The Awful Truth About Sicko
Michael Moynihan’s link-rich review of Sicko in Reason is oh-so worth reading. Here’s a taste.
Take the case of four-year-old Elias Dillner. In 2004, Dillner’s parents were told by doctors that their son too would benefit from cochlear implants. After being fitted with the first implant, Dillner’s insurance provider said the second operation could not be “prioritized.” The family would have to wait. “We will do anything,” Elias’s mother told reporters, “even if it means that we have to take out a loan for the operation.” Without insurance, the second procedure would likely cost $40,000.
But Dillner’s truculent insurance provider was not Aetna or Kaiser, but the notoriously generous Swedish welfare state, where health care is “free.” And because there is no private clinic in Sweden that could perform the operation, Elias will sit in a queue, hoping, in lieu of privatization, for prioritization. Swedish legislator Robert Uitto said that the Dillner case was unfortunate, but “People shouldn’t, on principle, be allowed to purchase care in the public system.”
Sicko also introduces us to Diane, whose brain tumor operation was initially denied by Horizon BlueCross because it didn’t consider her condition “life threatening.” She eventually received treatment, but “not without battling the insurance companies,” Moore says.
Jack Szmyt found himself in a similar situation. After waiting two months for his initial diagnosis—he too had a brain tumor—Szmyt was told that it would be another month until doctors could start the necessary treatment. Rather than wait in a queue, he borrowed $30,000 from a friend, and flew to a private clinic in Germany. Had he not sought private treatment abroad, his German doctor said, he would likely have died. When contacted by the media, his insurer, again the Swedish government, said it didn’t consider the assigned waiting period “unreasonable.”
But wait, there’s more!
Viewers are taken to London’s Hammersmith Hospital, held up as a shining example of socialized care, where doctors are well-paid and patients well looked after. Moore ambles through the corridors interviewing patients that acclaim the NHS’s ‘free care,’ and express horror at the barbarism of the American system. Indeed, the facility’s “cashier” exists to give money to patients—for travel reimbursements—rather than taking it from them. But as is often the case with Moore’s films, the reality is more complex.
In 2005, London’s Evening Standard reported that Hammersmith Hospital would slash hundreds of jobs; the hospital, the most debt-ridden in Britain, was hemorrhaging money and desperately needed to cut costs. And while the hospital was “downsizing”, Hammersmith’s CEO—yes, even the NHS has an executive class—collected a year-end bonus of close to $20,000. Small beer by American standards, but enough to provoke tabloid headlines in Britain.
Much like the American hospitals Moore excoriates, Hammersmith Hospital, the Evening Standard reported, faced pressure from administrators to limit the number of patients treated in order to cut spending. In a country where the government promises to winnow down queues to 18 weeks, this isn’t an anomalous problem. A recent BBC documentary accused the NHS of using dangerously high doses of radiation on patients “to save time and money.”
After the critical reaction to his previous films, Moore opts for elision over outright falsehood. So when he marvels that a doctor working in the NHS owns an Audi and “million dollar home,” it is hardly in his interest to point out, as The Independent did in January, that “soaring salary levels of doctors are worsening the NHS cash crisis.” And while bitterly lamenting the U.S. system of “wage slavery"—American students, Moore says, are saddled with debt and, thus, “won’t cause [employers] any trouble"—he ignores a recent report from the British Medical Association suggesting that, by their fifth year of medical school, British students “have accumulated an average debt of” $39,000.
None of this will make the slightest difference to Moore’s fans, of course. They’re not called Moore-ons for nothing.
Comments
At my previous job, I never had to fight with an HMO. Ever. Granted, I wasn’t in need of much healthcare, but after rupturing the bursa sack in my left knee I had to go through an MRI, an ultrasound and had numerous anti-inflammatory drugs and a round of antibiotics (the blood pooled in my calf as the ruptured bursa sac was preventing it from returning to the heart, resulting in a blood infection). All turned out well and my out of pocket cost was next to nothing. If I’d have gone to the participating optician it would have been more than twice that, but still a lot less than some people that I know.
