Michael Moore: SickO

Current body
shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Jeffreestar cosmetics
Makeuptalk.com forums

Help Support Makeuptalk.com forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I wonder why in some countries with "free" healthcare people (from what I have read about Canada..just in some areas I guess?) have to wait for hours to see a doctor, and here in Austria this works just fine. You walk into an ER and get examined. And the waiting lists for family doctors or specialty doctors aren´t long either. If I had an issue that´s an emergency, I could get an appointment with (for example) my gynaecologist the very same day...or just walk into the gynaecology ER.

Nobody who´s in pain has to sit in the waiting room for hours. That´s wrong on so many levels and even if you can´t do anything about it as a citizen, I would find that VERY hard to just deal with. I would probably go ballistic and start screaming until a doc examines me. lol

Also I don´t understand how people can say it´s ok not to have "free" healthcare and only pay for doctor´s bills whenever it´s absolutely necessary to see a doctor. I´d be scared of the "what if"-situations. You can always get in an accident and whatnot, and I don´t even wanna imagine how much $ it would cost to be hospitalized for weeks at a time.

Also think about people with chronic illnesses...who knows at one point any one of us could develop an illness that requires frequent visits to doctors and prescriptions.

I can go see a doctor here if I have bruised my knee, a minor cold, back pain-whatever. There are no long waiting lists, and insurance covers almost everything. From a patients point of view, our health system is perfect (although the government will disagree of course cause it costs them a lot of money!)

 
Originally Posted by Andi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Also I don´t understand how people can say it´s ok not to have "free" healthcare and only pay for doctor´s bills whenever it´s absolutely necessary to see a doctor. I´d be scared of the "what if"-situations. You can always get in an accident and whatnot, and I don´t even wanna imagine how much $ it would cost to be hospitalized for weeks at a time. Also think about people with chronic illnesses...who knows at one point any one of us could develop an illness that requires frequent visits to doctors and prescriptions.

I know what you mean... I am afraid of the what ifs.. that is why I looked into that insurance plan where God forbid I am in an accident or have emergency hospital visits... it will all be covered. I only need this plan for a year, until I have insurance through my teaching job.
We had my 18 month old son in the emergency room two months ago for a croup cough that he was wheezing so bad he couldn't breath. We waited 4 hours in the waiting room until they looked at him. I flipped out. Their response was we handle things on a first come first serve basis. F%&K that! Your telling me someone who sprained their ankle deserves to be examined before a baby who could barely breath. My son has great insurance too. Doesn't matter, and doesn't make sense. That is what I mostly don't like about our healthcare system... other than that it's not that bad. IDK..

 
Everyone had valid points. ITA with January when the "what if" factor was mentioned. That is the scariest thing. God Forbid I was to get a disease or be in an accident, I would never be able to pay off my Medical Debt.

As for Blue Cross..I have looked into the $90 plan. The co pays are $40, plus whatever portion of the meds you mave to pay. It is ideal for someone who rarely has doctor visits, but not for me. Yes...I could not buy makeup and afford that. But I still get the BARE minimum of care.

 
Originally Posted by BeneBaby /img/forum/go_quote.gif As for Blue Cross..I have looked into the $90 plan. The co pays are $40, plus whatever portion of the meds you mave to pay. It is ideal for someone who rarely has doctor visits, but not for me. Yes...I could not buy makeup and afford that. But I still get the BARE minimum of care.

Yep, it is decent... but not for everyone. I ::knocks on wood:: rarely get sick where I need drs. visits. I know I will never stop buying clothes or makeup though... even if I had no insurance. I'm bad... lol!
It's just a scary, scary thing.

 
thinking of it..my brother suffered from leukaemia and was in the hospital for an entire year (of course there were breaks where he could go home, but only when his blood parameters would allow him to leave the hospital. And the at home stays were only like 2 weeks max!). He is covered by my parents (so am I cause I´m still in college) so there were no financial worries. We all know how expensive chemo is, and on top of that MRTs, special additional treatments, etc. For an entire year!

