Sicko: whaddayathink?

[Kwaku]

I saw Michael Moore's new documentary Sicko on sunday. I was wondering what Americans think about it?

I was pretty shocked, coming from a country where everybody gets care, no matter whether you are insured or not.
Still, I must say that some scenes were REALLY over the top: the happy people in the British NHS for instance. I lived in the UK for a year and they are actually very unhappy with the level of care they receive, especially in poor neighbourhoods. Still, if Moore is right about the US, people not getting ANY care at all, children dying because of this and patients being dumped on the street by hospitals while theyre still in their surgery gowns?
That's really bad.

So, what do you guys think?

[Popeye]

I saw Michael Moore's new documentary Sicko on sunday. I was wondering what Americans think about it?

I was pretty shocked, coming from a country where everybody gets care, no matter whether you are insured or not.
Still, I must say that some scenes were REALLY over the top: the happy people in the British NHS for instance. I lived in the UK for a year and they are actually very unhappy with the level of care they receive, especially in poor neighbourhoods. Still, if Moore is right about the US, people not getting ANY care at all, children dying because of this and patients being dumped on the street by hospitals while theyre still in their surgery gowns?
That's really bad.

So, what do you guys think?

I haven't seen Sicko yet, but its on pay per view next month on DirecTV so I'm all ready. Hospitals, have apparently been dumping homeless people, still in hospital gowns, on skid row when being released. Nice.http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1761873&page=1

You get cancer, insurance won't cover the drugs. Too bad.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21209744/

I'm looking forward to Sicko, as Moore's documentaries always shine a bright light on the many areas of darkness America tries to hide.

[vyo476]

I wasn't too fond of Fahrenheit 9/11, but I did like Bowling for Columbine and Stupid White Men. If he didn't take Sicko quite so over-the-top (the thing that did it for me in Fahrenheit 9/11 was one particular scene which is basically just five minutes of a woman crying over her son's death - that was excessive) I'll probably like it quite a bit.

[Kwaku]

There are quite a few over the top scenes, some of which made me cringe (he takes a group of sick 9/11 rescue workers to Cuba and they end up hugging with their Cuban "brothers"
And they act like France is the best country in the world and the French are actually killing their own economy by tyhe rigid systems they have.


But are you guys worried?
Are you extra carefull?
What if you get cancer? Do you think you have insurance?
Will you move to Canada?

[Mare Tranquillity]

I don't entirely agree with Michael Moore, but I do think he asks valid questions. The US is the only western nation without universal health care. Why? Why are hospitals dumping patients on skid row (I know this is happening, I've read numerous articles about it). The amount of money we spend on medical care is not a secret, his reporting was accurate. The US's standings worldwide in longevity, infant mortality, etc. are not secret either, and he reported them accurately. The cost of prescriptions are a national disgrace in this country, again, he reported this accurately.

In the US we like to think of ourselves as the best in the world and we get angry at anyone who points out our flaws, but we need gadflies like Moore to keep us honest, to make us look at ourselves more closely. I thought the movie was very good despite some faux pas.

The idea that France is bankrupting itself is laughable. What the Hell do you think the US has done to itself? Look at where we are and it makes France look very good--at least THEY are spending the money to help their people while we're spending ours to kill people with an insanely huge military and by lax laws that give corporations a free hand to rob the American people. (Just look at our pharmaceutical prices!)

[Kwaku]

Laughable?

This might not be the place to start a discussion on the economic and social situation of France, but it's not going that well. There is huge unemployment, especially among the young, and they aren't rioting in Paris for floppy fun!

[Mare Tranquillity]

Laughable?

This might not be the place to start a discussion on the economic and social situation of France, but it's not going that well. There is huge unemployment, especially among the young, and they aren't rioting in Paris for floppy fun!

Are we in any better shape? I'd like to note that England was bankrupt and going down the tubes--according to reports in the media--because they had become a welfare state, but that never happened either.

[PLC1]

I haven't seen "Sicko." I've heard about it, and I'm familiar with Michael Moor's work from other films.

I'm pretty sure it isn't going to be a documentary about the American health care system, but it should be at least a wake up call about it.

The US is the only modern nation without universal care, and it spends more than any other nation on its health care. Those are undisputed facts. Look them up if you don't believe me.

It is tempting to say that we pay more because we don't have universal care. That may be so, but correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The conclusion that must be drawn from those two facts is that we need to seriously reform our health care system, no doubt about it. We might think we have the best, radio pundits may say we have the best, but the WHO says we're #37. Who are you going to believe, the WHO, or the radio pundits?

Mare Tranquillity is correct that the notion that France is bankrupting itself is laughable. France spends 7% of its GDP on health care, while the US spends 16%. If anyone is going to go bankrupt paying for health care, it's us.

