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.)

[T/A6Pak]

A big problem with the Canadian health care is that doctors are capped on there income. So why stay here and make only a certain amount a year when you can go to the states and double your income. So all the great doctors leave, who can blame them.

Several doctors in Ontario only have office hours 4 days a week, due to the fact that after that they are at there max.. so then you have more people going to the ER that really don't need to be there. Which leads to overcrowding and long waits at the hospital.

There is a min 4 month wait for an MRI in Windsor, unless you are an emergency case or have connections. It takes up to a year to see a neuro-surgeon.. unless you have connections or are an emergency (life/death) case. Being told that you cannot hit your head or get rear ended or you will probably be paralyzed for life is not an emergency case.

Think about it... first 4 months waiting to get your MRI then another year to see the neuro-surgeon, from the inital time that is probably 1 1/2 years. Wow, great system. When I went to see a neuro-surgeon in London in July he wanted me to go for a discogram test prior to surgery. This appointment is at the end of November this year. I asked to be put on the cancellation list, I call every week with negative results.

I understand that several people are put in financial situations due to the cost of healt care in the US, but at the end of the day.. You have the best doctors in the world, to me that's worth it's weight in Gold.

You pay one way or the other, I would rather pay financially than with my life.

T/A6Pak

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

A big problem with the Canadian health care is that doctors are capped on there income. So why stay here and make only a certain amount a year when you can go to the states and double your income. So all the great doctors leave, who can blame them.

Several doctors in Ontario only have office hours 4 days a week, due to the fact that after that they are at there max.. so then you have more people going to the ER that really don't need to be there. Which leads to overcrowding and long waits at the hospital.

There is a min 4 month wait for an MRI in Windsor, unless you are an emergency case or have connections. It takes up to a year to see a neuro-surgeon.. unless you have connections or are an emergency (life/death) case. Being told that you cannot hit your head or get rear ended or you will probably be paralyzed for life is not an emergency case.

Think about it... first 4 months waiting to get your MRI then another year to see the neuro-surgeon, from the inital time that is probably 1 1/2 years. Wow, great system. When I went to see a neuro-surgeon in London in July he wanted me to go for a discogram test prior to surgery. This appointment is at the end of November this year. I asked to be put on the cancellation list, I call every week with negative results.

I understand that several people are put in financial situations due to the cost of healt care in the US, but at the end of the day.. You have the best doctors in the world, to me that's worth it's weight in Gold.

You pay one way or the other, I would rather pay financially than with my life.

T/A6Pak

I'll say it again, I think the only problem here is we've underfunding it.

"According to World Health Organization (WHO) 2001 statistics, Canada's total expenditure on health as an expenditure of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is 9.5%. This can be compared with 13.9% in the United States and 7.6% in the United Kingdom. And Canada ranks 30th on the WHO's year 2000 report on the cost effectiveness of global healthcare."

We're spending almost 50% less than the US, even as they don't cover 1/5th to 1/6th of their population at any given time. I'd suspect that if we even brought our spending up to 12% fo GDP, we'd take care of the wait time which generally are in diagnostic imaging and a few specialized areas.

IMO, the problem is we cut budgets to health care during the deficit reducing 90's, but haven't re-established spending now that we're in surplus.

And at the end of the day, I'd still say we get darn good health care for the majority even if it is underfunded somewhat. We still beat American life expectancy by about 2 years. Although there is many factors involved, we're similar countries, similar cultures, diets, work schedules, etc, so I think this is relavant.

http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa042000b.htm

This post has been edited by M@ster of Dis@ster: 09/19/07 2:42pm

[Cpt. Snot Rocket]

A big problem with the Canadian health care is that doctors are capped on there income. So why stay here and make only a certain amount a year when you can go to the states and double your income. So all the great doctors leave, who can blame them.

Several doctors in Ontario only have office hours 4 days a week, due to the fact that after that they are at there max.. so then you have more people going to the ER that really don't need to be there. Which leads to overcrowding and long waits at the hospital.

There is a min 4 month wait for an MRI in Windsor, unless you are an emergency case or have connections. It takes up to a year to see a neuro-surgeon.. unless you have connections or are an emergency (life/death) case. Being told that you cannot hit your head or get rear ended or you will probably be paralyzed for life is not an emergency case.

Think about it... first 4 months waiting to get your MRI then another year to see the neuro-surgeon, from the inital time that is probably 1 1/2 years. Wow, great system. When I went to see a neuro-surgeon in London in July he wanted me to go for a discogram test prior to surgery. This appointment is at the end of November this year. I asked to be put on the cancellation list, I call every week with negative results.