And he was treated at a university clinic, because our local hospital is not specialized on leukaemia treatment. So only the best doctors cared for him. He was 16 back then, so my mom took a year off work (she´s a teacher and they can take up to a year off to care of sick relatives etc, and still get paid!) and stayed with him because the hospital is 2 hours away from our house.

Of course we see those things for granted because we´ve always had that kinda system. And yes our monthly insurance payments keep rising, but people can still afford it. Whenever I hear people complaining about how expensive it is I just shake my head...just look at other countries and you should be greatful to have our system.

 
2 February 2005

Half Of All Bankruptcies Caused By Medical Bills

New research in the journal Health Affairs indicates that medical problems contributed to half of all bankruptcies in the U.S., involving 700,000 households. About 700,000 children lived in families that declared bankruptcy in the aftermath of serious medical problems. Another 600,000 spouses, elderly parents and other dependents brought the total number of people directly affected by medical bankruptcies to more than 2,000,000 annually.

Surprisingly, over 75 percent of those bankrupted by medical problems were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. Among those with private insurance, however, one-third had lost coverage - usually due to job loss - at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy. Out-of-pocket medical costs (for uncovered services) averaged $13,460 for those with private insurance at the onset of their illness, vs. $10,893 for the uninsured. The highest costs - averaging $18,005 - were incurred by those who initially had private coverage but lost it in the course of their illness. Many families were bankrupted by medical expenses well below the catastrophic thresholds of high deductible plans that are increasingly popular with employers.

The research, carried out jointly by researchers at Harvard Law School and Harvard Medical School, is the first in-depth study of medical causes of bankruptcy. With the cooperation of bankruptcy judges they administered questionnaires to nearly 2,000 bankruptcy filers and reviewed their court records. "Our study is frightening. Unless you're Bill Gates, you're just one serious illness away from bankruptcy. Most of the medically bankrupt were average Americans who happened to get sick. Health insurance offered little protection. Families with coverage faced unaffordable co-payments, deductibles and bills for uncovered items like physical therapy, psychiatric care and prescription drugs. And even the best job-based health insurance often vanished when prolonged illness caused job loss - precisely when families needed it most. Too often, private health insurance is an umbrella that melts in the rain," said David Himmelstein, lead author of the study. (The authors of the study note that even their own coverage from Harvard leaves them at risk for out-of-pocket costs above levels that often led to medical bankruptcy.)

"When medical debts and lost income from illnesses leave families facing a mountain of bills, bankruptcy is their last chance to stop the collection calls and try to put their lives back on track," noted Elizabeth Warren, a study co-author at Harvard. "Bankruptcy costs these families substantial assets and deep personal shame. A person may recover physically from a medical problem, but millions of Americans will never recover financially from their encounters with the health care system."

 
I have been watching the development of this thread. I have to say how profoundly disappointed I am that some folks could not illustrate their point without resorting to political propaganda. Forget about Michael Moore, he does not represent the average American in any case, that is not even a good excuse anyway. I was really looking forward to seeing some well constructed arguments against "free" or subsidized health care. That's when the argument actually starts to get good. Can anyone else bring it? I'm gonna try...

__________________________________________________ _________________



PRO Subsidized Health Care Short Argument:

Everybody, from the indigent to the very wealthy, would have at least the very basic of services. Historically, the very poor tend to live in areas that are isolated away from very advanced medical centers, and the subsidy would provide an incentive for them to actually go and seek treatment, whatever the transportation inconvenience.

Bankruptcy would predictably fall since the biggest chunk of bankruptcies filed in the U.S. are health related. Families can elect to spend their money on other essentials besides covering co-payments, premiums, and non-covered services.

Working adults with pre-existing health conditions will not have to deal health insurance transfer dilemmas. Those who have had cancer, have hepatitis or HIV will not be able to be approved for another health insurance provider if they do not have COBRA from a previous employer. Subsidized health may address this issue and circumnavigate this sticky problem.



CON Subsidized Health Care Short Argument:

Subsidized Health Care will put a heavy toll on our already imperfect system. It may even bankrupt the United States. The application of the health care is in serious trouble before it gets off the ground because of the disproportionate amount of baby boomers vs. the rest of the working adult population.