9/11 rescue teams going to Cuba for health care? That sounds like a MM pipe dream to me. Did it actually happen? If it did, then it needs to be shouted from the rooftops, printed in big, bold letters above the fold, and examined to see what needs to be done. If it didn't, then shame on MM for using fantasy to promote his idea. Shame on the public for buying it.

As for universal care, I asked this question on another forum, and got no positive responses, none, zero. I'll try it here:

Who of you who live in a country that has universal care, i.e., most anywhere besides the US, would trade your system of medical care for ours?

Anyone..... anyone???

[USMC the Almighty]

Who of you who live in a country that has universal care, i.e., most anywhere besides the US, would trade your system of medical care for ours?

Anyone..... anyone???

There are thousands of stories from Canadians who run to the U.S. whenever a serious medical issue needs to be addressed.

[PLC1]

There are thousands of stories from Canadians who run to the U.S. whenever a serious medical issue needs to be addressed.

yes, there are, many stories. I wonder how much truth there is behind them? Any Canadians on this forum?

[Popeye]

I haven't seen "Sicko." I've heard about it, and I'm familiar with Michael Moor's work from other films.

I'm pretty sure it isn't going to be a documentary about the American health care system, but it should be at least a wake up call about it.

The US is the only modern nation without universal care, and it spends more than any other nation on its health care. Those are undisputed facts. Look them up if you don't believe me.

It is tempting to say that we pay more because we don't have universal care. That may be so, but correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The conclusion that must be drawn from those two facts is that we need to seriously reform our health care system, no doubt about it. We might think we have the best, radio pundits may say we have the best, but the WHO says we're #37. Who are you going to believe, the WHO, or the radio pundits?

Mare Tranquillity is correct that the notion that France is bankrupting itself is laughable. France spends 7% of its GDP on health care, while the US spends 16%. If anyone is going to go bankrupt paying for health care, it's us.

9/11 rescue teams going to Cuba for health care? That sounds like a MM pipe dream to me. Did it actually happen? If it did, then it needs to be shouted from the rooftops, printed in big, bold letters above the fold, and examined to see what needs to be done. If it didn't, then shame on MM for using fantasy to promote his idea. Shame on the public for buying it.

As for universal care, I asked this question on another forum, and got no positive responses, none, zero. I'll try it here:

Who of you who live in a country that has universal care, i.e., most anywhere besides the US, would trade your system of medical care for ours?

Anyone..... anyone??? Just saw Sicko tonight, thought it was very good. Exposed the US medical system, complete with monetary figures, for what it really is-a cozy relationship between our elected officials and the lobbies of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

Debunked some myths, fostered primarily by the right, about health care in Canada, France and the UK. In fact, he talked to Americans living in France who actually literally laughed at the health care system in the US.

He did indeed take three boats of Americans, among them 9/11 workers, to Cuba. They all had medical conditions that were treated at an up to date looking hospital in Havana. Medical conditions, I might add, that they couldn't get treated for properly in the US, due to a lack of funds.

All in all, the movie was a indictment of the US medical system. It's complete with case histories of Americans who have suffered under a system that is driven by profit, not compassion.

[Truth-Bringer]

Just saw Sicko tonight, thought it was very good. Exposed the US medical system, complete with monetary figures, for what it really is-a cozy relationship between our elected officials and the lobbies of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.


And that is the problem. And it needs to be addressed. We need to end the influence of the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical lobby.

But the left's solution is irrational. What the left is saying is that they want the same elected officials who are at the bottom of our current problems to totally remake the system with greater government control. Again, it's irrational - trusting the people who have screwed the entire system up to miraculously fix it.

[USMC the Almighty]

But the left's solution is irrational. What the left is saying is that they want the same elected officials who are at the bottom of our current problems to totally remake the system with greater government control. Again, it's irrational - trusting the people who have screwed the entire system up to miraculously fix it.

Exactly.

[Popeye]

And that is the problem. And it needs to be addressed. We need to end the influence of the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical lobby.

But the left's solution is irrational. What the left is saying is that they want the same elected officials who are at the bottom of our current problems to totally remake the system with greater government control. Again, it's irrational - trusting the people who have screwed the entire system up to miraculously fix it.

I've got a better idea, let's just keep the screwed up system we have in place now, because we don't trust anyone to fix it. Rather a pessimistic attitude, don't you think?

[PLC1]

I've got a better idea, let's just keep the screwed up system we have in place now, because we don't trust anyone to fix it. Rather a pessimistic attitude, don't you think?

