posted
So Micheal Moore's new movie, Sicko, recently leaked. Since he has stated several times that he encourages illegal downloading and sharing of his movies (as long as it is not for profit), I decided to download it and see what all the fuss is about.
First off, it's a terrific movie! Well made, good production value.. perhaps his best one yet.
It also made me really happy to be Canadian! It was upsetting at times seeing the way the health care system works in the US, and depressing listening to the stories told by its victims. Also, I think I want to move to France now.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While it may not be perfect, I like the idea that you aren't legally stopped from getting health care, as opposed to countries with socialized medicine, where (in Canada, for instance) a dog has better chance at getting needed surgery than a person.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
I was surprised when they went to Cuba. And then bought pharmaceutical drugs at a fraction of the cost that we pay here in USA. And then brought them back...? Is that legal? I smell profitable drug ring scheme!
I liked the movie, but I noticed that it never once went in-depth into how much tax socialized medicine would cost. It basically said, "Here's a normal middle-class French/Canadian/British, see how good their house is/how many cars they have/their flat-screen TV/etc etc." Yeah, okay, so there's anecdotal evidence that socialized medicine didn't tax ONE family into the ground.. how would it affect OUR taxes? There was very little statistics and study and alot of gut wrenching, sad anecdotes. Now, the anecdotes served the purpose to show how badly HMOs are run, but it would have been nice to see some research on how changing our system to universal health care would CHANGE it. What I mean is, sure it seems to be working for Canada/UK/France, but why?
It was okay, for propaganda; I agree with it, so I'm biased.
I laughed at some of the government services other countries have, though. Government nannies that do your laundry?? Haha, good stuff.
[edit: Oh, and the part where he accused Hillary Clinton of hypocrisy: I didn't know that. Now I do.]
posted
I agree that the cost of socialised medicine was very very poorly argued in the film. Doesn't mean that there aren't some major economists who have argued that privatisation of health care will inevitably lead to mass market failure (Akerlof, off the top of my head, for one.)
In Australia, we have a socialised system that the vast majority of people are on, coupled with the option to pay for private healthcare. The two systems are not necessarily at odds.
Posts: 122 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: “This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week,” the new president told a newspaper interviewer, “while humans can wait two or three years.”
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick:
quote:Originally posted by Phanto: (in Canada, for instance) a dog has better chance at getting needed surgery than a person.
What are you getting that from?
I've heard this "fact" thrown around quite a bit, but it's never justified. I wouldn't be surprised if there's some truth to it, though.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was surprised when they went to Cuba. And then bought pharmaceutical drugs at a fraction of the cost that we pay here in USA. And then brought them back...? Is that legal?
Isn't Cuba on the State Department's list of places where Americans are not allowed to go? I seem to recall Moore catching some flack over that.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My in-laws' neighbors moved to the US from Canada because they needed health services they were not allowed to get in a timely manner in Canada. It had to do with a catastrophic illness, and they were a mixed Canadian/American couple.
Still, we pay more for health insurance than we did for two car payments put together, and we're healthy and opted for huge deductibles.
I'm interested in seeing the film, though I do not expect anything approaching journalism from it.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with buying brand name pharmeceuticals outside the US, is that you're still never sure where those drugs are coming from, which is why the Fed tries to stop little old ladies in Detroit from going to Windsor to buy their meds.
And they really have a good point. You can't be sure that those drugs you're getting in Mexico, Canada, or even Cuba are really from the real company, or if they are from a basement pharm lab in Colombia being sent up north in trash bags, and yes, that happens. The drug system isn't 100% safe outside the US. But there is truth to the fact that the US more or less subsidizes cheap drugs for the rest of the world.
And Moore, and everyone else who went with him to Cuba, including injured 9/11 workers who were left in the cold by the government, could be fined up to $200,000, each. They are still working it out.
I think if Moore wasn't going to go indepth about France and Canada, he shouldn't have mentioned them at all, but bringing the problems of the US healthcare system to light is certainly laudable.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brand name pharmaceuticals sold in Canada are made in Colombian basements? Zounds! I've been taking these things for years!
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guess what....I went to Mexico and bought the same drugs we get in the US, from a pharmacy that has been in business for over 12 years (in the same location), and they were the same.
I should know...my wife was with me, and she was a pharm tech.
I am as sure as I would have been if I had bought it in the US.
WE pay for ALL the research and development for most of the drug companies, and the rest of the world pays almost nothing of the cost compared to us. THAT is why they are more expensive here then anywhere else in the world.
BTW....in Canada, it would depend on how pad the person's hip was, to be honest. Chronic pain sucks, but it isn't as important (usually) as a heart transplant. If they can't walk, but are otherwise healthy, then it happens sooner than if walking is a problem.
