Did you guys watch SiCKO? What did you think?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,534
911
126
Originally posted by: Acanthus

Actually many doctors agree that obesity is a new stealth epidemic.

This is supposed to be 1st generation in decades that drops in life expentancy over the previous generation.

Of that I have no doubt. I was questioning the extent to which it is affecting insurance premiums.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,483
8,344
126
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Acanthus

Actually many doctors agree that obesity is a new stealth epidemic.

This is supposed to be 1st generation in decades that drops in life expentancy over the previous generation.</end quote></div>

Of that I have no doubt. I was questioning the extent to which it is affecting insurance premiums.

I don't know how you could ever put a number on it. Obesity can be linked directly and indirectly to a virtually endless number of issues.

- Bariatric procedures
- Upgraded equipment needed to support their weight
- New diagnostic equipment needed to be able to image through their sheer mass
- MI's treated at the ED
- CABG's
- Diabetes
- Increased rates of cancer
- Endless amounts of blood pressure and cholesterol perscriptions
- Additional recovery time spent in ICU/SICU
- Sleep apnea diagnosis and CPAP treatment
- And the list just grows on and on

Some of these you can directly point a finger at and say it caused the problem. Others it isn't as easy. It absolutely affects our rates, I just know if you could objectively quantify how much.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
If you search at CDC.gov, there are multiple studies linking obesity, etc. to health care costs. As I already posted, they estimate that the combination of obesity, poor dietary habits, and lack of proper exercise costs Americans about $1000 per year EACH in additional health care costs. Other studies indicate that the rising trend in obesity and poor fitness among children mean that they will be the first generation in American history to live shorter lifespans than their parents. This is far and away the most serious health issue facing America today.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Before you guys experiment with the surefire debacle that will be universal healthcare, I suggest you:

1) Massively boost preventative care. Your visits to the doctor should not start the day you feel ill; periodic visits to avoid problems altogether is common sense.

2) Double the number of medical schools in the country. The limitations on the number of intelligent young men and women who can study medicine are ridiculous, and likely engineered to keep the hourly rate up. I don't buy the explanation of "keeping quality high" for a fraction of a second.

3) Get the legal issues related to receiving health care under control. The amount doctors, drug companies and hospitals need to sock away in case of being pursued by an ex-patient for alleged wrongdoing is staggering. I don't know of an exact solution to this issue, but the current rewards being handed out by the courts are insane.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
4) Ban direct to consumer advertising of prescription pharmaceuticals. Those never ending TV ads that ask you to see your doctor about restless leg syndrome that you didn't know you had, guess who is paying for them? Your insurance premiums.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: yllus
Before you guys experiment with the surefire debacle that will be universal healthcare, I suggest you:

1) Massively boost preventative care. Your visits to the doctor should not start the day you feel ill; periodic visits to avoid problems altogether is common sense.

2) Double the number of medical schools in the country. The limitations on the number of intelligent young men and women who can study medicine are ridiculous, and likely engineered to keep the hourly rate up. I don't buy the explanation of "keeping quality high" for a fraction of a second.

3) Get the legal issues related to receiving health care under control. The amount doctors, drug companies and hospitals need to sock away in case of being pursued by an ex-patient for alleged wrongdoing is staggering. I don't know of an exact solution to this issue, but the current rewards being handed out by the courts are insane.

1.) How?

2.) Doctors in countries with socialized medicine (Britain for example) make comparable wages to American doctors, yet their health care provides better coverage at a fraction of the price. This has been covered in previous threads.

3.) Torts are not the problem. This has also already been addressed many times in previous threads. All health care spending related to lawsuits amounts to approximately .05% of health care spending in America. It is an insignificant amount.
 

TheSlamma

Diamond Member
Sep 6, 2005
7,625
5
81
Originally posted by: Vic
If you search at CDC.gov, there are multiple studies linking obesity, etc. to health care costs. As I already posted, they estimate that the combination of obesity, poor dietary habits, and lack of proper exercise costs Americans about $1000 per year EACH in additional health care costs. Other studies indicate that the rising trend in obesity and poor fitness among children mean that they will be the first generation in American history to live shorter lifespans than their parents. This is far and away the most serious health issue facing America today.
QFT
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
I thought it was a great movie mainly for highlighting the BS claims we all hear about long waits and care denial by the pundits and those with an agenda. Anyone who has spent a good amount of time in Europe or Canada will tell you the same thing Moore was conveying.