Yes, it is a kind of pessimistic attitude. What we need to look at is the fact that every other nation in thd world has universal care, they all pay less than we do, and they depend on their respective governments to administer the system. If we can't depend on our government to do the same, then it is time to reexamine that government.

We might be better off to trust the individual states to come up with 50 plans, rather than to trust the feds to come up with one.

[Bunz]

We might be better off to trust the individual states to come up with 50 plans, rather than to trust the feds to come up with one.
I would agree, health coverage administered by the government should be done largely on the state level. What works in California probably wont work in smaller state and vice versa. It will also let individual state direct monies into areas they identify as needing focus, obesity, AIDS, whatever is a serious issue that is a local issue. Blanket programs across a nation as large and diverse as America is difficult at best.

[PLC1]

I would agree, health coverage administered by the government should be done largely on the state level. What works in California probably wont work in smaller state and vice versa. It will also let individual state direct monies into areas they identify as needing focus, obesity, AIDS, whatever is a serious issue that is a local issue. Blanket programs across a nation as large and diverse as America is difficult at best.

Not only that, b ut if we take back the money that the federal government wastes, we should be able to pay for a health care system with no new taxes.

[Bunz]

Not only that, b ut if we take back the money that the federal government wastes, we should be able to pay for a health care system with no new taxes.

While I think everything needs to be done to prevent waste and fraud of public monies, I seems to me the wise way to go about federal spending on healthcare should be given to the states and let them divvy it up(with a full accounting of course) My theory is to just pass the funds through the states and let the states supplement thier needs with thier own money.

[Cookie Parker]

Laughable?

This might not be the place to start a discussion on the economic and social situation of France, but it's not going that well. There is huge unemployment, especially among the young, and they aren't rioting in Paris for floppy fun!

As opposed to Johnny and Judy living at home with mommy and daddy in the US and working part-time at McDonalds you mean?

[Cookie Parker]

And that is the problem. And it needs to be addressed. We need to end the influence of the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical lobby.

But the left's solution is irrational. What the left is saying is that they want the same elected officials who are at the bottom of our current problems to totally remake the system with greater government control. Again, it's irrational - trusting the people who have screwed the entire system up to miraculously fix it.

No, the left isn't saying that...the right is saying the left is saying that....

[USMC the Almighty]

No, the left isn't saying that...the right is saying the left is saying that....

So the left's solution to healthcare isn't "nationalize" or "socialize" it which means put the government in control? Tell me then, what is their solution?

[Popeye]

The left's solution should be universal health care. Canada has it, the UK has the NHS, what's the problem with the US having it?

There are approximately 4 insurance and pharmaceutical company lobbyists for every 1 member of congress, that tell you something? Money, money, money, who cares about people who have died because they couldn't get the right treatment due to lack of funds, or have been denied treatment by their sleazy insurance company. How about a little dumping of hospital patients who can't pay their bill? Truly, only in America.

Meanwhile, half the population has been brainwashed with this "socialized medicine" nonsense, scare stories abound. Making it sound as if Lucifer himself came up with the idea. All of it fostered by the insurance lobby and the politicos working for them, how can what they say be taken seriously?

[Horizon]

I saw Michael Moore's new documentary Sicko on sunday. I was wondering what Americans think about it?

I was pretty shocked, coming from a country where everybody gets care, no matter whether you are insured or not.
Still, I must say that some scenes were REALLY over the top: the happy people in the British NHS for instance. I lived in the UK for a year and they are actually very unhappy with the level of care they receive, especially in poor neighbourhoods. Still, if Moore is right about the US, people not getting ANY care at all, children dying because of this and patients being dumped on the street by hospitals while theyre still in their surgery gowns?
That's really bad.

So, what do you guys think?
you probably got a wrong impression of the people of UK. they are pretty happy of the health care provided over there.

and Mr. Moore is right on his stance on the condition of american health care system. even many undeveloped countries do have better health care compared to US. and Moore had sufficient evidences to support his claims. but the gitmo part was an exaggeration.

[9sublime]

I'm from the UK, and the actual treatment you recieve is top class. Its just that the waiting lists can be very long.

[TruthAboveAll]

I'm from the UK, and the actual treatment you recieve is top class. Its just that the waiting lists can be very long.

Like most things, it all depends on who you ask. I found this story (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=NM000AHZ5ZOFPQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQ WIV0?xml=/news/2007/12/05/nhs105.xml) from earlier this month interesting, and it is only one of several I found citing different serious problems with the health care system (NIH) in GB.

Michael Moore - he's a self-serving "investigator" (Ha!) who will use any technique from unconscionable over-emphasizing, to manipulation of situations and facts, to taking quotes out of context, to down-right lying to serve his purpose. A shame - he started out truly wanting to be the voice of truth to the blue-collar world.