It's called triage, and it works.
And there is always the option of paying for it yourself if you don't want to wait....just like here in the US.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, I haven't seen Sicko, but I will when I can. Here's my 2p on the subject of healthcare for those that are interested in a Euro-POV. If not, please skip to the next post
<soapbox> My 2p. I've only lived in countries that have socialised medicine - in fact I can't think of many "modern, western countries" (barring the US) that don't.
My personal experience is that you get what you pay for. If you rely on the health service you are likely to have to wait. If you go private you don't wait so long but you pay for the privelege. Some companies offer health insurance as a perk, others contract independantly.
Here in the Basque country, I must say that I am in awe of the medical services. It is quick, reliable and offers a level of excellence and service that should be the envy of many other places. From emergency care, to regular health visits, ongoing care, or paedriatric care we have had nothing but a good experience.
As for the cost - it's high, but I don't feel it in my tax contributions.
Here are some figures:
I calculate an annual tax burden of approximately 7800€* on my 30k annual salary (taxes are a bit higher here due to the local state taxes, but I used national average figures to to the maths).
I picked some online quotes for health insurance, basing myself in Atlanta GA** (and just for individual cover) and I was quoted between $66.79 and $230 per month.
So at best I am only pay +/-800$ per year for me, or at worst $2760.
As I understand it this will not cover emergency room expenses, prescription drugs, check ups or specialist consultations.
So I figure it costs more to be healthy here, but if I get sick I'm covered from top to toe with no extra charges.
OK, so my calculations are extremely crude, and I'm sure that there are more factors that come into play, but I'm happy to know that the low-income family down the street have full and free access to the same services I do for their sick child and at no extra cost.
Additionally, how many times have we read on this forum of post from folks asking for medical advice because they're not covered and can't go to see a doctor or go to the emergency room?
You have to draw your line in the sand somewhere. Personally I think that open access healthcare for all regardless of income is a fundemental part of a caring society - and I'm happy to pay for it with my taxes.
</soapbox>
*oh and I got a 1500€ tax rebate this year too
** Why Atlanta? It's the place I've been to most in the US and it is probably not the most expensive nor the cheapest place to live. And it's home to the One Star Ranch house of ribs - drool!
Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am so happy to see a movie about how fsking broken the American healthcare system is, since policy wonks need to make this stuff more digestable to the populace. If it takes Michael Moore -- smarming his way through a 90 minute film -- to help more people figure out that our current system is entirely broken, I'm all for it.
I often see people trying to argue for the American system by pointing out the faults of the Canadian system and conflating all of Canada's healthcare flaws as being inherent to socialized medicine.
They are not.
Canada's health care system is considered to be broken in comparison with working socialized systems. And despite the fact that the european nations would consider Canada's socialized health care system to be broken, it still works loads better than the American system.
In fact, the Western hemisphere is a great place to look to if you want to get a really depressing view of our health care priorities. Canada, to the north, is a broken social healthcare system that works better than ours. Cuba, down lower, is an impoverished, ass-backwards little pissant nation under embargo that still manages to provide better healthcare than us.
Beargh! Arghj! That anyone still defends our current system is enough to throw me into an apoplectic fit! Where's Bean Counter when you need him!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't going to elaborate on it, but both Bob's flippant, sarcastic response, and Kwea's smug, dismissive response perhaps merits a more in depth response to the question of fake drug trafficking.
It's late, or rather early, at the moment, so I'm going to bed, but I'll be back tomorrow to dispel the notion that what I said wasn't true. I fear others may take Kwea's and Bob's words and assume that the drug distribution systems in other countries to our north and south (and for that matter here at home) are much safer than they actually are.
In the meantime, if you want to look yourself, google some form of "fake drugs in Canda" or "fake drugs in Mexico" and read what comes up.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've had to get almost all of my medicine from Mexico for the past several years. Luckily I won't have to, now, for the foreseeable future, as I can finally afford insurance. But the drugs I've taken that came from Mexico -- mostly antibiotics such as amoxicillin -- have been fine.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samprimary, you seem to have an idealized view of European socialized medicine. Most Europeans I know that have actually had significant ailments to be treated all report similar horror stories as come out of Canada. Since all Moore understands is anecdotes, here's one.
I once had minor surgery, a partial parotidectomy (removal of a tumor in the saliva gland). I had the procedure done at a small center in Flagstaff, Arizona. They have better medical staff in Phoenix, but I didn't want to go the extra many miles. I made an appointment 5 days in advance, headed down, and got it done. I spent a night in the hospital, was off work for a week, and healed without incident.