Doctors here in the U.S. must obey the Hippocratic Oath taken when they put on their lab coats. They must treat everyone that walks in the door, regardless of it they are legal residents of the United States or not. Illegally residing individuals and their children can and will take advantage of any medical system that we put in place, and we have no way to safe-guard against that effectively.

Our health care system already has enough complaints of "back logs" as it is. It will definitely not get better with "free" or subsidized Universal health care. The government has shown time and again how it is not the best manager of systems, especially those having to do with the private lives of citizens. The UK is definitely not the very worst in the world, but as far as developed nations, if I had a toothache, or appendicitis, I would much rather be here in the US a thousand times over, than to be in a pickle over there in th UK. I don't like waiting longer than necessary for basic services.

 
Points well taken Nox. I'm not up for a debate tonight but I felt compelled to give some sort of an answer. This is only a fraction of my reasoning but it will take some page space to explain, so one point at a time for me.

I do not want this government controlling every aspect of my healthcare. I deal with US gvmt health regulations daily with Medicare. They make no sense and generally do nothing to encourage good care. Take for instance a patient who gets home health care for a wound that wouldn't heal. Say this patient is 80 yrs old and has arthritis and their wound is on their ankle. They need daily wound care. A: do you send them to the Dr's office daily. They don't drive so they have to take a taxi, catch a bus or hope their neighbor can give them a ride or B: send a nurse out daily to change the dressing until it's healed. The answer is neither. Reimbursement for home care is all inclusive regardless of how often a patient is seen. For now, companies are given lump sums after "x" number of days based on the diagnosis. So the company that pays the nurse doesn't want that nurse out there daily. They have to pay the nurse for those daily visits, but they are reimbursed the same amount of money whether the nurse is there weekly or daily. So..........they want you to teach an 80 year old with arthritic hands and a wound on her ankle, how to change her own dressings. Now this particular method of reimbursement was necessary b/c Home care companies used to get paid on a per visit basis. Of course they would send a nurse out daily then. They made more money that way. Who is to blame.......both. Now someone is getting a "little" smarter in DC. The reimbursement is changing to outcome based. Pt doesn't get better........no pay for the company....and eventually Dr's will get paid by Medicare using this method also. The upside is that it encourages the best care. The downside is that there will always be patients who despite your best efforts will not improve. non-compliant patients, brittle diabetics and such. It won't matter. If there is no improvement than there will be no reimbursement for the companies providing care. So the pt doesn't improve for whatever reason and the company gets no money for all the money they fronted for the patients care including supplies and manhours. Companies will hike prices on other services to try to offset the amount of money they will lose on those patients. right now that's just a vicious circle to me. No money+no personnel= no home care for those who really need it. Now if I had a solution, I would give it, but someone is always going to lose and you can bet that it's going to be the pt that suffers the most.

Now the flipside is that private insurance is no better. You have to beg to get what you need for the patient and all insurance companies have a cap on how many home visits you can have per year. When you run out of days...too bad for you.

Watching people struggle daily with how to pay for medications and services is disheartening to say the least. At least with Hospice, although there are a thousand medicare regulations there also, I don't have to justify every single thing that I need. If a medication is related to their "hospice diagnosis, it's covered. But if I have a fairly high functioning hospice patient who has a dx of cancer but they are also diabetic, they are still responsible for all of their insulin, test strips, etc.

I am dealing with this crap on a DAILY basis. While the concept of universal healthcare appeals to me, I don't want my government instituting it. They have not shown me that they can even handle one natural disaster (Katrina). I'm not so sure I want my well being placed in their hands. I wonder if there will even be money in Social Security when I'm ready to retire in 20 years. I'm positive there won't be for you at the rate we are going. When my government shows me, at a minimum, that they can balance a budget I might let them into my medicine cabinet. Ok.that's point #1...........

 
I read some mentions of the waiting lists in Canada. Yeah, that's true... BUT, if it's life threatening, or even possibly life threatening, you move to the front of the list, always.
smile.gif
So the priority with this system, is a persons health, not their wallet.

And like I said before, almost anytime I want to see a doctor, I get a same day appointment. Sometimes next day. Unless it's urgent of course. The only time I've ever heard of an extended wait is for things that are not time sensitive.

