rights’, socialized healthcare requires the violation of legitimate rights (property rights in this case).
Many of the health insurance plans people use today were created and managed by the government and have the effect of inflating healthcare costs by immunizing health service and drug costs to market forces. Malpractice lawsuits would also need to be addressed. There is no reason why the cost of healthcare would remain as high as it is currently when these, and maybe a few other, concerns are addressed. Basic health services can be affordable regardless of whether a person is insured.
If such technologically advanced anti-aging therapies as can be developed in the future are ever to come into existence and become reasonably affordable it will only happen in the context of a free market healthcare society. It is unreasonable and naïve to think that such technologies would be refined and distributed to the public by a healthcare bureaucracy. If such technologies are developed in the first place, in spite of there being dramatically less incentives to do so, only market forces can take an initially expensive and new product and turn into an easily affordable commodity.
Posted 30 May 2007 - 09:59 PM
I do not follow you on this. Anti-aging therapies are not covered by insurance now so what is the difference? These technologies will be developed and there will always be a market for them.
Posted 31 May 2007 - 01:54 AM
Wootwoot,
It seems as though you accept that redistribution of wealth is bad thing to begin with, so where is the logic in saying that a given case of it, in this case a massive one that will possibly outweigh all of the others, is somehow less bad because the practice is already rampant? Also, although I don't agree with many of the military adventures that we're engaged in right now, that isn't a case of wealth redistribution.
I agree that anti-aging technologies will likely be invented, simply due to the hardwork of dedicated individuals developing them for selfish (in the morally virtuous sense of the word) reasons. But even so, the chances of us seeing them in our lifetimes depends heavily on whether they can be developed so as to be available and affordable, and this process requires the forces of competition and supply/demand. If medicine in the US is nationalized than it will not just be a question of whether people want them, it will be a question of whether the healthcare bureacracy wants us to have them.
Posted 31 May 2007 - 11:25 PM
There are good causes and bad causes that redistribution of wealth goes to. A working healthcare system that is run by the government is what I would consider a good use of such resources. How are unprovoked military actions not redistributions of wealth? Everyone knows that Cheney and Bush are in with the companies that just happen to be rebuilding Iraq, they are redistributing to their pals.
I don't understand. How are forces of supply and demand making anti-aging technologies more available? Again your health insurance now does not pay for such things so what difference does it make if a national health plan didn't pay for them either? Breast implants are not covered by health insurance and many women (and men) want them so they go out and pay for them on their own dime. I don't see how anti-aging medicine will not be the exact same.
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users