A friend of mine received an identical procedure in Norway, a country with a heavily socialized medical system. She had to wait an ungodly long time just to be admitted. After the procedure she was hospitalized for a week. When she healed, she discovered to her horror that sometimes, when she salivates, she secretes saliva on the outside of her neck, around the scar.
This is just a minor procedure. But every single step of the way, the socialized system was incompetent compared to the medical center in Flagstaff.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A poor person in Flagstaff, though, never would have been able to have the procedure at all. They would have had to just soldier on.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I wasn't going to elaborate on it, but both Bob's flippant, sarcastic response, and Kwea's smug, dismissive response perhaps merits a more in depth response to the question of fake drug trafficking.
It's late, or rather early, at the moment, so I'm going to bed, but I'll be back tomorrow to dispel the notion that what I said wasn't true. I fear others may take Kwea's and Bob's words and assume that the drug distribution systems in other countries to our north and south (and for that matter here at home) are much safer than they actually are.
In the meantime, if you want to look yourself, google some form of "fake drugs in Canda" or "fake drugs in Mexico" and read what comes up.
Smug? I was speaking as someone who has seen, on an off day, over 10,000 people cross over the border (it was a Tuesday) to do the very thing you were saying was so unhealthy.
Do you have the protection of the USDA there? No.
Is the USDA the only regulatory body i the world capable of regulating safe drugs?
Not my a long shot.
There are scams, and bad drugs, even here in the US. Getting drugs in Mexico, as long as you don't go to some fly-by-night outfit, is very safe though, and getting them from Canada is even safer. Most of the doctors there are trained in the US, and in this particular town have been in the same location for at least ten years....some even longer than that.
It was amazing to me the number of people who choose to go south for all sorts of medical treatments, dental treatments, and drugs. I had no idea how widespread the practice was....and some of these people my parents know have been doing it for 25-30 years.
So you can think whatever you like...I have been there, and seen it with my own eyes.
BTW, I am hardly a stranger to the medical field, and my wife is very familiar with the drug industry.
Perhaps rather than smug I am actually informed. I realize there are some risks, but they are no where near as widespread as some people would like you to believe.
The fact that a Z-pack co-pay is $35 here, with insurance, but I was able to buy 4 of them for $5.65 each in Mexico is disgusting, and shows you how broke our system really is, IMO.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anti-maven- We live in Atlanta (just north of there) and health insurance is cheaper here than some places. I'm not sure how it works. We are a family of four, but we pay less than half what another family of four we know pays for health insurance. They are in the same industry and also self-employed. They are younger than us, but maybe it's more expensive for them because of their weight. I just don't know.
Another thing is how long you buy insurance from the same company. They offered us a lower rate if we would start over with new policies and pre-existing condition clauses because they have to pay for my optometrist visits since they covered my cataract surgery. It still gets eaten up with the deductibles, though.
With that and my son's condition I expect we'll paying more for health insurance in a few years than we are for our house. What we pay now would be enough to cover everything we need to keep us healthy, but if something really went wrong, we'd be wanting insurance. Our plan is to become super-wealthy before we get old and sick. Heh.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. Canadian healthcare is not "socialized medicine." It is a form of single-payer system (involves both federal and province funds, with decisions about allocation made provincially), but the physicians are not employees of the state -- unlike, say, the UK. The practice of medicine by physicians is through privately organized practices, although hospitals themselves (the buildings) are provided for and run by the provinces.
-------
2. The plural of anecdote is not data. You will hear "horror stories" coming out of every system, because individual cases differ, and mistakes happen, and YMMV. But this is true for every system, including the US. So if you want to measure systems against systems, you have to look at aggregate data and compare outcomes measurements.
Of note, when national surveys have been done and the results compared, there are proportionally more horror stories coming out of the US, and the US citizens as a whole report the most disatisfaction with their current system. More than Canadians, New Zealanders, Australians, or people in the UK.
----
3. Many people in the US have long wait times as well, including those with insurance. My cardiologist in Wisconsin was booked out more than three months in advance. My wait time was more than three months, even as an established patient -- but this was not a function of payment. It was a function of limited spots available.
The same is true for much of Canadian wait times (and there is no general wait time for emergency services or non-elective surgeries). This is because Canada is short on physicians, as recent conservative governments have been cutting funding to the system. Additionally, the population has expanded tremendously. British Columbia, where I live, has expanded by more than 200,000 people over the last five years, which is just a continuation of a growth trend. This is why I was hired -- I am teaching new medical students as we expand the medical school class size (by more than a third since last year, and we continue to expand).
Neither underfunding nor the population explosion are flaws to the Canadian healthcare system itself -- they are external forces which need to be addressed individually.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
4. Properly run single-payer systems cost less per capita than trying to take care of uninsured people through ERs. They cost much less per capita than is spent covering everyone in the US, but they even cost less than the burden to everyone in the US -- per capita -- of just covering the people without insurance when push comes to shove.
