Analysis: 'Sicko' Numbers Mostly Accurate

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Text

By A. Chris Gajilan

Michael Moore's "Sicko," which opened nationwide Friday, is filled with horror stories of people who are deprived of medical service because they can't afford it or haven't been able to navigate the murky waters of managed care in the United States.

It compares American health care with the universal coverage systems in Canada, France, the United Kingdom and Cuba.

Moore covers a lot of ground. Our team investigated some of the claims put forth in his film. We found that his numbers were mostly right, but his arguments could use a little more context. As we dug deep to uncover the numbers, we found surprisingly few inaccuracies in the film. In fact, most pundits or health-care experts we spoke to spent more time on errors of omission rather than disputing the actual claims in the film.

Whether it's dollars spent, group coverage or Medicaid income cutoffs, health care goes hand in hand with numbers. Moore opens his film by giving these statistics, "Fifty million uninsured Americans ... 18,000 people die because they are uninsured."

For the most part, that's true. The latest numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say 43.6 million, or about 15 percent of Americans, were uninsured in 2006. For the past five years, the overall count has fluctuated between 41 million and 44 million people. According to the Institute of Medicine, 18,000 people do die each year mainly because they are less likely to receive screening and preventive care for chronic diseases.

Moore says that the U.S. spends more of its gross domestic product on health care than any other country.

Again, that's true. The United States spends more than 15 percent of its GDP on health care -- no other nation even comes close to that number. France spends about 11 percent, and Canadians spend 10 percent.

Like Moore, we also found that more money does not equal better care. Both the French and Canadian systems rank in the Top 10 of the world's best health-care systems, according to the World Health Organization. The United States comes in at No. 37. The rankings are based on general health of the population, access, patient satisfaction and how the care's paid for.

So, if Americans are paying so much and they're not getting as good or as much care, where is all the money going? "Overhead for most private health insurance plans range between 10 percent to 30 percent," says Deloitte health-care analyst Paul Keckley. Overhead includes profit and administrative costs.

"Compare that to Medicare, which only has an overhead rate of 1 percent. Medicare is an extremely efficient health-care delivery system," says Mark Meaney, a health-care ethicist for the National Institute for Patient Rights.

Moore spends about half his film detailing the wonders and the benefits of the government-funded universal health-care systems in Canada, France, Cuba and the United Kingdom. He shows calm, content people in waiting rooms and people getting care in hospitals hassle free. People laugh and smile as he asks about billing departments and cost of stay.

Not surprisingly, it's not that simple. In most other countries, there are quotas and planned waiting times. Everyone does have access to basic levels of care. That care plan is formulated by teams of government physicians and officials who determine what's to be included in the universal basic coverage and how a specific condition is treated. If you want treatment outside of that standard plan, then you have to pay for it yourself.

"In most developed health systems in the world, 15 percent to 20 percent of the population buys medical services outside of the system of care run by the government. They do it through supplemental insurance, or they buy services out of pocket," Keckley says.

The people who pay more tend to be in the upper income or have special, more complicated conditions.

Moore focuses on the private insurance companies and makes no mention of the U.S. government-funded health-care systems such as Medicare, Medicaid, the State Children's Health Insurance Program and the Veterans Affairs health-care systems. About 50 percent of all health-care dollars spent in the United States flows through these government systems.

"Sicko" also ignores a handful of good things about the American system. Believe it or not, the United States does rank highest in the patient satisfaction category. Americans do have shorter wait times than everyone but Germans when it comes to nonemergency elective surgery such as hip replacements, cataract removal or knee repair.

That's no surprise given the number of U.S. specialists. In U.S. medical schools, students training to become primary-care physicians have dwindled to 10 percent. The overwhelming majority choose far more profitable specialties in the medical field. In other countries, more than one out of three aspiring doctors chooses primary care in part because there's less of an income gap with specialists. In those nations, becoming a specialist means making 30 percent more than a primary-care physician. In the United States, the gap is around 300 percent, according to Keckley.

As Americans continue to spend $2 trillion a year on health care, everyone agrees on one point: Things need to change, and it will take more than a movie to figure out how to get there.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope this settles a lot of the hearsay about Moore's efforts to bring to light one of the greatest real threats to our country. Like his other movies, it's mostly the truth, mixed in with a little sensationalism to make it entertaining.
 

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,275
965
136
Nice, just drop out the whole context thing, it's only part of the CNN headline. Moore's entire act is based around creating bias by omission, are you trying to imitate him? Here is the whole headline so it is included in the thread:

'Sicko' numbers mostly accurate; more context needed

Is there a scene that shows the taxes incurred on the happy smiling people getting money for their cab ride home from the hospital? Naw that'd just get in the way. Even the CNN article is disingenuous. For example, medicare overhead is 1% only if tax deduction is taken out of the equation, but is a real cost nonetheless.

