Sicko: whaddayathink?

[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 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 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:

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, 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:

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.

 

[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.