As far as national HC in general I always knew there was a problem with our system that costs twice as much and insures half as many as all the other western countries from Japan to Italy (where's all that xtra money we pay go?) but I know it's a pipe dream to function like them with our election mechanics whereby monied interests gets people in power. So when things do 'change' we get abominations like Medicare/Medicaid and the prescription drug plan which continues to extract funds from your tax paying pocket out of care and into share holders pockets. So in general I'm against National HC because our guys will just screw it up, on purpose.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: yllus

2) Double the number of medical schools in the country. The limitations on the number of intelligent young men and women who can study medicine are ridiculous, and likely engineered to keep the hourly rate up. I don't buy the explanation of "keeping quality high" for a fraction of a second.

Congratulations; I think you're one of the few people besides myself who would have thought of that--the possibility that we have an artificial doctor shortage.

However, I suspect that doctors' income is only a small drop in the bucket in the scheme of health care expenses. I suspect that much of the expense and much of the economic inefficiency is in the area of hospital and insurance administration.

One policy reason for maintaining an artificial shortage of doctors in spite of the huge number of people who want to become doctors is to prevent doctors from becoming susceptible to the kinds of ethical problems and unethical behavior that often afflicts professionals in other fields, such as MBAs and lawyers.

I mean, do we want doctors to always have to worry about unemployment and underemployment? Do we want doctors trying to backstab one another? Do we want doctors to worry about their jobs or their careers, or rather, would it be better for them to have a sense of financial and career security so that they can focus on patients?



 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: senseamp
4) Ban direct to consumer advertising of prescription pharmaceuticals. Those never ending TV ads that ask you to see your doctor about restless leg syndrome that you didn't know you had, guess who is paying for them? Your insurance premiums.

I kinda wonder if we'd still have network TV without the pharmaceutical ads. Someone's gotta pay the bills.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Americans would have us taxed at a 90% rate if we had healthcare here. Just like how disability is now handed out to people just for being fat.

Sorry people this is a country of pure gluttony, it would NOT work here.

A national health care plan will definitely need to include some sort of mechanism to prevent moral hazard and also to prevent people from becoming hypochondriacs. I think that some sort of fee-for-initial-visit will have to be instituted to prevent people with merely benign colds and hangnails from flooding the clinics.
 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
Originally posted by: vi_edit
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: vi_edit
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Did Moore mention that we're spending gobs of money to provide health care for illegal aliens and their families? I bet he didn't.

Did Moore mention that one of the problems is the increasing percentage of Americans who live near or below the poverty line and that, thus, the nation's overall economic malaise is a big contributor to the problem (regardless of whether you have free market or socialized medicine)? I doubt it; I don't think he's that smart.

We can enact socialized medicine, but if the nation's economy falters, it won't do that much good because even socialized medicine is not free. I'm in favor of semi-socialized medicine, but at the same time I recognize that the ability to provide health care is dependent on the rest of the economy. If global labor arbitrage transforms the United States into a third world country, then even an ideal health care system would provide poor care and poor coverage.</end quote></div>

Is that better or worse than no care and no coverage? Do we want a society that only covers those who can afford it? Because that's what we have now and the numbers of those who cannot afford it just keep growing.</end quote></div>

What percent of children do you think are uninsured either by Medicaid, private or some combination of both? Without googling, just make a guess.</end quote></div>

I have no idea. I do remember seeing stats that indicate the number of uninsured people in this country at around 12-15% though so I'd imagine the number of children who are uninsured would be about the same.</end quote></div>

It's a touch under 12%. Throw in the upper crust that pay out of pocket and don't need insurance for their kids and the other group of people that *could* afford it but would rather have a new SUV instead for the premium and you are probably looking at single digit % of children that are actually left uncovered. Or around 90% of people who still are covered.

Now do the math on your insurance premiums that you currently pay. As a household I take in about $150k net. Our premiums only cost us around $1800 a year for my wife and I. That's only about 1.2% of our gross income, not counting what we pay into Medicaid/Medicare.

Given that your family owns a Lexus and you are considering buying a $40k sports car, I'd assume that you are doing pretty well too. What percentage are your premiums to your household income?

Now riddle me this - would you go to the voting booth and actively vote away 8% of your income ($12,000) in my case for worse service if it was only helping out a single digit percentage of kids (purposely leaving out adult %)? I couldn't. And just about anyone else out there wouldn't either.

And it's not like that 12% of kids have absolutely no help. My employer alone (a hospital system) wrote off over $50,000,000 in services for those without insurance. And that's just one hospital. There are thousands of other hospitals, clinics, and support groups that provide support to the uninsured that isn't included in many statistics. St. Judes and the many other affiliates of the Children's Network provide care to anyone child regardless of ability to pay. Those don't fall under insurance coverage either, but they are available.