---
5. A correction: in many Canadian provinces, it is illegal to offer separate fee-for-service medical provisions outside the federal and provincial system. This is currently being wrangled out in the courts.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: “This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week,” the new president told a newspaper interviewer, “while humans can wait two or three years.”
6. You realize, of course, that a hip replacement in a dog is a much, much simpler procedure than in a human. For example, we don't even routinely consider doing hip replacements in dogs who are in heart failure with multiple other chronic medical problems, such as diabetes.
They aren't comparable. But I suppose it does make for a good defensive soundbite when you are being sued for opening an illegal operation. (This quote is from a South African physician who has opened an illegal clinic in BC. He also had trouble getting licensed to work here in Canada. It is being addressed through the court system.)
7. The article has several obvious and egregious errors of fact. I am not familiar with Commentary magazine, but it appears to me to be either a biased source, or have lax fact-checking standards, or some mix of the two.
posted
Tomorrow (Thursday, June 21) Moore will be in Chicago for a rally and advance screening of SiCKO. The screening is too late for me, even though we had access to free tickets.
quote:Not Dead Yet Proud to be a Co-Sponsor for "SiCKO" Rally Filmmaker Michael Moore will rally with Health Care for All Illinois and allied groups this Thursday, June 21 at 4:00 p.m. at Daley Bicentennial Plaza. For more information on "SiCKO" and our broken, profit-driven health-care system, visit: www.sickocure.org - a site "dedicated to promoting the only cure for our 'sicko' health system: single-payer national health insurance."
posted
Over the years I've read many stories of people disperate for surgury in Canada who have had to go to the US because they were too far down the waiting list. Some these people would have died if they couldn't have afforded to go to the US for treatment.
Moore is a terrible person. No good person could have allowed himself to be used by one of the worst tyrants of the past century, fidel castro.
It's disenguous to compare Cuba's health care system more favorably to that in the US. I'm Cuban, whenever my family or freinds goes on a vist to Cuba they have to take some medicines that they just can get over there along with other basic health supplies like asprin and things as basic as sanitary napkins.
Idiots like Moore like to point out the number of doctors in Cuba. My uncle was once the President of the Cuban medical association before the revolution, and a prominant doctor in Miami. He's pointed out to me that almost every doctor he's ever seen defect from Cuba after the revolution has been unable to pass the Florida boards. The problem was not their language skills but their poor medical training.
Cuba sends its Doctors around South and Central America and opens it clinics and hosspital to people around the world to bolster its PR, but the average citizen gets a poor treatment with few medicines and little equipment. Here's an interesting link to a story about Cuba's healthcare system: http://www.latinbusinesschronicle.com/app/article.aspx?id=1356
Although the article points ouit that Cuba is near the top on mortality, life expectancy, etc, but the article fails to point out that this was also true before the revolution.
What I don't understand is why liberals who claim to be such strong supporters of human rights, civil rights, etc, like Moore, go out of their way to positively promote one of the most repressive governements in the world?
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mig: Over the years I've read many stories of people disperate for surgury in Canada who have had to go to the US because they were too far down the waiting list. Some these people would have died if they couldn't have afforded to go to the US for treatment.
8. Many, many more people in the US have died because they cannot afford treatment. [And, note that Canada does not have a wait time for non-elective surgeries or emergency services.]
If you want to compare system to system, then compare system to system.
On the other hand, if you want to know where a citizen can buy the best health care, then go to the United Arab Emirates, where the royal family employs its own private physicians and has its own hospital. I work with one of their former physicians -- the facilities are exquisite.
Of course, you probably can't afford to access them. But someone can. And if that's your measure of a good system, then so be it. Laud the UAE, where the wait time is all of an hour -- for members of the royal family -- and that is if the physician needs to get dressed first.
She loved her work and found the facilities and people to be absolutely extraordinary. Other members of her family wanted to return to Canada, but she misses the work she was able to do there quite keenly.
---
Edited to add: And [in the interests of accuracy], according to my source, that royal family was working hard to improve medical facilities in all areas. The difference in access between the wealthiest and the poorest was still quite severe, but it was being addressed.
quote:The Government of Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, is developing Dubai Healthcare City (DHCC) with the goal of creating a regional center of excellence for medical services, medical education, and life science research and development in the Middle East.
As a locus of political and economic stability and innovation, Dubai is in a position to serve the region's needs for high-quality health care, and to be a model for institution-building in the region. The leadership of DHCC is committed to the principle of accessibility for all, to professional and academic development, and to international recognition for quality of care as well as patient privacy, rights, and satisfaction.
...
