Michael Moore's "Sicko"

[scaeagles]

I have read on it, and have seen lists of wait times, but frankly, the data I look at varies widely. I have a listing of articles, though, regarding the concerns of the Canadian system. In them, I found this quote to be very telling -

According to an Ipsos Reid survey among the general public, a majority of Canadian adults rank a patient wait times guarantee as more important than any other of the Government’s priorities. Of the five policy promises made by the Government of Canada during the last federal election, 42% of Canadians said that “a patient wait time guarantee that would reduce wait times for key health services” was the most important to them personally.

That is from this article on this list of articles.

And as someone who has a father in law who waited too long (his choice) to get knee replacements....trust me. Long wait lists for knee and hip replacements are a big deal. Much pain involved.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

I think we spend waaaaayyyyy too much time on arguing against socailized medicine and not enough time looking for ways to fix our VERY broken healthcare system.

I see it as arguing against moving from one system with flaws to another system that I beleve has more flaws. It goes along with the quote I posted earlier.

[wendybeth]

Well, then. Obviously we mustn't do anything at all, and just hope for the best.

[scaeagles]

I'm not seeing where I said any such thing, WB, I'm just arguing against government run health care. Perhaps those that want socialized health care and all the known problems associated with it are the ones "hoping for the best" in ignoring the flaws. The just try anything approach doesn't work for me.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

he's simply assuming that's what Moore is recommending.

As blueerica pointed out, the assumption I am making is that mousepod correctly stated the position of the movie.

Whether or not that would stifle innovation, it's blatently immoral to make health decisions for individual people based on profit motive.

I disagree, and that is why no justification I could offer for my views will be seen by you as reasonable. We are simply beginning from completely different axiomatic points of view.

However, even if you remove "the profit motive" (oh that evil thing) from the equation you are still not removing "mak[ing] health decisions for individual people based on" financial considerations. Removing the profit motive is simply price caps and rationing. Instead of an HMO telling you that they "won't pay for some very expensive procedure but you an go do it yourself" you'll have the government telling you that they "won't pay for some very expensive procedure and feel free to go to Thailand if you want it anyway."

Now, there are many things I think could be done to improve our "health system" in this country. But they don't remove the profit motive. But I was just responding to the range of things I've seen in Moore's discussions and particularly to mousepod's summary of the movie's.

[wendybeth]

Just wondering where the ideas are, Scaeagles. Profit motive doesn't cut it. It was profit motive that cost my kid her hearing. Capitalism is not the answer to everything. (For the record, I don't necessarily believe socialism is either). Btw, it was my understanding that everyone in Canada actually pays for their healthcare- it's not free. I'm guessing the English pay through taxes as well. From what I understand, doctors are held in high regard in both countries and there are still plenty of people going into medicine. I'd rather be treated by someone who is in the field to help people rather than someone who is in it for profit.

Also, were you father-in-law living here in Spokane, he'd still have a long wait. We have a serious shortage of orthopedic surgeons- most people either suffer or travel to obtain surgical relief.

[scaeagles]

My ideas are a little to lengthy to go into now.

However, the premise that pointing out the problems with a suggested solution requires providing a solution of ones own is one I do not accept.

[wendybeth]

Oh, I thought this had become something of a discussion, with the give and take of ideas and criticisms and so on. Silly me.

[Jughead P. Jones]

To tell you the truth, I have to agree with all of you who criticize our Canadian health care system due to the insanely long waiting times. Sure, in Canada, our health coverage is quite good, and we don't have to pay for operations and other medical procedures and hospital stays. (In the province of Ontario, those procedures are covered by a program called OHIP, and I'm sure that each province has its own version of it) But, the trade-off is that when you go into an emergency room, be prepared to wait at least 4 or more hours before you get in there to see a doctor. Because in Canada, we are experiencing one of the largest shortages of doctors in years. I'm not sure what the situation is like in the U.S.A. as far as the numbers go for doctors and nurses, but I assume that it is comparable between the two nations. There has been talk about the privatization of hospitals here in Canada for the last few years now, and personally, I hope it doesn't come down to that, because a poor family like mine would be driven into near-bankruptcy due to the hospital bills that we would have to pay. But, unless we get more people to train to become doctors and nurses in this country (and possibly North America), then our health care systems will continue to be in crisis.

[wendybeth]

Uhm , Jughead- the average wait in pretty much any urban ER is at least as long as you described. Then, even if you have insurance, you usually wind up with a fairly substantial bill. (Insurance ER co-pays tend to be high).