 
Originally Posted by BeneBaby /img/forum/go_quote.gif Everyone had valid points. ITA with January when the "what if" factor was mentioned. That is the scariest thing. God Forbid I was to get a disease or be in an accident, I would never be able to pay off my Medical Debt.
As for Blue Cross..I have looked into the $90 plan. The co pays are $40, plus whatever portion of the meds you mave to pay. It is ideal for someone who rarely has doctor visits, but not for me. Yes...I could not buy makeup and afford that. But I still get the BARE minimum of care.

Yep ditto, that's me and all my damn medical problems. I just don't want to burden my parents with medical bills when a "what if" happens.

If I lived alone - no doubt will I be in debt because I pay for college and books (was rejected from financial aid for some reason), I pay for my own transportation daily and other misc. bills. Bah. Being a college student blows...

Mindy, I'm so there... tell Phil's bro a like silver/white gold as my wedding band - thanks.

 
I am with a lot of you on the "what if" situation and that is what is scary to me. (Heck even if its something simple like getting appendicitis - which I did have - who can predict that?)

Sure I (or my mom or whatever) can afford to pay for myself right now if I got a cold or fever (thank god!) but the fact that I am not covered by insurance because I am over a certain age is scary and insane - god forbid I get another bad case of UTI or something - what would I do then?

 
I don't know very much about the US healthcare system, but I do feel that proper healthcare when you are sick is a basic human right. The quality of the care you recieve should not depend on your bank balance. I also feel the ethics of making money on other people's misery (in the form of disease) can be discussed.

I live in a country with free (or socialized?) healthcare. I've been very lucky the few times I've had to seek medical care. When I had appendicitis I didn't have to wait very long in the ER, and I got a bed, a night nurse, several nurse's aids, an anasthesiologist, an anasthesia nurse, several OR nurses, 2 surgeons, 3 shots of morphine, anasthesia, post operative pain killers, post operative care, breakfast, lunch and dinner, all for the very facile price of 25 bucks. Everyone was super nice and super competent.

However, there are long waits for less acute surgeries here. If you need the ER for something that isn't acutely life threatening, you will often need to wait a long time - because the patients who have severe pain, life threatening disorders etc are prioritized. Part of that is also because people go to the ER for antibiotics and the like, when they should make an appointment with their local physician, so the queue (SP?) gets long at the ER. Getting an appt with your local dr usually doesn't take that long, either.

The psychiatric care and the care for people with drug dependence is not working very well either. These are low status health care areas, used by people who are considered low status and who aren't good at speaking up for themselves. However, my husband who has suffered severe depression for some time now has recieved quite good care.

I do not think that dr's here are less inclined to do their job well because they don't make heaps of money compared to other countries. Firstly, an MD does make a lot of money here, especially a specialist. Secondly, I don't think people in general will be sloppy with other people's well being and health just because they don't get a million bucks for it. Frankly, I'm a bit insulted that this is even suggested. If all you see is dollar signs when you look at a sick person, you should not be in that line of work (and probably need a psych evaluation as well).

I don't know which system is best, private or government. Private healthcare is great for the people who can access it, I'm sure. It's terrible to have to wait for 6 months for an operation, as is the case here with socialized healthcare. But then again, is it better to NEVER have the operation, because you can't afford it?

 
Originally Posted by Karen_B /img/forum/go_quote.gif I do not think that dr's here are less inclined to do their job well because they don't make heaps of money compared to other countries. Firstly, an MD does make a lot of money here, especially a specialist. Secondly, I don't think people in general will be sloppy with other people's well being and health just because they don't get a million bucks for it. Frankly, I'm a bit insulted that this is even suggested. If all you see is dollar signs when you look at a sick person, you should not be in that line of work (and probably need a psych evaluation as well).

LMAO. That part was too true!
 
Kelly summed up my sentiment...

Originally Posted by Karen_B /img/forum/go_quote.gif If all you see is dollar signs when you look at a sick person, you should not be in that line of work (and probably need a psych evaluation as well).
Let me be honest here and say I know ppl who became doctors not because they have a genuine care for human life. But because it offered them a certain lifestyle, economic bracket and social status, that they want.
 