The total site comprises of two phases, including disease treatment, prevention and wellness facilities. The first phase, located behind Wafi City, Dubai, is approximately 4.1 million square feet in size. The second phase, dedicated to wellness facilities, will be announced soon. DHCC's services and facilities will be available to the UAE, the whole of the Middle East, and surrounding regions. Under the auspices of the Center for Healthcare Planning and Quality (CPQ), Harvard Medical International and DHCC will oversee a quality assurance system that will guide continuous improvement throughout the entire site.
posted
It does. I was delighted to learn more about an area of the world that I knew so little about.
Still, though, if you are the right person, you have a private physician [and that is not available to most citizens there]. I suppose that happens for the wealthiest or most powerful in the US, too, but from what she said, I believe the facilities available to the wealthiest and most powerful in Dubai outstrip that available in the US. Everything, down to the operating tables, was completely brand-new and state of the art. It broke her heart to leave.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Lyr, what you're thinking of are certain mail-order pharmaceutical companies based in Canada that take advantage of a little (but horrible) loophole in our laws that allow them to ship uninspected product to other countries so long as none of them are actually sold on Canadian soil. I wrote a lengthy post about this the last time the topic came up, but now that I think about it that must have been 3ish years ago. To my knowledge the laws have not changed.
Saying that people are crossing the border and buying bad drugs in person in a store is utter nonsense. Except insofar as there are mistakes made on both sides of the border.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I've mentioned this before, but when you have to go to the hospital in Cuba, one of the things they suggest you bring is "one lightbulb." Comforting, no?
And I have family down there, and have to send medicine to them on a reasonably regular basis because of the the prices they face down there. Perhaps if you're an American tourist you can get decent prices and treatment, but if you're just another peasant it's a whole other story.
Forgive me if I have low opinions of the healthcare system there.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am very, very satisfied with the quality of healthcare my entire family has received, both here in Virginia, in Georgia and in New York. Andrew and I currently pay for our own insurance and we do pay a lot, but we have fantastic coverage. We've also had major medical issues that we were able to get through without additional financial burdens.
The US is one of the best countries for preemie care, if not the best. Every preemie is covered by Medicaid. Even if the parents have insurance, Medicaid will pay if their insurance tops out (which it frequently does - micropreemies are sometimes referred to as "million dollar babies"). NICUs in the US exhaust every resource to save these babies and their rate of success is inspiring.
Mircopreemies don't have it so good in many other countries. In Portugal, for example, they won't give any medical care to a baby born at 24 weeks or under. To give you some perspective, two 24-weekers and two 23.5-weekers went home with their parents while Aerin was in the NICU. There was a case in England where the parents actually had to take the doctors to court to get them to treat their micropreemie daughter. The doctors called her a bed-waster and said there was no chance for survival. She's currently thriving at home with her parents.
Also, there are many ways for low-income families to get coverage in the US. In Virginia, for example, we have FAMIS, which provides insurance coverage to children and pregnant women whose family incomes are 200% or less than the poverty line. There's WIC, which safeguards "the health of low-income women, infants, and children up to age 5 who are at nutrition risk by providing nutritious foods to supplement diets, information on healthy eating, and referrals to health care." The March of Dimes provides research grants to fight prematurity and has gotten amazing results.
I have personally worked to increase funding and awareness of the above programs. There are many, many others like them in every state. It's very frustrating for those of us who work on these programs to constantly hear how hopeless and terrible the US healthcare system is. Yes, it has its flaws, and some of them are huge and glaring, but there is a lot that we're doing right.
BTW, I wonder if Mr. Moore mentioned the $4.00 perscriptions available at WalMart in his movie. Something tells me he did not.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
I violently dislike all Michael Moore films, mainly because, as CT points out, anecdotes do not equal data. And pulling up random statistics to support your position is not equal to a balanced study done by experts in the field.
If you're interested in this topic, read some unbiased research on it, rather than supporting propaganda by watching Moore's movie.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are an awful lot of people in the U.S. who have to pay out-of-pocket to see a doctor, if they can afford to see a doctor at all.
It's also true that we pay the highest rates in the world for our drugs, and an enormous amount of that cost is not research, but advertising. Take it from someone with a closet full of drug company tchotchkes and anecdotes about drug-company sponsored lunches and dinners.
Other countries may certainly have their problems. But the U.S. system is dying on the vine. Tons of new doctors are avoiding the fields where people are most needed, such as obstetrics and family medicine, in favor of specialist fields with lower malpractice insurance rates and higher financial returns.
You can get good care almost anywhere if you have the money to pay for it; that's largely irrelevant. It does nothing for low-level epedemics like influenza, nothing for the productivity of workforces that don't have insurance, nothing for the overall health and well-being of the population.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree Jhai, it is much better to inform yourself about any controversial topic. But many people will not put in the work required, and in those cases, a film like Moore's (while extremely biased) will propel some people to actually get informed and act accordingly.