I'm not saying the system is perfect. Far from it. Drug costs and the accountability of clinicians(Dr.s & otherwise) are in dire need of some reform. But why not address what isn't working for that small percent instead of punishing the overwhelming majority of the rest of us?

Seriously, if we are having troubles making Medicaid work well for the 40 million that are on it and the 40 some million that aren't, how can we ever expect a national system to support 300+ million?

Fix the leaks in the damn. Don't knock it down and try to build a new one.

I agree here, we cannot expand the current health system because its got HUUUGE overhead costs. The administrative costs of private insurers, hospitals etc. is what makes overall health care cost so much higher in this country. I think America spends 16% of GDP on health care which is twice more than the next system and yet we have such a crappy system.

My girlfriend did a study in the UK that directly compared the two systems. In the UK you do not have the issue of huge administrative costs as you do in the U.S.

Overall I support implementing a hybrid system. One that takes CURRENT medicaid/medicare money and tax money to give health care to the ones that cannot afford it, but keep the private system for the ones that can and would pay for insurance.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
I saw the movie last night. Though it was very good and worth seeing, but I was disappointed with the lack of facts and analysis.

It was great for the anecdotes and the visibility into the foreign systems and some excellent commentary, especially by the former British MP, but didn't begin to paint the picture of a lot of important things. Still, a great, important movie.

The important thing, I guess, is helping the public get excited about pushing for universal health care. Since many people are 'monkey see, monkey do', perhaps seeing that other countries have a lot better setup will help some to get past the scare propaganda.
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,017
62
91
Originally posted by: senseamp
4) Ban direct to consumer advertising of prescription pharmaceuticals. Those never ending TV ads that ask you to see your doctor about restless leg syndrome that you didn't know you had, guess who is paying for them? Your insurance premiums.

I'm not a big fan of just banning stuff. Btw, I do have restless leg syndrome and it is pretty bad.
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,534
911
126
Originally posted by: Vic
If you search at CDC.gov, there are multiple studies linking obesity, etc. to health care costs. As I already posted, they estimate that the combination of obesity, poor dietary habits, and lack of proper exercise costs Americans about $1000 per year EACH in additional health care costs. Other studies indicate that the rising trend in obesity and poor fitness among children mean that they will be the first generation in American history to live shorter lifespans than their parents. This is far and away the most serious health issue facing America today.

Yeah, how accurate are they though? Look, I think obesity is a real problem in this country but I also think it's a scapegoat for rising health care costs. Of course, I have no way of proving that except to say when was the last time you experienced a decrease in prices once an increase was in place? Hell, I filled up my car this morning (one of the few days I haven't ridden my bicycle to work recently) and marveled at the low cost of gas at $3.20/gallon.

It seems you can prove anything by quoting a "study" these days.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
I watched the movie and think its thought provoking.
I think its something that everyone in the usa should watch.
The prescription price differences really hit home.
My current medication is over 600.00 per month, with insurance it drops to 238.00.


I was in the hospital for surgery.
They performed the surgery and I was supposed to stay another 5 days in the hospital on iv antibiotics and monitors.

two days after the operation I was approached by the hospitals financial department and told that the insurance company had notified them that I had reached the limit they were willing to pay.

I was sent home that day, even though the doctor was against it.

I ended up having to go back 4 days later to the ER because of infections .
Healthcare is great in the usa, its the paying for it that sucks.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Generally on this topic my comments are summed up as such:

- I have better and timlier access to medical care in the US than in Canada (one of the so-called superior systems), so for my family it's better with private insurance than a government-fubared mess
- More than anything, if people were truly interested in their health they'd stop looking like whales and smoking and drinking too much; their lifestyle would afford them a better quality and length of life than any extra doctors visits would, unless they have an unusual illness

So, I don't give a crap about fat unhealthy people who don't care about themselves, and with private insurance I can see a doctor and get diagnostic testing quicker than in a social system, so why would I support one? I wouldn't and don't.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Generally on this topic my comments are summed up as such:

- I have better and timlier access to medical care in the US than in Canada (one of the so-called superior systems), so for my family it's better with private insurance than a government-fubared mess
- More than anything, if people were truly interested in their health they'd stop looking like whales and smoking and drinking too much; their lifestyle would afford them a better quality and length of life than any extra doctors visits would, unless they have an unusual illness

So, I don't give a crap about fat unhealthy people who don't care about themselves, and with private insurance I can see a doctor and get diagnostic testing quicker than in a social system, so why would I support one? I wouldn't and don't.

