What's Wacko about Sicko, Socialized Medicine? Options

[Cpt. Snot Rocket]

September 4, 2007

Michael Moore wants socialized medicine in the United States. It would, as his film Sicko suggests, give us a system that better delivers health care to those who need it. Although Moore effectively documents some deficiencies in American health care, his message is undermined by misinformation, inconsistent rhetoric, and a disingenuous agenda. Moore's plan would result in worse, not better, health outcomes for Americans — including the poor and underserved.



As a hand surgeon who treats many traumatic injuries, Moore's portrayal of a patient who amputated his middle fingertip captured my interest. He depicted this uninsured man as required to pay $23,000 to have his finger "saved." Moore lost considerable credibility here. Most hand surgeons would never consider micro-surgically replanting this table saw injury at the finger nail base. Rather, this unfortunate injury would have been comfortably and safely treated — without reattachment of the severed bit of finger — in an office procedure room for $1,000 or less.



In Sicko, Moore consistently equated lack of insurance with inability to obtain care. In Grand Rapids, Mich., where I practice, a sign on the front door of Blodgett hospital, in English and Spanish, indicates patients will not be turned away for lack of ability to pay. This is policy across the United States.

We hear a lot about the nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance. However, approximately half of them are insured six months later with new jobs, suggesting more of a problem with our employer based health care system than with affordability.



Moore harshly criticizes the U.S. government. Yet he is arguing for a centrally controlled allocation of health care resources. Who does he want to run health care in this country? Medical resources are not unlimited. The combination of aging demographics, technological advances and unconstrained consumption within our third party payment system has led to an unsustainable trajectory of ever increasing spending. It is already clear that price controls have created strong disincentives to debt-burdened students considering careers in primary care. Yet Sicko gives market oriented solutions no consideration.



Three individuals with ailments after admirably serving in New York rescue and recovery efforts after September 11, 2001, were transparently used in Sicko to promote Moore's agenda. This manipulation was as revolting as the stories of individuals egregiously denied care by insurance companies. Transported to Cuba, the three 9-11 patients were shown to Cuban doctors who (while cameras were rolling) appeared more than happy to provide care and subsidized prescriptions. This contrasted with a California hospital denying care to a child with a severe infection and a sick, elderly woman dropped off by a taxi in front of a rescue mission while still in her hospital gown. The latter two tragic situations were portrayed as illustrative examples of our domestic medical system.

There is no question we need major improvement in U.S. health care. To use a few outrageous anecdotes to argue for a socialized solution, however, is a non-sequitur. Despite ostensibly compassionate intentions on the part of its backers, greater harm would result from centrally planned and controlled health care. Canada and the United Kingdom provide contemporary models: rationing occurs by decree and delay. Even the Canadian Supreme Court, when ruling against Canada's single-payer law prohibiting private payment for health care in 2006, stated, "access to a waiting list is not access to health care ... in some cases patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care ... and many patients on non-urgent waiting lists are in pain and cannot fully enjoy any real quality of life."



Pope Benedict XVI wrote in his recent encyclical Deus Caritas Est, "We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need." Moore and his allies would do well to take this exhortation to heart. We now have unsustainable consumption of medical resources, with third party responsibility for health care expenses. A socialized system would increase state dependency and diminish motivation for charity. Greater government bureaucracy would increase inefficiency and waste compared to doctor-patient "two-party" interaction. Socialized medicine violates the social justice principle of subsidiarity by interfering with the family, churches, charitable clinics, and other intermediate organizations attending to those who are most in need.



The common good would be better served with medical insurance purchased, like other insurance, outside the workplace. Tax law changes could help improve insurance portability and affordability. Insurance industry reform, including measures increasing inter-state competition, could decrease premium cost. Greater competition from patients directly paying premiums would lead to stronger demands for quality and less egregious denials of care. With improved alignment of responsibility for personal health choices and medical care consumption, scarce health care resource allocation would improve. There is significant opportunity for recovery. Market oriented reforms, with compassionate consideration for those without means, deserve far greater consideration than Sicko's deceptive solution.



Dr. Donald P. Condit is an orthopaedic surgeon specializing in hand surgery in Grand Rapids, Mich. He also holds an MBA degree from the Seidman School of Business at Grand Valley State University.

(This article is a product of the Acton Institute — www.acton.org, 161 Ottawa NW, Suite 301, Grand Rapids, MI 49503 — and is reprinted with permission.)

[{CuF}crazycanuck]

we have universal health care in Canada. Although it is a definit bonus being able to have free health care let me fill you in on a few details from a country that has it...

#1) your physicians better be ready to take a possible paycut because through this system the government will allocate funds to there salaries and it will probabaly be tightly controlled. This is the reason why we are losing new physicians to the U.S they can make more money.

#2) be prepared for tax hikes and some of the things you can write off goodbye. Taxes here in Canada are some of thje highest in the world to pay for free health care. persoanlly last year i payed almost 45% of my income to taxes. Being able to have a broken arm fixed up for free has to cost someone and you do pay. i have an extra 800 bucks last year tacked on to my provincial taxes as a health care premium. plus we pay 14 % taxes on our purchases..(.6% gst tax, 8% pst tax),ohhh by the way did you know that gst is even payed on services,,,aka FUNERALS AND CAR REPAIRS to name a few, and if you dare have a beer at a bar you also pay 10% booze tax on top of this. Ever payed 10 dollars for a pack of smokes(ya, ya i know,,shush...lol) if you smoke up here you do...for a few examples of the extra costs to pay for this system.

3) you may already have this, but we have places in ontario that are horribly underserviced because of the doctor shortage. a new doctors office opened up in Kitchener and they had 1300 spaces for new patients..the spaces filled in 45 minutes.

free health care does have a lot of advantages, but it comes with a lot of hidden nasties that the public doesn't realize and should be prepared for as i said higher taxes and new taxes are a possibility. remeber it still has to be payed for. some of the private hospitals may have to switch to government control and you may lose some very good facilities. The standard of care will be set by the government, be prepared for sometimes VERY long waits at the emergency room. we have emergency rooms closing because they do not have the funds to pay for the services in there budgets. In stratford our hospital closed 30 beds because they had to balance the budget..so kiss the ability to have 30 people helped out the window.

Ambulances are constatntly redirected from hospital to hospital in some cities like toronto..too busy and cannot take the patient. there are communities that have no doctors at all..my friend lives in a northern community and the yearly check up for him and the wife includes three days off work and a two night hotel stay and a 7 hour commute either way.As he says its a lot of time and money to have doctor long fingers check his colon once a year..

We have nurses that get laid off..seriously ..NURSES LAID OFF not because of lack of work..heck no.no money in the provincially allocated budget to that hospital to pay wages...

and don't forget you still pay out of your own pocket(here we do) for dental,eye care, and other specialized services.

Once a system is free its open to abuse as well, like people feeling it nessesary to take little timmy to the emergency room because he has the sniffles and if you don't have a family doctor and a clinic isn't close by then the emergency room becomes your doctor, again causing at times major backups and the hospital prioritizing your problem..i sat in Fergus with a broken hand for over 7 hours waiting..and the nurse could only give me tylenol and a pillow for my hand because others were "prioritized" higher then me. talk about a long painful wait..my hand swelled huge during this wait and i had to be sent home to get the swelling down before they could do anything..

so bad parts..my hand was broken and twisted and extremely painful and it stayed like that with litle help for 17 hours before i went back the next day when immediate teatment would have avaoided this..
good parts i didn't get a bill for the services.

so theres my two cents..ok more then two cents.

This post has been edited by {CuF}crazycanuck: 09/06/07 5:58am