Oh, I didn't see this film yet, but I heard there's scenes regarding Cuba in it. Here's the real Cuban system. I doubt Moore ever saw the kind of care regular Cubans get. Useful idiot for Castro? Seems likely.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: dmens
Nice, just drop out the whole context thing, it's only part of the CNN headline. Moore's entire act is based around creating bias by omission, are you trying to imitate him? Here is the whole headline so it is included in the thread:

'Sicko' numbers mostly accurate; more context needed

Is there a scene that shows the taxes incurred on the happy smiling people getting money for their cab ride home from the hospital? Naw that'd just get in the way. Even the CNN article is disingenuous. For example, medicare overhead is 1% only if tax deduction is taken out of the equation, but is a real cost nonetheless.

Oh, I didn't see this film yet, but I heard there's scenes regarding Cuba in it. Here's the real Cuban system. I doubt Moore ever saw the kind of care regular Cubans get. Useful idiot for Castro? Seems likely.

The article made the 'context' comments clear. He posted it fine.

You no doubt have some valid points that Cuba's health care looked better in the movie than many Cubans experience.

But think about your own bias - the US system unquestionably has its own many horror stories, but you don't want to talk about them; only the positive parts, right?

The US has some of the best medicine in the world - and probably the worst for many of its citizens.

As for Cuba, with the economic situation they're in, made much worse by the embargo, it's pretty amazing what they're able to do at all. There shouldn't be any comparison.

These Caribbean nations are *poor*; when I was in Jamaica, I broke my elbow, and was told the only x ray machine was on the opposite side of the country, several hours away.
 

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,275
965
136
Originally posted by: Craig234
The article made the 'context' comments clear. He posted it fine.

No, the thread title took out the context part of the headline. That was what I was referring to.

You no doubt have some valid points that Cuba's health care looked better in the movie than many Cubans experience.

But think about your own bias - the US system unquestionably has its own many horror stories, but you don't want to talk about them; only the positive parts, right?

I can talk about the problems with the US system; there are plenty. However, the main thrust of Moore's film is to beautify the single payer (universal is a misnomer) healthcare system and portray it as a better solution, while ignoring all its problems and *real* costs (taxes). That is incredibly dishonest.

The US has some of the best medicine in the world - and probably the worst for many of its citizens.

That is unlikely, since basic care is guaranteed by law. Accounting for costs afterwards is a different matter.

As for Cuba, with the economic situation they're in, made much worse by the embargo, it's pretty amazing what they're able to do at all. There shouldn't be any comparison.

These Caribbean nations are *poor*; when I was in Jamaica, I broke my elbow, and was told the only x ray machine was on the opposite side of the country, several hours away.

Cuba is poor because of Castro's socialist regime, not because of the US embargo. Every country in the world except the US trades with them. They were poor even when Soviet freebies were factored into its GDP. The US cannot be blamed for such a rapid disintegration of the economy.

Back to healthcare. Cuba is poor, so its quality of healthcare should not be compared with the US. OK, that is fine. But if Moore really used the Cuban tourist healthcare system (as a facade over the real Cuban system) to draw a comparison against the US system, implying that Cuba does better even though they are poor, then that is again completely dishonest on his part. I didn't watch the film yet, but if he pulled that stunt, Moore is either completely naive, or a willing pawn of the Castro regime.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: dmens
Nice, just drop out the whole context thing, it's only part of the CNN headline. Moore's entire act is based around creating bias by omission, are you trying to imitate him?
Just so it's clear, your job is to alert thread authors in P&N if they've failed to include the exact title of their article in their thread title verbatim?

Better get started junior, you've got a long night ahead of you.
 

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,275
965
136
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Just so it's clear, your job is to alert thread authors in P&N if they've failed to include the exact title of their article in their thread title verbatim?

Better get started junior, you've got a long night ahead of you.

It's a relevant omission that indicated bias. From the tone in your meaningless reply above, and the lack of any mention of the CNN article's criticism on context in your original post's conclusion, your selective editing was probably intentional.

Next time you write sycophantic praise for Moore, at least reference an article that is equally biased and untainted by criticism. You should learn from the man, disinformation by omission is very powerful, LOL. :laugh:
 

Googer

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
12,576
7
81
If you think the wait at the post office was bad, just try getting in to a government hospital. You will die waiting.
 

Googer

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
12,576
7
81
We are always in search of greener pastures even though the ones we are currently standing on are some of the greenest in the world. No matter how much of the best people have, they always believe that what they own or have access to is never good enough.