When it comes to political issues like the war in Iraq, I tend to dispise Moore's opinions and biases, but he hit the issue of health care right on the head. It seems absurd to me that socialized health care is so deamonized in the US, to the point where misinformation is spread about countries where the system actually works (and I know Canada and the UK have their own problems - see wait times and the UK's hygeine problems, but there are no wait times for necessary or emmergency surgery, and no one has ever had to watch their partner die because a company would not let them receive appropriate care).
Also, Mrs. M, how would you explain the fact that the US has the highest infant mortality rate of all the developped countries?
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob the Lawyer: *le sigh*
Lyr, what you're thinking of are certain mail-order pharmaceutical companies based in Canada that take advantage of a little (but horrible) loophole in our laws that allow them to ship uninspected product to other countries so long as none of them are actually sold on Canadian soil. I wrote a lengthy post about this the last time the topic came up, but now that I think about it that must have been 3ish years ago. To my knowledge the laws have not changed.
Saying that people are crossing the border and buying bad drugs in person in a store is utter nonsense. Except insofar as there are mistakes made on both sides of the border.
It's not nonsense, it happens. The fake drug industry is going to be a $70 billion dollar business in the next few years. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies have broken up labs in and around major cities in Canada, the US and Mexico who were making fake drugs, that look precisely like the real thing, and then got them into pharmacies where they were sold to real people over the counter, not in a mailbox.
You and Kwea can think whatever you like, and chances are the system probably is 85%-90% safe, and those are pretty good odds, but blithely dismissing what I'm saying is just stupid, to say nothing of wrong and irresonsible. I'm not going to post the big mega info post that I was going to, because now I just don't think it's worth my time or effort, but like I said before, do a quick google search for fake drugs. It's a huge business that is gaining steam every year, and people are dying from it all over the world.
Law enforcement officials say no number of inspections or border checks are going to keep the drugs out, they can only hope that when fake drugs are consumed by an individual, the bad effects are quickly reported so they can jump on it quickly.
But hey, you guys just go on thinking whatever you want. You're experts apparently.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, Mrs. M, how would you explain the fact that the US has the highest infant mortality rate of all the developped countries?
It doesn't.
Those are spurious and misleading statistics and it really upsets me that policies are made based on them. Each country has different criteria for what constitutes stillbirth and what constitutes a miscarriage. In the US, every baby born (that dies at birth) past the age of viability (24 weeks) is counted as a stillbirth and included in our infant mortality statistics. In many other developed nations, any baby born before term (38 weeks) is counted as a miscarriage and therefore NOT included in that country's infant mortality rate.
Here is a Canadian study that confirms this:
quote:Large differences in infant mortality are reported among and within industrialised countries. We hypothesised that these differences are at least partly the result of intercountry differences in registration of infants near the borderline of viability (<750 g birthweight) and/or their classification as stillbirths vs. live births.
quote:International comparisons and rankings of infant mortality should be interpreted with caution.
-Kramer MS, Platt RW, Yang H, Haglund B, Cnattingius S, Bergsjo P., Department of Pediatrics, McGill University Faculty of Medicine, Montreal, Canada
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Bob the Lawyer: [qb] *le sigh*
But hey, you guys just go on thinking whatever you want. You're experts apparently.
Far, far closer than you are, that's for sure.
I worked in the Army for USAMRIID, and personally drafted protocols for drug testing, as well as participating in them myself. I helped formulate a model system for drug testing with human subjects that was presented to Congress, and is administered with congressional oversight.
It is also the basis for model programs across the world.
The program was already in place before I got there, but they were considering dismantling it. Because of the revamping myself and 3 other soldiers instituted, it has more members now than ever before, and has saved countless lives.
What were your qualifications again? A web search?
Lyr, you are a smart person, but on this you are way off base. I wasn't trying to be smug, but I DO know what I am talking about. I didn't call you names, or question your integrity....I just disagree with you.
Keep in mind I didn't say it was perfect, or completely safe....but given the number of people doing this very thing, if there was even a 4% chance of a scam we would be seeing hundreds of thousands of deaths/injuries a year.
The government has a vested interest in making sure that we buy here in the US. It isn't that they are lying...but they are playing Chicken Little a bit.
There have been at least 4 people here in the US who have gone to jail in the past 2 years for passing fake drugs. It happens everywhere....and the possibility make me wonder as well.
But people have also tested the drugs bought in Mexico....and most of them are legit. Ask the drug companies why the drugs they ADMIT to selling are so much cheaper in Canada or Mexico. Not the false one, the ones they sell themselves.