[Popeye]

Like most things, it all depends on who you ask. I found this story (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=NM000AHZ5ZOFPQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQ WIV0?xml=/news/2007/12/05/nhs105.xml) from earlier this month interesting, and it is only one of several I found citing different serious problems with the health care system (NIH) in GB.Though Sublime would know best, I believe the Telegraph is a conservative newspaper.

Michael Moore - he's a self-serving "investigator" (Ha!) who will use any technique from unconscionable over-emphasizing, to manipulation of situations and facts, to taking quotes out of context, to down-right lying to serve his purpose. A shame - he started out truly wanting to be the voice of truth to the blue-collar world.

How many of his movies have you actually seen? I've heard the right wing continually complaining that his movies are lies and biased, but nobody on the right admits to seeing them. They just listen to Rush or watch O'Reilly and take their lead from those bozos. You wouldn't be doing that now, would you?

The fact the right hates Michael Moore so much speaks volumes as to the validity of his charges. His documentaries are factual, albeit presented from a left wing point of view.

[vyo476]

How many of his movies have you actually seen? I've heard the right wing continually complaining that his movies are lies and biased, but nobody on the right admits to seeing them. They just listen to Rush or watch O'Reilly and take their lead from those bozos. You wouldn't be doing that now, would you?

I'm not so fond of Moore anymore. I liked Bowling for Columbine (when I saw it three years ago), but I thought Fahrenheit 9/11 was over-the-top (fifteen straight minutes of a woman crying over her dead son, a soldier, was excessive, unnecessary, and just kind of a jerky thing to put on film) and largely irrelevant (all that talk about the Bush-Bin Laden family ties didn't suggest anything to me that would have served Moore's purposes).

I've yet to see Sicko. Maybe it'll be better than his last offerings. I miss the good old days when he did things like Stupid White Men. That was some quality stuff.

[TruthAboveAll]

Though Sublime would know best, I believe the Telegraph is a conservative newspaper.

I've no idea if The Telegraph is conservative or not. What I did note in reading it was there was nearly nothing that indicated the writer (or the papers') political position. Perhaps if I had a bit more personal, first-hand insight into British politics I could read more into it.

For the most part, it seemed to be merely reporting statistical facts and details on the Healthcare Commission report on the current NHS performance on the front lines of hospitalized patients. I've no idea of the "Commission", it's origin or political purpose, if any.

Conservative, liberal, independent or Martian - does it matter the origin if the facts are accurate, and presented with a minimum of personal bias? To discount something simply because it is of conservative origin is an assault on reason.

How many of his movies have you actually seen? I've heard the right wing continually complaining that his movies are lies and biased, but nobody on the right admits to seeing them. They just listen to Rush or watch O'Reilly and take their lead from those bozos. You wouldn't be doing that now, would you?

Since you ask, I've seen every movie from Moore except Sicko. Whether I agreed with all his perceptions and views or not, I found all of them thought-provoking and felt that I had not wasted my time by watching them. It is nearly impossible to keep personal bias out of any report or documentary, although attempting to just cite facts is preferable. My problem with Moore's bias is that he has increasingly resorted to emotionalism, distortion and downright lies.

Oooooh! It's early afternoon here. I guess I shouldn't be doing this, but going to listen to Rush to get my marching orders. I listen to, and read, a multitude of sources on issues. Some I agree with, some I don't. But whatever I form as my viewpoint or belief, I try to base it as factually as possible.

The fact the right hates Michael Moore so much speaks volumes as to the validity of his charges. His documentaries are factual, albeit presented from a left wing point of view.

How in the world is that true? The reverse could be true also, then. The left hates, say, George Bush so much that it speaks volumes to the validity of his actions and policies. Hate is a strong word, and I don't hate Michael Moore. I've little use for him, and his hypocrisies and vitriol are sickening. What I do hate is the fact that the left holds him up as a hero of the common man, when he is no such thing. I hate the fact that those on the left takes what he says on face value, with no attempt to look at whether the truth is in it. I hate that because of these two things many will be deceived.

I don't have to ask - I can see that that is what you are doing.

[PLC1]

the only MM movie I've seen is Bowling for Columbine. In it, he talks about the killings at Columbine High, then begins to examine the reasons why there are so many more murders in the US than in other civilized countries. One by one, he looks at possible reasons, compares the US with somewhere else, then dismisses those causes.

More guns per citizen? Nope. Canada has as many, and far fewer murders. History of violence? Nope. Other countries have a history of violence, and far fewer murders. Aha! It's the white man's fear of black America, that's it! That one, he doesn't examine, but simply accepts uncritically.