I understand that several people are put in financial situations due to the cost of healt care in the US, but at the end of the day.. You have the best doctors in the world, to me that's worth it's weight in Gold.

You pay one way or the other, I would rather pay financially than with my life.

T/A6Pak

I'll say it again, I think the only problem here is we've underfunding it.

"According to World Health Organization (WHO) 2001 statistics, Canada's total expenditure on health as an expenditure of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is 9.5%. This can be compared with 13.9% in the United States and 7.6% in the United Kingdom. And Canada ranks 30th on the WHO's year 2000 report on the cost effectiveness of global healthcare."

We're spending almost 50% less than the US, even as they don't cover 1/5th to 1/6th of their population at any given time. I'd suspect that if we even brought our spending up to 12% fo GDP, we'd take care of the wait time which generally are in diagnostic imaging and a few specialized areas.

I think your confusing some things MoD. The GDP is the total dollar value of all goods and services PRODUCED. That is how much money the Health industry generates, not the amount of money the US Goverment or US Citezens spend on health care. There is a disctinct diffence. Pharmaceuticals, Equipment and Services that are sold from the US tothe world also go into the GDP.



And by the way there are far fewer than 1/5th of the US that is uninsured. Take Hillary Clinton claim that 50Million Amercans are uninsured. That INCLUDES about 15MIllion "Illegal Aliens"!!! And aslo another 5 to 6 million that us Medicare but only file when they need it. When they don't they are listed as uninsured. The real number is likely around 20Million people out of 300Million population.



This post has been edited by Cpt. Snot Rocket: 09/20/07 5:34pm

[Capt. Andtennille]

A big problem with the Canadian health care is that doctors are capped on there income. So why stay here and make only a certain amount a year when you can go to the states and double your income. So all the great doctors leave, who can blame them.

Several doctors in Ontario only have office hours 4 days a week, due to the fact that after that they are at there max.. so then you have more people going to the ER that really don't need to be there. Which leads to overcrowding and long waits at the hospital.

There is a min 4 month wait for an MRI in Windsor, unless you are an emergency case or have connections. It takes up to a year to see a neuro-surgeon.. unless you have connections or are an emergency (life/death) case. Being told that you cannot hit your head or get rear ended or you will probably be paralyzed for life is not an emergency case.

Think about it... first 4 months waiting to get your MRI then another year to see the neuro-surgeon, from the inital time that is probably 1 1/2 years. Wow, great system. When I went to see a neuro-surgeon in London in July he wanted me to go for a discogram test prior to surgery. This appointment is at the end of November this year. I asked to be put on the cancellation list, I call every week with negative results.

I understand that several people are put in financial situations due to the cost of healt care in the US, but at the end of the day.. You have the best doctors in the world, to me that's worth it's weight in Gold.

You pay one way or the other, I would rather pay financially than with my life.

T/A6Pak

I'll say it again, I think the only problem here is we've underfunding it.

"According to World Health Organization (WHO) 2001 statistics, Canada's total expenditure on health as an expenditure of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is 9.5%. This can be compared with 13.9% in the United States and 7.6% in the United Kingdom. And Canada ranks 30th on the WHO's year 2000 report on the cost effectiveness of global healthcare."

We're spending almost 50% less than the US, even as they don't cover 1/5th to 1/6th of their population at any given time. I'd suspect that if we even brought our spending up to 12% fo GDP, we'd take care of the wait time which generally are in diagnostic imaging and a few specialized areas.

I think your confusing some things MoD. The GDP is the total dollar value of all goods and services PRODUCED. That is how much money the Health industry generates, not the amount of money the US Goverment or US Citezens spend on health care. There is a disctinct diffence. Pharmaceuticals, Equipment and Services that are sold from the US tothe world also go into the GDP.



And by the way there are far fewer than 1/5th of the US that is uninsured. Take Hillary Clinton claim that 50Million Amercans are uninsured. That INCLUDES about 15MIllion "Illegal Aliens"!!! And aslo another 5 to 6 million that us Medicare but only file when they need it. When they don't they are listed as uninsured. The real number is likely around 20Million people out of 300Million population.

And "uninsured" does not mean untreated. Anyone can walk into an emergency room and get treatment even if they don't have insurance.

I've never understood how anyone who's ever been down to the Department Of Motor Vehicles would ever want the government to run anything. Want better health care in the U.S.? Pass Tort reform so doctors can practice medicine without all of the frivilous lawsuits. That includes the pharmecutical companies. One of the reasons that medicine is so expensive in the U.S. is that the cost of lawsuits is much higher here.

MoD is very much in favor of the U.S. getting socialized health care, yet he constantly points out that the government doesn't do anything right. I guess the reason that Communism has failed every time it's been tried is that the right people weren't running it. LOL