We foot the bill for R&D for most of the world.
BTW...I haven't seen Sicko, nor do I plan to, because I don't trust Moore. This issue is far larger than he is though.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyr, I think it's pretty lame that you'd say my sarcasm was enough to stop you from writing a post enlightening people to the dangers of prescription drugs. Well, Ok, Kwea helped a little. I also find it funny that in your second post this is also a problem within the US. Why not say that originally? (You may want to ignore that. I sometimes find you hyper patriotic and it irks me. This could very well be completely my problem).
Be that as it may.
I think you're actually talking about the same thing I am. From the results of my searches on google it seems that a lot of drugs that wind up on pharmacy shelves are bought from online Canadian distributors. Which is, in fact, the very same problem I posted. There are, of course, also problems with dilutions, simply swiping the pills and replacing them with other ones, but in many ways those are less of a problem because they probably don't operate with the same volume as mail orders.
I could be wrong. What does your research say?
As an aside, I apologise for the snark. We don't like each other and if we're ever going to communicate effectively on an issue it behoves me to treat you with more respect so we don't get bogged down with comments on the others' personality. I will try and be more respectful in the future. (I may have said this before. I probably have. I'm still trying!)
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, Mrs. M, how would you explain the fact that the US has the highest infant mortality rate of all the developped countries?
It doesn't.
Those are spurious and misleading statistics and it really upsets me that policies are made based on them. Each country has different criteria for what constitutes stillbirth and what constitutes a miscarriage. In the US, every baby born (that dies at birth) past the age of viability (24 weeks) is counted as a stillbirth and included in our infant mortality statistics. In many other developed nations, any baby born before term (38 weeks) is counted as a miscarriage and therefore NOT included in that country's infant mortality rate.
Here is a Canadian study that confirms this:
quote:Large differences in infant mortality are reported among and within industrialised countries. We hypothesised that these differences are at least partly the result of intercountry differences in registration of infants near the borderline of viability (<750 g birthweight) and/or their classification as stillbirths vs. live births.
quote:International comparisons and rankings of infant mortality should be interpreted with caution.
-Kramer MS, Platt RW, Yang H, Haglund B, Cnattingius S, Bergsjo P., Department of Pediatrics, McGill University Faculty of Medicine, Montreal, Canada
That study proposes a mechanism by which some potential confounding can be minimized. Even if absolutely correct, the US mortality rate for Black infants (given the study's proposed corrected numbers) is still nearly double that of Swedish infants, and half again as much as that of Israeli Jewish and US White babies -- despite the fact that, as you have noted before, Black females should do better than other babies.
It explains away some of the disparity, but only about 1/2 of it, if that. When you take into account the fact that this group should be doing better than the others, the disparity is revealed to be yet wider.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT, that may be true, but I don't think there are very many black Swedish babies (if any) and there are relatively few black Israeli babies, when compared to the US. What are the numbers of Sweden's minority populations (does Sweden even have a minority population?)? Don't you have to compare populations to like populations? I don't know very much about statistics, but it seems to me that you do.
I don't know how much the US healthcare system is to blame for the disparity (though it definitely plays a part). Certainly black mothers, in parts of the country, do not have access to the level of prenatal care that white mothers do. However, there are cultural factors that must be considered. I recently attended a March of Dimes summit as a mission family rep (the rest of the participants were medical professionals and public health officials) and one of the issues was taking our folic acid campaign to black markets because black women aren't being reached through traditional markets (we're going to focus on community centers, churches, and barber/beauty shops). We also have a Spanish-language campaign, but the Hispanic/Latino population is difficult to market to.
ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology) and Advanced Maternal Age aren't being taken into account in these stats. ART and AMA mothers are at a much higher risk for complications and stillbirths and this does not reflect a problem with the US heathcare system.
Andrew brought up a good point at supper. No one seems to be advocating any kind of reasonable, tenable solutions to our healthcare problems. It seems like the loudest critics only want us to switch over to socialized medicine, which is not going to happen. I wish they would focus on their energies on something that could actually help.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is the level of accountability.......our representatives are so deep in the pockets of the medical.insurance companies that significant change is hard to come by.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mortality rate seems to suggest the respective number of black babies in Sweden, Israel, and the U.S. was taken into consideration. I could be mistaken, but that's what it suggests to me.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mrs.M: CT, that may be true, but I don't think there are very many black Swedish babies (if any) and there are relatively few black Israeli babies, when compared to the US. What are the numbers of Sweden's minority populations (does Sweden even have a minority population?)? Don't you have to compare populations to like populations? I don't know very much about statistics, but it seems to me that you do.
You do, if you can. If you cannot, you try to anticipate how it would affect the data and minimize confounding.