Some of the movie is thought provoking, but the last merely provokes disbelief.

Bowling for Columbine doesn't even address our incessant gang wars, the most probably cause of the murder rate, nor does it examine the race of the perpetrators nor the victims. His conclusion is not plausible.

I suspect there are similar aspects to Sicko. Some of it is thought provoking, other parts simply make you want to throw up.

But, I haven't seen it. I could be wrong.

[Libsmasher]

The left's solution should be universal health care. Canada has it, the UK has the NHS, what's the problem with the US having it?

To name just a few, rationing, waiting for months to see a specialist or get an operation, age cutoffs for major operations.

[Popeye]

To name just a few, rationing, waiting for months to see a specialist or get an operation, age cutoffs for major operations.

Here's a good reason (http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2252#1) not to have for profit health care like the US.

[Bunz]

I actually saw this movie the other night finally. Interesting picture and obviously slanted to fit the Moore agenda as all of his past pictures have been.

Certainly America has its major problems with the health care system in total. I am one who would support universal health care. I have free medical care from the US government and dont have a ton of worthy complaints. Sure things are sometimes slower and not perfect but they are FREE! If I want an elective procedure, sure I should pay that on my own. But if I break my leg or have a cold, it is nice to know I can go to the local hospital and get reasonable treatment for no cost.

[Libsmasher]

Here's a good reason (http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2252#1) not to have for profit health care like the US.

The usual cooked statistics. The reason for this ranking has to do with the social pathologies in the US, not any shortcoming in its medical system. In the UK if you are above a certain cut-off age, and need something like a heart transplant, you will simply be told "nothing can be done" meaning "nothing will be done". Of course, such a person's death a few months later won't show up in that country's rigged stats about preventable death.

[Popeye]

The usual cooked statistics. The reason for this ranking has to do with the social pathologies in the US, not any shortcoming in its medical system. In the UK if you are above a certain cut-off age, and need something like a heart transplant, you will simply be told "nothing can be done" meaning "nothing will be done". Of course, such a person's death a few months later won't show up in that country's rigged stats about preventable death.

I see, so when you don't like the stats, they must be "cooked" or "rigged."

From the Mayo Clinic website:
On any given day, about 4,000 people are waiting for a heart transplant in the United States. Unfortunately, there aren't enough hearts for every person in need, and some people may die while waiting for a transplant. Over the course of a year, there are only enough donor hearts to provide about 2,000 transplants.Obviously you don't need a math degree to understand many die in the US waiting for a heart transplant. In fact, it is estimated that 25% of those waiting for a heart and/or lung transplant die while waiting.

People dying, while waiting for a transplant, is hardly confined to the UK. Or are the Mayo Clinic's stats "cooked" and "rigged" as well?
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/heart-transplant/HB00045

[Libsmasher]

I see, so when you don't like the stats, they must be "cooked" or "rigged."

I don't trust these type stats, because I've seen this crap repeatedly. For example, they've used infant mortality as "proof" the US doesn't have good health care. Then it turns out the euroweenies don't define most preemies as ever having been an infant if they die. See how it's done?

From the Mayo Clinic website:
Obviously you don't need a math degree to understand many die in the US waiting for a heart transplant. In fact, it is estimated that 25% of those waiting for a heart and/or lung transplant die while waiting.

People dying, while waiting for a transplant, is hardly confined to the UK. Or are the Mayo Clinic's stats "cooked" and "rigged" as well?

In the US, you die because they couldn't find a heart in time. In the UK, you die because this year's NHS budget didn't permit transplants in your age category. If I ever need one, I'll take my chances with the US system.

[TruthAboveAll]

I see, so when you don't like the stats, they must be "cooked" or "rigged."

From the Mayo Clinic website:
Obviously you don't need a math degree to understand many die in the US waiting for a heart transplant. In fact, it is estimated that 25% of those waiting for a heart and/or lung transplant die while waiting.

People dying, while waiting for a transplant, is hardly confined to the UK. Or are the Mayo Clinic's stats "cooked" and "rigged" as well?
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/heart-transplant/HB00045

Amazing! You use a fact from an incredibly in-depth web page pertaining to heart transplants to justify the questionable study performed by two individuals with questionable motives?

Again, I want to know where you found the 'obviously you don't need a math degree...' statement on the Mayo website. You state is is from the Mayo Clinic website. Yet on the page you link there is no such statement there. Nor is the 25% statistic you cite. If this came from other locations on their website, it certainly isn't the link you provided.

No, people dying waiting for transplants are not confined to the UK, or the US for that matter.