The point is: The fruit may look tasty on the outside but once you take a bite, you quickly learn how bitter it really is.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Originally posted by: dmens
Nice, just drop out the whole context thing, it's only part of the CNN headline. Moore's entire act is based around creating bias by omission, are you trying to imitate him? Here is the whole headline so it is included in the thread:

'Sicko' numbers mostly accurate; more context needed

Is there a scene that shows the taxes incurred on the happy smiling people getting money for their cab ride home from the hospital? Naw that'd just get in the way. Even the CNN article is disingenuous. For example, medicare overhead is 1% only if tax deduction is taken out of the equation, but is a real cost nonetheless.

Oh, I didn't see this film yet, but I heard there's scenes regarding Cuba in it. Here's the real Cuban system. I doubt Moore ever saw the kind of care regular Cubans get. Useful idiot for Castro? Seems likely.

I am shocked, SHOCKED that you haven't seen the movie!
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
"I can talk about the problems with the US system; there are plenty. However, the main thrust of Moore's film is to beautify the single payer (universal is a misnomer) healthcare system and portray it as a better solution, while ignoring all its problems and *real* costs (taxes). That is incredibly dishonest. "

How do you know? You haven't seen the movie.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Googer
We are always in search of greener pastures even though the ones we are currently standing on are some of the greenest in the world. No matter how much of the best people have, they always believe that what they own or have access to is never good enough.

The point is: The fruit may look tasty on the outside but once you take a bite, you quickly learn how bitter it really is.</end quote></div>

Have you seen the movie? I don't see people dieing in government hospital in france, which is rated the number 1 healthcare in the world...

Greenest in the world? 37? 40 million without healthcare(including all of their helpless children), and if you saw the movie you'd see our wonderful healthcare system at work(it is about people's experience who HAVE health insurance)....
 

Googer

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
12,576
7
81
The only SICKO in that movie is Michal Moore himself. He's so full of BS and you are gullible to believe it.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Originally posted by: Googer
The only SICKO in that movie is Michal Moore himself. He's so full of BS and you are gullible to believe it.

The movie you haven't seen? Talk about gullible.. you take the word of people on the internet with a view you want to believe insteadof seeing hte movie and judging for yourself.

My father, a staunch republican, and also a doctor, advised all of his friends to see the movie...
 

Googer

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
12,576
7
81
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Googer
The only SICKO in that movie is Michal Moore himself. He's so full of BS and you are gullible to believe it.</end quote></div>

The movie you haven't seen? Talk about gullible.. you take the word of people on the internet with a view you want to believe insteadof seeing hte movie and judging for yourself.

My father, a staunch republican, and also a doctor, advised all of his friends to see the movie...

I haven't read anything about it on the internet.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Is anyone else noticing the crazy attempts at damage control by people here? They try rating the threads a 0 that they don't want heard... pathetic.. like children.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Originally posted by: Googer
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shadow9d9
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Googer
The only SICKO in that movie is Michal Moore himself. He's so full of BS and you are gullible to believe it.</end quote></div>

The movie you haven't seen? Talk about gullible.. you take the word of people on the internet with a view you want to believe insteadof seeing hte movie and judging for yourself.

My father, a staunch republican, and also a doctor, advised all of his friends to see the movie...</end quote></div>

I haven't read anything about it on the internet.

Even better, you are judging it with 0 knowledge whatsoever except a hatred for Moore.. go see the movie or shut it... You can't expect to be taken seriously to judge something you haven't seen...
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: jpeyton

So, if Americans are paying so much and they're not getting as good or as much care, where is all the money going? "Overhead for most private health insurance plans range between 10 percent to 30 percent," says Deloitte health-care analyst Paul Keckley. Overhead includes profit and administrative costs.

"Compare that to Medicare, which only has an overhead rate of 1 percent. Medicare is an extremely efficient health-care delivery system," says Mark Meaney, a health-care ethicist for the National Institute for Patient Rights.

Just as I suspected.

I wonder if the expense numbers also include the costs to businesses of having to hire benefits and health insurance account managers. I suspect that there are also other hidden costs involving both time and money that have gone unidentified not to mention the costs to our economy and decreased job mobility. Another issue is decreased competitiveness for American-made goods and services since the costs of health care are included in the costs of our would-be exports.

I am familiar and sympathetic to the economic arguments against socialized-medicine and socialized-anything. However, to a great extent, health care is, essentially, a service that is not compatible with perfect competition for several reasons. (1.) Unlike the needs of food and water, health care is very expensive and relatively limited. (2.) When people need health care they need health care and cannot wait for a sale nor seek a substitute good or service nor do without it. (3.) It is almost impossible to compare prices because the prices are not transparent and it is difficult to predict how much care will be needed in advance.