I also had numerous co-workers who got gastric bypasses and they had absolutely no problems with the insurance. When I had my eyes examined I got two pairs of glasses from a non-participating doctor (actually went to Wal-Mart, their optician is one of the premier graduates from a laudy optometry program in the state of Michigan). My insurer reimbursed me just as they would have if I’d gone to one of their participating doctors. I had a full eye exam and got a pair of perscription glasses and a pair of perscription sunglasses for just over $200 when it was all said and done.
I don’t think having to fight with a HMO is all that common. I know I never have either. But there have been 2 occasions when my insurance was denied on some dental work. The dentist just refiled the claim with an explanation and it got accepted both times . . . no big problem.
Shticko is a good name for it. Moore’s superficial look at healthcare systems is hardly on par with a 7th grade book report that earned a D- grade, but we sorta knew what was coming, didn’t we.
I havent seen the movie yet, but I sorta knew this was coming. Buzz, which part of the movie was the most absurd to you?
At my previous job, I never had to fight with an HMO. Ever.
I don’t think having to fight with a HMO is all that common. I know I never have either.
Case closed! HMOs are good people!
Case closed! HMOs are good people!
You make fun, but that’s EXACTLY the logic Moore employs in the entire film. If one person has a bad experience, the entire system needs to be destroyed and something socialist must take it’s place.
You make fun, but that’s EXACTLY the logic Moore employs in the entire film. If one person has a bad experience, the entire system needs to be destroyed and something socialist must take it’s place.
could you replace that one personby numerous. (not meaning to attack you in any way) but it appears to me that you have the feeling of “I’m fine, and if any one else is in need, tough luck...”. Every system has its flaws, so just admit that not everyone has the right for a fair treatment in america. Only the more fortunate are being helped and others get left behind. But I’m digressing, what would be the disadvantages of a social healthcare system that would threatn you as an upper-class (as like being able to pay medical bills) american?
From the review:
But when Noe alerted Moore to Cigna’s intransigence, the company quickly reversed its decision, fearing bad publicity.
Well, sorta. Noe found out Moore was making a health care movie, and used Moore’s name as leverage to get the rejection overturned. Hardly a score for Citizen Moore. Odd that Moynihan misunderstood such an obvious message in the movie.
Take the case of four-year-old Elias Dillner.
...
Dillner’s insurance provider said the second operation could not be “prioritized.”
Take this other case, one that has nothing to do with the United States OR Sicko. See, they’re getting screwed, too! ‘Mer’ca isn’t the only country where people get screwed, it happens all over. Is that the general message of this part or the review?
Jack Szmyt found himself in a similar situation.
...
his insurer, again the Swedish government
...
Come on buddy, come on buddy… Who’s talking about Sweden? Just you, Moynihan. Just you.
Maybe I missed something, maybe these 2 people (Elias and Jack) are actually US citizens. Maybe they live here, but are insured by a Swedish company (or the “Swedish government” as the reviewer contends). Well… isn’t that the point of Sicko? We shouldn’t let companies/governments screw us out of the health care that we need, merely on the basis of cost?
No, Moore showed a mere handful of people and declared that the entire system must be dismantled, and a single-payer system be built in its place. You’ll need to prove, more than just saying it, that this is the absolute truth for a huge number of people before we can even begin to discuss Moore’s plans for the health care industry. It’s my contention that we can reform what we have and avoid a massive new government agency, prevent government control over yet another aspect of our lives and avoid wasting what will end up being trillions and trillions of taxpayer dollars over our lifetimes.could you replace that one personby numerous.
You just made that up in YOUR own head. I never said anything like that and I don’t believe anything like that. Clearly you;re new and you haven’t bothered to take the time to read my past posts. You literally just made that up, and in just a second I’ll show you exactly why you made it up.(not meaning to attack you in any way) but it appears to me that you have the feeling of “I’m fine, and if any one else is in need, tough luck...”.