And speaking of health care, and the superiority so often cited here of the UK, France, Canada et al over we paltry, uncaring, backward and greedy capitalists in the US, there is a report to Parliament regarding a multitude of health care issues. Here is one that I found especially interesting:

Medical Treatments: Waiting Lists

Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets the Government sets for waiting times for cancer patients requiring diagnostic endoscopies; and what the average waiting time was for cancer patients awaiting diagnostic endoscopies by the Royal Cornwall Trust in the most recent period for which figures are available. [169400]

Ann Keen: There are no specific waiting time targets for urgent endoscopies for cancer patients and endoscopy waiting times are not collected centrally. However, where a patient needs an urgent endoscopy following urgent referral by their general practitioner for suspected cancer, the whole patient pathway from referral to commencing first cancer treatment should not exceed 62 days.

Outside of the cancer pathway, by 2008, there will be a maximum 18-week pathway from referral to treatment for all patients. This will include time spent waiting for diagnostic tests.

Another thing, the number of bacterial organisms transmitted "mainly or partly within hospitals." In 1997, the total reported was 52,663. In 2006, that number was 121,444. They cite that "The increase in bacteraemias is partly due to better reporting, surveillance and testing and may also reflect a changing hospital population, with more patients who are vulnerable to infection through conditions which compromise their immune systems being treated."
This represents a better than 120% increase, and the reasons they cite is like so many other items in this report.

And just one more, part of the discussions regarding transplant issues:

Ann Keen: A European study of the use of the organ care system has been carried out in 20 patients including seven at Papworth hospital and one at Harefield hospital. We understand that the study was not a randomised controlled trial and had no comparison group. The results were presented at 2007 meeting of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation but have yet to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. This presentation stated that there were no deaths within 30-days of transplantation in the 20 patients in the study. We have not made an assessment of the merits of using the organ care system in United Kingdom transplant units but understand that the Food and Drug Administration has given approval of a research study at five named centres in the United States of America to evaluate the safety and performance of the organ care system in heart transplantation. This study will start in 2008 and may provide relevant evidence for the future. The International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation publishes figures for survival at one year following heart transplant according to different ischaemic times.

An organ care system, which they are utilizing in trials, but have yet to assess the merits. Instead they are waiting on the US FDA approval and resulting research studies from five US facilities.

What this evidences, in general, is that there are strengths and weakness in every medical system in the world. Part of the problem with the US system is the very diversity of our populace, and the geographical and historical influences. We are NOT 'sicko'. We are a world class, a world leader in the contemporary medical arts. We are not without problems that need solving, but in so many ways our medical system is a model to much of the world.

[PLC1]

The usual cooked statistics. The reason for this ranking has to do with the social pathologies in the US, not any shortcoming in its medical system. In the UK if you are above a certain cut-off age, and need something like a heart transplant, you will simply be told "nothing can be done" meaning "nothing will be done". Of course, such a person's death a few months later won't show up in that country's rigged stats about preventable death.

You say that the statistics are "rigged", or "cooked", yet you have nothing at all to back up the opinions you are expressing. Don't you have some facts to back up your statements, rigged, cooked, or real?

[Popeye]

Amazing! You use a fact from an incredibly in-depth web page pertaining to heart transplants to justify the questionable study performed by two individuals with questionable motives?

Again, I want to know where you found the 'obviously you don't need a math degree...' statement on the Mayo website. You state is is from the Mayo Clinic website. Yet on the page you link there is no such statement there. Nor is the 25% statistic you cite. If you take more than a glancing look at my post (#34), you will notice a quote, bordered by nice neat lines, pertaining to heart transplants. That, is from the Mayo Clinic website, I never claimed anything else.


And speaking of health care, and the superiority so often cited here of the UK, France, Canada et al over we paltry, uncaring, backward and greedy capitalists in the US, there is a report to Parliament regarding a multitude of health care issues. Here is one that I found especially interesting:

Medical Treatments: Waiting Lists

Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets the Government sets for waiting times for cancer patients requiring diagnostic endoscopies; and what the average waiting time was for cancer patients awaiting diagnostic endoscopies by the Royal Cornwall Trust in the most recent period for which figures are available. [169400]

Ann Keen: There are no specific waiting time targets for urgent endoscopies for cancer patients and endoscopy waiting times are not collected centrally. However, where a patient needs an urgent endoscopy following urgent referral by their general practitioner for suspected cancer, the whole patient pathway from referral to commencing first cancer treatment should not exceed 62 days.

Outside of the cancer pathway, by 2008, there will be a maximum 18-week pathway from referral to treatment for all patients. This will include time spent waiting for diagnostic tests.