Have you ever had to wait for your HMO to approve a test? I had, and it was not "timely" at all. I had to cancel a Dr appointment because it took them almost 2 months to send a pre-certification letter, while some "doctor" who has never seen me was reviewing the request. And I have "good" insurance. I know you may trust some HMO bureaucrat to make decisions on which treatment or test is "necessary," and which isn't, but I'd rather let the doctor who has actually seen me make that decision, and the HMO doing what they are paid premiums for, picking up the tab.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Skoorb
Generally on this topic my comments are summed up as such:

- I have better and timlier access to medical care in the US than in Canada (one of the so-called superior systems), so for my family it's better with private insurance than a government-fubared mess
- More than anything, if people were truly interested in their health they'd stop looking like whales and smoking and drinking too much; their lifestyle would afford them a better quality and length of life than any extra doctors visits would, unless they have an unusual illness

So, I don't give a crap about fat unhealthy people who don't care about themselves, and with private insurance I can see a doctor and get diagnostic testing quicker than in a social system, so why would I support one? I wouldn't and don't.</end quote></div>

Have you ever had to wait for your HMO to approve a test? I had, and it was not "timely" at all. I had to cancel a Dr appointment because it took them almost 2 months to send a pre-certification letter, while some "doctor" who has never seen me was reviewing the request. And I have "good" insurance. I know you may trust some HMO bureaucrat to make decisions on which treatment or test is "necessary," and which isn't, but I'd rather let the doctor who has actually seen me make that decision, and the HMO doing what they are paid premiums for, picking up the tab.

I have the opposite experience. My insurace has come through every single time and that includes expensive tests. I will agree that something needs to change in our current system but I would prefer that you leave my current system, which provides abovepar health care to my family alone.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: Darwin333
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Skoorb
Generally on this topic my comments are summed up as such:

- I have better and timlier access to medical care in the US than in Canada (one of the so-called superior systems), so for my family it's better with private insurance than a government-fubared mess
- More than anything, if people were truly interested in their health they'd stop looking like whales and smoking and drinking too much; their lifestyle would afford them a better quality and length of life than any extra doctors visits would, unless they have an unusual illness

So, I don't give a crap about fat unhealthy people who don't care about themselves, and with private insurance I can see a doctor and get diagnostic testing quicker than in a social system, so why would I support one? I wouldn't and don't.</end quote></div>

Have you ever had to wait for your HMO to approve a test? I had, and it was not "timely" at all. I had to cancel a Dr appointment because it took them almost 2 months to send a pre-certification letter, while some "doctor" who has never seen me was reviewing the request. And I have "good" insurance. I know you may trust some HMO bureaucrat to make decisions on which treatment or test is "necessary," and which isn't, but I'd rather let the doctor who has actually seen me make that decision, and the HMO doing what they are paid premiums for, picking up the tab.</end quote></div>

I have the opposite experience. My insurace has come through every single time and that includes expensive tests. I will agree that something needs to change in our current system but I would prefer that you leave my current system, which provides abovepar health care to my family alone.

I had good experience with United Healthcare, but after my company switched to Blue Cross Blue Shield, it's been sucking with the preapprovals and dragging out payments, and I think as companies move to reduce healthcare costs to stay competitive, it's only going to get worse.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Skoorb
Generally on this topic my comments are summed up as such:

- I have better and timlier access to medical care in the US than in Canada (one of the so-called superior systems), so for my family it's better with private insurance than a government-fubared mess
- More than anything, if people were truly interested in their health they'd stop looking like whales and smoking and drinking too much; their lifestyle would afford them a better quality and length of life than any extra doctors visits would, unless they have an unusual illness

So, I don't give a crap about fat unhealthy people who don't care about themselves, and with private insurance I can see a doctor and get diagnostic testing quicker than in a social system, so why would I support one? I wouldn't and don't.</end quote></div>

Have you ever had to wait for your HMO to approve a test? I had, and it was not "timely" at all. I had to cancel a Dr appointment because it took them almost 2 months to send a pre-certification letter, while some "doctor" who has never seen me was reviewing the request. And I have "good" insurance. I know you may trust some HMO bureaucrat to make decisions on which treatment or test is "necessary," and which isn't, but I'd rather let the doctor who has actually seen me make that decision, and the HMO doing what they are paid premiums for, picking up the tab.
2 months? Sweet, still probably three times as fast as if you got the same test in Canada.

 

dennilfloss

Past Lifer 1957-2014 In Memoriam
Oct 21, 1999
30,509
12
0
dennilfloss.blogspot.com
One difference that comes to mind is that the US is a country that emphasizes the individual whereas Canada emphasizes the community. Sounds to me from your comments in this thread that you fit well there Brooksie. More power to you but Canada is better for the rest of us. ;)