Not only do you not bother to read my words, you don’t bother to get the point of what Moore was saying in his film. It’s not just the people without coverage that suffer, according to him. If you are rich enough to say, own two or three nice cars and a big-ass house, you can still fall prey to the insurance industry when they deny care over some tiny flaw in your application (or they declare what you have a pre-existing condition). Moore made that point VERY clearly. How did you miss it? Didn’t you pay ANY attention to the movie?Every system has its flaws, so just admit that not everyone has the right for a fair treatment in america. Only the more fortunate are being helped and others get left behind.
And this is why you made that crap up earlier. You have some ridiculous idea that I’m rich. Where the HELL did you get the idea that I am upper-class? Are you daft? Do you just like to invent definitions for things that already exist? I know you like to make things up about me, but do you think you can just throw labels on things and that makes it real? For the record, I am barely middle class. If I was upper class I would have told the anonymous guardian angel to donate the money to charity as I would not have has a need for it. Think before you type. Take some time to read through older posts on the site. Learn what and who you are talking to before you go telling people who they are and what they think. If you’d like to know a little more about me before you get it all wrong again, start here.But I’m digressing, what would be the disadvantages of a social healthcare system that would threatn you as an upper-class (as like being able to pay medical bills) american?
Come on buddy, come on buddy… Who’s talking about Sweden? Just you, Moynihan. Just you.
That’s TOTALLY unfair. Socialized medicine (the single-payer system Moore says we need) is very similar regardless of where it’s implemented. Stories of why it DOESN’T work are JUST as fair to discuss as Moore’s examples of how it does work.
If you accept for one second that discussing Canada, France or the UK’s systems is valid, then you have absolutely no business chastising someone for bringing in other socialized systems
That’s TOTALLY unfair. Socialized medicine (the single-payer system Moore says we need) is very similar regardless of where it’s implemented. Stories of why it DOESN’T work are JUST as fair to discuss as Moore’s examples of how it does work.
If you accept for one second that discussing Canada, France or the UK’s systems is valid, then you have absolutely no business chastising someone for bringing in other socialized systems
You’re absolutely right. I however think your point would be missed on Michael C. Moynihan. I think it might be prudent to take a message of “universal health care can work” from the movie, not “universal health care always works, in all iterations”.
I think the system we have now sucks. Flat sucks ( :) ). (Please don’t dwell on this quote, it’s meant to be funny.)
I think the system we have now has been ruined. If we do change it to socialized medicine, I hope we don’t fuck it up.
I havent seen the movie yet, but I sorta knew this was coming. Buzz, which part of the movie was the most absurd to you?
Oh, I don’t know, Up4, maybe the part with the hammer and sickle or the stature of Karl Marx . . . or maybe the part about the obscene profits of HMOs . . . or maybe the whole fundamental premise that the solution to all our problems is a government run health care system. Sicko is simply a superficial glance at a very complex problem. There’s no depth to Moore . . . everything is 1-2-3 and done . . . problem solved. It’s idealism’s finest hour.
You might also note his portrayal of the NHS in the UK, the French health system, and Cuban healthcare left a whole lot to be desired if you’re looking for the real truth of socialized medicine.
Case closed! HMOs are good people!
I wonder why Moore didn’t mention the grievance and complaint processes with HMOs. I wonder how many people know the difference between a grievance and a complaint is when it comes to HMO claim denials? I wonder why Moore didn’t present some actual stats regarding how big a problem claim denials really are in the U.S.? Well, actually I don’t really wonder that much . . . I’m pretty sure I know why.
Let me make one comment here that should be considered in any discussion about socialized medicine. No health system can fund deficit spending forever, and that is exactly the problem Europe either has or will soon have depending on which country you’re talking about. In France’s case if they don’t quit making house calls and serving wine to hospital patients they could end up with a trillion dollar healthcare debt by 2025. Of course this won’t touch our soon-to-be Medicare debt, but hey . . . who’s counting.
