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.)

[Cross of Iron]

The UK does have a "free health care" and its crap....you have to wait up to 6 -8 hours to see a nurse ,who then tells you ,you have to wait afurther 3 hours to see the doctor, who then tells you to go see your own doctor ,and not come to the hospital ....Well thats ok ,IF you have your own doctor ,but with ALL doctors trying to go private now its hard....OOHHH yes the govenment say that there have to free healthcare doctors ,but when they open their doors ,they are ALREADY filled up ,due to the overdemaned for them.



The wages the hospital staff have are crap ,so they end up going to Auss ,USA or somewhere in Europe.The hospitals have very limited security ,so therefore the staff get attacked alot (another reason they leave), the wards are dreadful ,paint peeling from walls and (in some cases mould on the walls)

When my wife was in hospital having our son ,she came home with a bad cold ,that was a result of limited heating in the wards ,because of cutbacks.



You have to wait up to,and including ,7 months for a minor op ,and up to 2 years for a major op....reason being that they hope you die BEFORE you have it ,that way they might get more govenment funding.

The ambulances have to get to a call in a certain time frame ,or the local health care that runs them are fined...this you might say is a good thing...well last year there were over 25 crashes with ambulances because they were told to rush to a scene or they would have thier govenment funding reduced....(so yer good one that )



Both my in-laws are nurses at hospitals in Southampton UK ,and they both hate their jobs ,because its all about politics and not helping pateints...they feel like they are not doing what they waited to do anymore ,and who blames them really.

I also worked as a nurse assistant in a mental health hospital the RSH in Southampton,that had free healthcare doctors ,just that they never really cared for the patients ,as they were to busy worring about their PRIVATE ones.(another reason why the staff leave)

And ,yes you could go PRIVATE and have your health care done that way ,but when an operation to have yer galstones removed costs upwards of $35,000 who wants to ,or can afford it.



Then to top it all ,we get an estimated 125,000 illegal immigrants a year in the UK ,and ALL of them get free healthcare ,as the govenment say its helping our fellow countries out.



So do you really think having a "free healthcare is good ????) I DIDN`T THINK SO.

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

The UK does have a "free health care" and its crap....you have to wait up to 6 -8 hours to see a nurse ,who then tells you ,you have to wait afurther 3 hours to see the doctor, who then tells you to go see your own doctor ,and not come to the hospital ....Well thats ok ,IF you have your own doctor ,but with ALL doctors trying to go private now its hard....OOHHH yes the govenment say that there have to free healthcare doctors ,but when they open their doors ,they are ALREADY filled up ,due to the overdemaned for them.



The wages the hospital staff have are crap ,so they end up going to Auss ,USA or somewhere in Europe.The hospitals have very limited security ,so therefore the staff get attacked alot (another reason they leave), the wards are dreadful ,paint peeling from walls and (in some cases mould on the walls)

When my wife was in hospital having our son ,she came home with a bad cold ,that was a result of limited heating in the wards ,because of cutbacks.



You have to wait up to,and including ,7 months for a minor op ,and up to 2 years for a major op....reason being that they hope you die BEFORE you have it ,that way they might get more govenment funding.

The ambulances have to get to a call in a certain time frame ,or the local health care that runs them are fined...this you might say is a good thing...well last year there were over 25 crashes with ambulances because they were told to rush to a scene or they would have thier govenment funding reduced....(so yer good one that )



Both my in-laws are nurses at hospitals in Southampton UK ,and they both hate their jobs ,because its all about politics and not helping pateints...they feel like they are not doing what they waited to do anymore ,and who blames them really.

I also worked as a nurse assistant in a mental health hospital the RSH in Southampton,that had free healthcare doctors ,just that they never really cared for the patients ,as they were to busy worring about their PRIVATE ones.(another reason why the staff leave)

And ,yes you could go PRIVATE and have your health care done that way ,but when an operation to have yer galstones removed costs upwards of $35,000 who wants to ,or can afford it.



Then to top it all ,we get an estimated 125,000 illegal immigrants a year in the UK ,and ALL of them get free healthcare ,as the govenment say its helping our fellow countries out.



So do you really think having a "free healthcare is good ????) I DIDN`T THINK SO.

THe problem in the UK is they mixed public and private. So doctors go to private, leaving the public system with no doctors. From what I've read, Britian is often used as the example of why we (Canada) should never try a public/private mix. It leads to the disasterous situations you describe where doctors practicing in both offer better care to those who pay the big bucks than to those who are in the public system.



This post has been edited by M@ster of Dis@ster: 09/07/07 7:35am

[Capt. Andtennille]

THe problem in the UK is they mixed public and private. So doctors go to private, leaving the public system with no doctors. From what I've read, Britian is often used as the example of why we (Canada) should never try a public/private mix. It leads to the disasterous situations you describe where doctors practicing in both offer better care to those who pay the big bucks than to those who are in the public system.

Absolutely correct. EVERYONE should have crappy healthcare.