Originally Posted by BeneBaby /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why doesn't it suck?? Sure we have the best Doctors the most advanced treatment...blah blah. But what good does it do if a majority of our citizens cannot afford it???? It's like having a Luxury Hotel in the Ghetto. It looks nice, too bad nobody stays in it and it's a waste.
Sure we have some programs like Medi-Cal. But Medi-Cal barely covers the minimum. Plus you get shitty treatment because people don't care..they want their $$$. Just a few weeks ago my 93 year old Great Grandmother, who was a Nurse with Kaiser, had to get new dentures. She is a widow, lives on Social Security and uses Medi-Cal/Denti-Cal. They sent her to a Dental School to get her dentures. The Students made the MOST awful teeth. They were HUGE and ill fitting. She ended up developing sores where the too large teeth were rubbing. The Denti-cal would not provide new teeth. So....she had to go several months without, until she could save up to replace them. Now that is a former healthcare worker....is that fair?

The whole thing disgusts me. I don't expect anything to be Free. But people in the most powerful country in the World are suffering because of Greed. Sure...Survival of the Fittest. Too bad many of the "Fittest" are rich ***holes who don't deserve it, who lie, cheat and steal to get to the top. While hard working Blue collar Americans can't make ends meet. Somehow...that doesn't seem right.

YAH Manders!!! I agree with you 100%!!!! Our government doesn't even want to fund SCHIP, which is a Child's Health Insurance Program. 7-9 million kids in the US have no coverage and according to our current administration it should stay that way!! WTF????!!
 
Just wanted to add a few things about Canada's health care.

As pointed out already, some provinces are "freer" than others.

Just a few things that are not covered in Ontario's health program:

Standard eye appointments for those 18 years of age to 65.

Certain gynelogical procedures I believe.

Some chemo medications.

When I served in the military - the cost of any self inflicted injuries were paid by the member.

Unless you have dental insurance, all expences are out of pocket.

Canadian's pay a lot of money toward taxes. These tax dollars go to the Ministries of Health. The Ministers determine what will be covered and what is out of pocket.

In Ontario we have the Trillium Plan - according to one's income they may get assistance with paying for medication.

Last year, Ontarion's started paying for their provincial health care though their income tax. Depending on your income, you may pay nothing, a few dollars or perhaps 100 per month.

We have a shortage of doctors - at least 15,000 people are without a family doctor in my town.

Emergency rooms and walk in clinics are an easy 3 hour wait.

Emergency surgery will bump elective surgery.

I had a hysterectomy 2 years ago - I was put on a list in April and finally had the surgery in October. If it had been an emergency, I would have had no wait time.

This is a great thread - very educational.

 
There are two other things to consider:

1. In the current system employers pay for their employee's health care. That means that American goods have yet another cost added onto them.

2. We love to brag that America has the best doctors, the best medicine, etc. However, if you look at most of the standards for healthcare, we're not doing so well. Our infant mortality rate is 6.4--that's worse than Australia, Austria, Canada, The Czech Republic Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, South Korea, New Zeland, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and The UK. Our life expectancy is behind most of the exact same countries that have socialized medicine

3. We foolishly believe that this is an either or kind of arguement. I believe that as Americans we should be trying to find the best possible health care system. Its possible that Canada doesn't have it, but I can guarantee we don't have it either.

 
Canada has free healthcare so up to this point in time i haven't really had a problem.

 
The question of health care in this country and its disparity among its citizens I think goes to a question of morality. I'm afraid this country doesn't get high marks.

 
Originally Posted by reesesilverstar /img/forum/go_quote.gif Kelly summed up my sentiment...


Let me be honest here and say I know ppl who became doctors not because they have a genuine care for human life. But because it offered them a certain lifestyle, economic bracket and social status, that they want.

I know a lot of people want to be dr's for that reason - Sweden certainly is no different. But I still think it is highly unlikely that doctors look at a sick person and decide that no, I'm not going to do my best here, because I only make six or seven thousand dollars a month.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top