But I’m digressing, what would be the disadvantages of a social healthcare system that would threatn you as an upper-class (as like being able to pay medical bills) american?
Just to comment on that… my family income is, for the California median, right now about 3/4ths the median. A couple years ago, we were at less than half the median. We have NEVER reached the median income for California. In the last 8 years, we’ve had insurance that is paid for out of my family’s income, not from an employer. With that coverage, I had corrective surgery, my brother’s had braces, my father has had surgery twice, and my mother has had a couple bouts of removing skin cancer. its not a fun cost to try to afford, because we still pay a fair bit, but its been managable still. And that does leave out the regular doctor’s visits and the like. Health care is not this out of reach thing for the masses, but its something one DOES have to prioritize.
@ JimK: do you always treat newcomers like this. I mean sure I haven’t read all of your posts, that would keep me busy for a day or 2, working up to about 13h a day to my regret I can’t really go through all your stuff. I was just trying to open up a conversation about a system, and what do you do? you get on your hind legs and defend yourself like I’m attacking you. I’m just trying to have a good time on this forum, rather then being yelled at from a complete stranger. So if I have hurt you in any way, please don’t take it personal, it’s just my interpretation.
@buzz and Lowbacca, thank you for responding to my question propperly.
@ buzz: as I live in europe as well, we know that we’re going to have a hard time funding our social medicine, other pensions etc, and it might fail, but that would still be the only way that everyone ((I’m sorry about my interpretation earlier)even with pre-existing conditions) gets the help they need. everyone pays taxes (more than half of the cost of an employee goes to taxes). the main thing that threatns this system is that we have increasing numbers of elderly people.
and about the wine in hospitals in france: mind you that a glass of wine in france costs less then your average soda over there :-) so I mean…
@Lowbacca: indeed it is something one should prioritize, but then… why should anyone not prioritize this? when you would socialize healthcare the point of personal benefit for the insurance company would fall off. And now I’m gonna be naughty and ask the question if a child, let’s say 10 years old, should be the victim of its parents not prioritizing healthcare...(it just gives us something to think about no?)
please don’t take it personal, it’s just my interpretation.
You’re talking about me, making judgments about me, inventing things about my life, telling me what I think, but I shouldn’t take it personally?
Maybe you need to read what you wrote again and see if maybe you were a little aggressive and personal for a newcomer. Also, completely ignorant of what has come in the 5+ years before you got here.
Virtually anything you might need to know to avoid a misunderstanding is contained in the thousands of posts on this site. Don’t blame me if you choose to ignore the information at your disposal and charge forward, making judgments about my income, my motivations and anything else you can get wrong.
Being new is not an excuse for being ignorant, My name is linked to a profile. Everyone’s is. Mine happens to be filled out. You could start there instead of telling me what I think and how much money I have. If you have time to register just to tell me that I think “I’m fine, and if any one else is in need, tough luck...” then you have time to read a couple of posts.
If you think fighting an HMO is tough now, wait until your HMO is the federal government.......
Hi,
I am posting in respect of the comments of student debt in the UK, I dont know the system in the US but students in the UK get very low interest rates and only pay them back when they start work and earn around $30,000 per annum and this amount is only around $20 per week.
Our NHS service is overloaded at the moment due to the influx of immigrants but I can not believe a country claiming to be so great as the USA would taxi people away from hospitals because they couldnt afford to be treated.
My mother in law is extremely ill with cancer and is in the terminal phase, she has had at least a couple of million dollars worth of treatment in the last 4 and half years, she is at the moment following her wish of dying at home, 2 nurses arrive 3 times a day to help with her care, a nurse arrives also at 10pm every night to sit with her until 7am. The cost of this nothing, no expensive medical plans, this is what we expect and appreciate.
The only thing previous to SICKO that I liked about Michael Moore was his fondeness of the soccer team I support (West Brom) , I have disliked all of his other films but SICKO hit home to how lucky us Brits are with the NHS.
Cheers for reading.
student loans in America tend to be at a fairly low interest rate I believe as well.