As the percentage-of-GDP statistics are beginning to reveal, outright socialized medicine might well prove to be more economically efficient, much better for the economy, and a better way to provide health care.
 

Googer

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
12,576
7
81
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: jpeyton

So, if Americans are paying so much and they're not getting as good or as much care, where is all the money going? "Overhead for most private health insurance plans range between 10 percent to 30 percent," says Deloitte health-care analyst Paul Keckley. Overhead includes profit and administrative costs.

"Compare that to Medicare, which only has an overhead rate of 1 percent. Medicare is an extremely efficient health-care delivery system," says Mark Meaney, a health-care ethicist for the National Institute for Patient Rights.</end quote></div>

Just as I suspected.

I wonder if the expense numbers also include the costs to businesses of having to hire benefits and health insurance account managers. I suspect that there are also other hidden costs involving both time and money that have gone unidentified not to mention the costs to our economy and decreased job mobility.</end quote></div>

It is the private competition and drive for profit that makes our health care the premier in the world.
 

Googer

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
12,576
7
81
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: dmens
Nice, just drop out the whole context thing, it's only part of the CNN headline. Moore's entire act is based around creating bias by omission, are you trying to imitate him? Here is the whole headline so it is included in the thread:

'Sicko' numbers mostly accurate; more context needed

Is there a scene that shows the taxes incurred on the happy smiling people getting money for their cab ride home from the hospital? Naw that'd just get in the way. Even the CNN article is disingenuous. For example, medicare overhead is 1% only if tax deduction is taken out of the equation, but is a real cost nonetheless.

Oh, I didn't see this film yet, but I heard there's scenes regarding Cuba in it. Here's the real Cuban system. I doubt Moore ever saw the kind of care regular Cubans get. Useful idiot for Castro? Seems likely.</end quote></div>

I am shocked, SHOCKED that you haven't seen the movie!

My watch is less predicable than a Michal Moore film. Don't need to see it.
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,017
62
91
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shadow9d9

I am shocked, SHOCKED that you haven't seen the movie!</end quote></div>

I personally don't want to give Moore one cent of my money. I've made the mistake in the past with "Bowling for Columbine" which was full of clever editing, omission of the full story, and a few outright lies.

Heck, just reading the CNN article I already know that he's not telling the truth. Saying 50 million when the real number is 44 million is not what I'm looking for in a "documentary".

So yes, continue to be shocked, and eating up the crap by this "working class" defender who is a zillionaire and grew up with money as well.
 

TheSlamma

Diamond Member
Sep 6, 2005
7,625
5
81
Ignore shadow9d9, his only tactic is to claim that the ONLY people aginst gov healthcare must have not seen this perfect 100% factual movie.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
I]Originally posted by: Googer[/i]

It is the private competition and drive for profit that makes our health care the premier in the world.

I edited and expanded that post to respond to just that argument. Basically, it's highly questionable that perfect competition applies to health care.


(I hope Anandtech gets the automatic post quoting system fixed soon.)
 

ThePresence

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
27,727
16
81
I don't think there is anyone who doubts that the healthcare system in the US has serious problems. I thnk we all know that. Moore very thoroughly points out those problems. But he completely glosses over the problems with socialized medicine. He makes it as if the only reason people don't like it is because it uses the OMG SOCIALISM word. And there can't be problems with long waits for procedures because he even asked his Canadian cousins! He holds it up as a shining example of what healthcare could be when in reality, it has an entirely different set of problems.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Originally posted by: Googer
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shadow9d9
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: dmens
Nice, just drop out the whole context thing, it's only part of the CNN headline. Moore's entire act is based around creating bias by omission, are you trying to imitate him? Here is the whole headline so it is included in the thread:

'Sicko' numbers mostly accurate; more context needed

Is there a scene that shows the taxes incurred on the happy smiling people getting money for their cab ride home from the hospital? Naw that'd just get in the way. Even the CNN article is disingenuous. For example, medicare overhead is 1% only if tax deduction is taken out of the equation, but is a real cost nonetheless.

Oh, I didn't see this film yet, but I heard there's scenes regarding Cuba in it. Here's the real Cuban system. I doubt Moore ever saw the kind of care regular Cubans get. Useful idiot for Castro? Seems likely.</end quote></div>

I am shocked, SHOCKED that you haven't seen the movie!</end quote></div>

My watch is less predicable than a Michal Moore film. Don't need to see it.

You have the right to not see his movie.. but stay out of threads about movies you choose NOT to see.