That is exactly what the study you cited was trying to do; "here we have this data from different populations, so let's try to make the analysis as comparable as possible, and where we can't, then at least acknowledge which ways it is likely to be biased." No populations are going to be perfectly equivalent, or they would be the same population. It is always a matter of doing better rather than worse analyses, not of trying to make it perfect.
So, we know that Black preemies seem to do a lot better than White babies preemies, regardless of socioeconomic status. It seems to be a matter of physiology. Thus one would expect that Black babies should have lower mortality rates -- in this case, the difference in the populations should bias in the opposite direction from what we find in the data. Thus, normalizing to the rates we should expect, the disparity is even wider than it seems.
quote:ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology) and Advanced Maternal Age aren't being taken into account in these stats. ART and AMA mothers are at a much higher risk for complications and stillbirths and this does not reflect a problem with the US heathcare system.
. True. Again, though, it does not tend to be Black babies that are the ones conceived via ART or with AMA. Again, this is yet another bias that should be skewing the US data we see in the opposite direction -- thus, the gap is yet again even wider than it appears.
quote:Andrew brought up a good point at supper. No one seems to be advocating any kind of reasonable, tenable solutions to our healthcare problems. It seems like the loudest critics only want us to switch over to socialized medicine, which is not going to happen.
The loudest critics I hear are advocating that we switch to a single payer system, like Canada. (?) (That isn't "socialized medicine." Medical practitioners are in private practice, not employees of the government.)
Of note, the Canadian change over to a single payer system was extraordinarily fraught with problems. Although the majority of Canadian physicians support the current system (as per national surveys), when it was initially implemented in the province of Saskatchewan, the physicians of the province went on strike. The prime minister flew in replacements from other provinces. But now that the changeover has been made, the majority of the population (lay and physician both, [also per the national surveys]) is glad the change was made.
So why am I advocating a change that -- at least in one other country -- nearly shut down that local system? Because I see worse ahead if the changeover is not made, and I think we, too, would be glad we made the change after. Mostly, though, it's because I see a worse breakdown if we stay put.
---
Edited to add: It seems that you and Andrew may not see a change to a single payer system as tenable. I see not making the change as even less tenable. This may be why what you hear doesn't seem to speak to your concerns -- I think our fundamental concerns differ. (Maybe because of perspective, maybe because of other fundamentally different concerns tied to these, maybe because of areas of knowledge. Regardless, it is a respectful disagreement, and I appreciate that enormously.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob the Lawyer: Lyr, I think it's pretty lame that you'd say my sarcasm was enough to stop you from writing a post enlightening people to the dangers of prescription drugs. Well, Ok, Kwea helped a little. I also find it funny that in your second post this is also a problem within the US. Why not say that originally? (You may want to ignore that. I sometimes find you hyper patriotic and it irks me. This could very well be completely my problem).
Be that as it may.
I think you're actually talking about the same thing I am. From the results of my searches on google it seems that a lot of drugs that wind up on pharmacy shelves are bought from online Canadian distributors. Which is, in fact, the very same problem I posted. There are, of course, also problems with dilutions, simply swiping the pills and replacing them with other ones, but in many ways those are less of a problem because they probably don't operate with the same volume as mail orders.
I could be wrong. What does your research say?
As an aside, I apologise for the snark. We don't like each other and if we're ever going to communicate effectively on an issue it behoves me to treat you with more respect so we don't get bogged down with comments on the others' personality. I will try and be more respectful in the future. (I may have said this before. I probably have. I'm still trying!)
First off, I wasn't aware that we didn't like each other. I don't hold any overall negative opinion of you at all, and wasn't aware that you held one of me. So, I guess I'm sorry for whatever it is that I've done in the past to piss you off so much? But there's no hostility on this side of the fence.
Second of all, hyperpatriotic, me? I like to think I'm just a fair normal amount of patriotic. But hey, everyone is allowed to have their own opinion. Sorry about not mentioning the US in the initial post, I can assure you it had absolutely zero to do with my level of patriotism.
Third, thank you for taking the time to at least address my claims with a search. The reason I decided not to post a big mega post that might take me a half hour to construct was not because you were sarcastic, it was because I felt there was no use in wasting my time when you and Kwea clearly, CLEARLY felt my position was baseless, and especially in Kwea's words, that a little internet search was totally invalid compared to the mass of knowledge he has. So really, and I don't ask this flippantly, why would I really waste the time and effort?
I'm not trying to be petty, I'm just not going to waste my time. I've put forth the seeds of information that I think should at least be looked at and considered, despite what Kwea thinks, so you can all go out and find it if you want, I'm obviously not stopping you, and I don't hold any ill will towards either of you, I just think it's always a good idea to consider risks and consequences, no matter how slight they may be.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