Another thing, the number of bacterial organisms transmitted "mainly or partly within hospitals." In 1997, the total reported was 52,663. In 2006, that number was 121,444. They cite that "The increase in bacteraemias is partly due to better reporting, surveillance and testing and may also reflect a changing hospital population, with more patients who are vulnerable to infection through conditions which compromise their immune systems being treated."
This represents a better than 120% increase, and the reasons they cite is like so many other items in this report.

And just one more, part of the discussions regarding transplant issues:

Ann Keen: A European study of the use of the organ care system has been carried out in 20 patients including seven at Papworth hospital and one at Harefield hospital. We understand that the study was not a randomised controlled trial and had no comparison group. The results were presented at 2007 meeting of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation but have yet to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. This presentation stated that there were no deaths within 30-days of transplantation in the 20 patients in the study. We have not made an assessment of the merits of using the organ care system in United Kingdom transplant units but understand that the Food and Drug Administration has given approval of a research study at five named centres in the United States of America to evaluate the safety and performance of the organ care system in heart transplantation. This study will start in 2008 and may provide relevant evidence for the future. The International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation publishes figures for survival at one year following heart transplant according to different ischaemic times.

An organ care system, which they are utilizing in trials, but have yet to assess the merits. Instead they are waiting on the US FDA approval and resulting research studies from five US facilities.

What this evidences, in general, is that there are strengths and weakness in every medical system in the world. Part of the problem with the US system is the very diversity of our populace, and the geographical and historical influences. We are NOT 'sicko'. We are a world class, a world leader in the contemporary medical arts. We are not without problems that need solving, but in so many ways our medical system is a model to much of the world. Since you want to talk about waiting lists, here is the average waiting time for a particular organ within the US:
Heart-230 days
Lung-1,068 days
Liver-796 days
Kidney-1,121 days
pancreas-501 days
http://organdonor.gov/transplantation/matching_process.htm

My only point is, again, to demonstrate that waiting lists are not confined to countries with that evil "socialized medicine."

The U.S. spends more on health care, both as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) and on a per-capita basis, than any other nation in the world. Current estimates put U.S. health care spending at approximately 15% of GDP, the world's highest.

Meanwhile, we have an estimated 47 million uninsured. For those 47 million we are indeed 'Sicko', as medical bills are the most common reason for personal bankruptcy in the United States.

"Problems that need solving", that's an understatement.

[Libsmasher]

You say that the statistics are "rigged", or "cooked", yet you have nothing at all to back up the opinions you are expressing. Don't you have some facts to back up your statements, rigged, cooked, or real?

OK, how about this - here's a graph from the study:

http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/Deaths_Amenable_Healthcare.gif

Some people here are blathering, and the authors also said this, that the cause is that the US doesn't have "universal", ie, socialized, health care. The UK does have socialized health care, but look how far they are down the list - apparently that doesn't account for the difference. The cause of such a statistic must be VERY complex, it's difficult to believe any such study could account for all the many variables involved, and therefore people who think carefully will dismiss the use of such studies as agitprop for socialized heath care.

[TruthAboveAll]

If you take more than a glancing look at my post (#34), you will notice a quote, bordered by nice neat lines, pertaining to heart transplants. That, is from the Mayo Clinic website, I never claimed anything else.
I do apologize. I had read your post, as I am not prone to only taking glancing looks at posts, with a very few exceptions of the people who post here. You are not in that small group, Popeye. When I used the quote function of course it didn't bring that forward. I may be back and forth between a thread here and other things I'm doing, and I lost sight of it. So my most sincere apology! No intent to misrepresent your post, and it was sloppy on my part.

Since you want to talk about waiting lists, here is the average waiting time for a particular organ within the US:
Heart-230 days
Lung-1,068 days
Liver-796 days
Kidney-1,121 days
pancreas-501 days
http://organdonor.gov/transplantation/matching_process.htm

My only point is, again, to demonstrate that waiting lists are not confined to countries with that evil "socialized medicine."

Agreed. Tissue and organ donor recipients are subject to tremendously long waits. It's a truth in any advanced country performing these procedures, and all are affected to some degree. Many factors come into play. For example, the heart recipient candidates range from a median waiting time of 51 days for AB blood type, to 241 days for O blood type. Based on age ranges, some of the numbers are 61 days for 11-17 years of age (lowest waits) to 170 in the 28-34 ages (longest). The wait for those 65+ is a median 84 days. These stats are from the OPTN: Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (http://www.optn.org/latestData/step2.asp), the leading (basically only) national organization in the field on the medical coordination end. Like yours from the government, most recent numbers are from 2003-2004.