Yes student loans are about 5-6% at the current time. There are different loans depending on your financial status. Pell grants are given to low income people and do not have to be paid back.
Myself, I qualify for what are called Stafford loans. I do not have to pay them back until I am out of school. Once I am out of school, I have a 6 month grace period before paying them back.
Just to reiterate, in the UK you do not pay any of your loan back until you earn over a certain amount even if it is 20 years down the line.
Just to reiterate, in the UK you do not pay any of your loan back until you earn over a certain amount even if it is 20 years down the line.
Got that the first time you wrote it. All I did was explain how student loans are in US is all. As I said the Stafford loan is 5-6% and you start payment 6 months after you are out of school. The loan is paid over a ten year period.
The reason to start paying after 6 months is because the person should be able to find a job by that time and start paying it back. The also can deferr the loan for an additional 6 months, I beleive if they need extra time.
Pell grants, which are granted to low-income families, do not need to be paid back at all. Of course there are all kind of scholarships that can be used as well.
To continue, I do understand what you are saying about not having to pay the debt until you start making $30,000 or more, but the fact is they still have that debt.
They have to pay it off some time. And what happens if a person would never make over $30,000 grand in their life time? Does the government write it off as a loss?
If the person does make over $30,000 a year and then get a pay decrease and now makes under the amount, does that person continue making payements or are the payments deferred until the person starts making above $30,000 again?
By paying only $20 dollars a week, that seems the person is going to pay alot more in interest for $39,000 then say in the US where you pay for 10 years and it is paid off.
For a $39000 loan at 6%, the interest of the loan would be about $13,000 for a total of $52000, or a monthly payment of around $433 a month, or about $100 dollars a week for 10 years.
Keep in mind, that the loan can be consolidated up to 25 years. If a person chooses 25 years, then the interst is going to be about $36500 for a total of $75000, or about $250 a month, or about $58 dollars a week.
As you can see, the longer you take to pay the loan off, the more in interest your are going to pay. Some people need to do this to afford the monthly payment, but they are paying more in the long run.
Paying $20 dollars a week, as you do in England, on the same loan would be $1040 a year, or over 35 years to pay off. And that is without the interest. Include interest and you are paying even longer and paying more in interest.
Sorry, the 39 years should read 35 years. (Sorry for this post. I corrected my original post, as I forgot to that the edit comment button was added. This post can be deleted. Sorry again.)
Your right about the fact that it could take 35 years, unlikely but possible. The student loans do not have to be paid back if you dont reach that pay level and there is no burden for the debt , the current interest rate is a 2.4%.
Around 400,000 students a year enroll in university paying upto £3000($6000)a year in tuition fees so leave with a $24000 dollar average debt but this includes living costs, scholarships are also included, up until recently all fees were free but the current government started tuition fees to open more places upto students, a good and bad thing.
Your right about the fact that it could take 35 years, unlikely but possible. The student loans do not have to be paid back if you dont reach that pay level and there is no burden for the debt , the current interest rate is a 2.4%.
So if they do not pay the loan back, because they do not meet the income level to start paying back, who pays for the loan? Does this come out of citizens taxes? I would have to think so because where else would the money come from?
I understand that a person would probably be able to make an income of $30000 with a college education very quickly. I could be wrong. But if they default, someone is paying for it. I just would not want to be taxed to pay for someone elses education and that person does not pay it back.
RSS (Subscribe)
Shticko is a good name for it. Moore’s superficial look at healthcare systems is hardly on par with a 7th grade book report that earned a D- grade, but we sorta knew what was coming, didn’t we.
On at least one point, Moore is legit . . . having to fight an HMO is hardly desirable. It can be done through various government agencies or via legal means. If you know how to play the game, you can be successful most of the time . . . and that’s the problem . . . it shouldn’t be that way.
As usual, Moore takes his viewers into his own little make-believe world where everything on the outside is flawed, and everything within is just dandy. This time, however, I honestly think Moore has gone way over the line. This stuff is just too easy to debunk.