All modern medical systems will share this delay issue. Unless some choose to go out and "harvest" organs in a more aggressive manner. Socializing our health care in the US will do nothing to improve this. Numbers will vary from year to year, partly as more or less people sign up as organ donors. The truth is, the number of people needing transplants increases at a higher rate every year than the number of donors. In 2005, there were 44,606 new additions to the list for transplants, while the new donor list grew by only 14,491. In the case of organ transplants that's a big part of the wait.

Perhaps I didn't make it clear. My issue on delays didn't pertain to transplants. It was about the question about cancer patients requiring diagnostic endoscopies. and the answer. And the references about conditions "outside the cancer pathway" goals.

The U.S. spends more on health care, both as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) and on a per-capita basis, than any other nation in the world. Current estimates put U.S. health care spending at approximately 15% of GDP, the world's highest.

Meanwhile, we have an estimated 47 million uninsured. For those 47 million we are indeed 'Sicko', as medical bills are the most common reason for personal bankruptcy in the United States.

"Problems that need solving", that's an understatement.

- As far as 15% of GDP going to health care, that covers a lot of ground. It is estimated that 19.3-24.1% of health care costs is strictly administrative, or 3-4% of the GDP goes just to administrative costs in health care. I don't know if that figure is hospitals, insurance companies, drug companies or government, or a combination, etc.

- 47 million uninsured - Depending on the source, these estimates range fro a low of 43 million to the about 47 million number. So use the 47 million. This represents about 15.7% of the population. Call it 16%. Of that, 25% (11.75 million) are below the poverty level. Which means they currently qualify for government funded programs but don't participate. Another 28% (13.16 million) are at three times the poverty level or above. Which means they should be able to easily buy into some type of health care insurance.

So of the 47 million uninsured, better than half (24.91 million) could or should be insured. It's still a big number, but it drops the balance to 22.09 million, about 7.5% of the population.

Instead of creating another, or expanding an old, government program into a burgeoning monolith, I hope that we look to other options. Expanding Health Savings Accounts, eliminating or reducing state-to-state barriers for insurance coverage for health insurance and stimulating cafeteria-style programs could provide the safety net we're seeking. It would also set the stage for the future, as more employers move out of the role as insurance intermediaries and market competition works it's magic.

- The most often cited reason for personal bankruptcies as of 2006 is losing a job at about 66%. Second was a serious health problem, about 1/2. (From statistics provided by Elizabeth Harris, Harvard Law School. Ironically, she had a part in SICKO.) As the numbers come in from fallout from the mortgage market problems, it will be different yet, no doubt.

There are always problems that need solving. Perhaps Mr. Moore would grace us with some true in-depth solutions instead of just his raw, sensationalist and sad to say half-baked 'exposes'. I'm sick to death of everything either being the fault of the government, or the government being the solution to the problem. As my dear departed mother used to say: "You're either part of the problem or part of the solution. There is no middle ground."

[TruthAboveAll]

OK, how about this - here's a graph from the study:

http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/Deaths_Amenable_Healthcare.gif

Some people here are blathering, and the authors also said this, that the cause is that the US doesn't have "universal", ie, socialized, health care. The UK does have socialized health care, but look how far they are down the list - apparently that doesn't account for the difference. The cause of such a statistic must be VERY complex, it's difficult to believe any such study could account for all the many variables involved, and therefore people who think carefully will dismiss the use of such studies as agitprop for socialized heath care.

Another interesting fact that I'd seen before, and finally relocated. According to WHO the US is one of only 29 (of the possible 115!) countries with "ideal civil registration systems" for the purpose of determining, recording and reporting causes of death. So they slam us, while acknowledging we are one of the minority of member nations with good records!

[Libsmasher]

Hmmmmmmmm........it's gotten awfully quiet in this thread. :D

[Not Amused]

I saw Michael Moore's new documentary Sicko on sunday. I was wondering what Americans think about it?

I was pretty shocked, coming from a country where everybody gets care, no matter whether you are insured or not.
Still, I must say that some scenes were REALLY over the top: the happy people in the British NHS for instance. I lived in the UK for a year and they are actually very unhappy with the level of care they receive, especially in poor neighbourhoods. Still, if Moore is right about the US, people not getting ANY care at all, children dying because of this and patients being dumped on the street by hospitals while theyre still in their surgery gowns?
That's really bad.

So, what do you guys think?

Would you like to explain the statement 'especially those in poor UK neighbourhoods'?

You do understand what the NHS actually is I suppose, you understand that everyone has access to complete medical care, regardless of neighbourhood or income levels?

In the UK, people are not happy with the waiting times,understandably, but everyone is entitled to and receives the same level of care regardless, no-one is turned away.

Better the NHS, than a health care system where, when one most needs care, there is always a carefully, crafted loophole that ensures the provider does not 'pay out'.

'Profit making' organisation and health care needs are completely conflicting.