Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
BlueCross Secret Memo Re: 'Sicko'
Friends,
An employee who works at Capital BlueCross has sent us a confidential memo written and circulated by its Vice President of Corporate Communications, Barclay Fitzpatrick. His job, it seems, was to go and watch "Sicko," observe the audience's reaction, and then suggest a plan of action for how to deal with the movie.
The memo, which I am releasing publicly in this email, is a fascinating look at how one health care company views "Sicko" -- and what it fears its larger impact will be on the public. The industry's only hope, the memo seems to indicate, is if the movie "flops."
Mr. Fitzpatrick writes: "In typical Moore fashion, Government and business leaders are behind a conspiracy to keep the little guy down and dominated while getting rich."
No. You don't say! That can't be!
BlueCross V.P. Fitzpatrick seems downright depressed about the movie he just saw. "You would have to be dead to be unaffected by Moore's movie," he writes. "Sicko" leaves audiences feeling "ashamed to be...a capitalist, and part of a 'me' society instead of a 'we' society."
He walks out of the theater only to witness an unusual sight: people -- strangers -- mingling and talking to each other. "'I didn't know they (the insurers) did that!' was a common exclamation followed by a discussion of the example," according to Fitzpatrick.
He then assesses the film's impact: "[T]he impact on small business decision makers, our members, the community, and our employees could be significant. Ignoring its impact might be a successful strategy only if it flops, but that has not been the history of Moore's films ... If popular, the movie will have a negative impact on our image in this community."
The BlueCross memo then suggests a strategy in dealing with "Sicko" and offers the BCBS "talking points" to be used in discounting the film.
My heartfelt thanks to the employee who sent this to me.
And now a word from me to Capital BlueCross:
How 'bout a debate? No more secret memos and hand wringing about the millions seeing "Sicko." Just me and your CEO openly debating the merits of a system that kills thousands of innocent Americans every year.
In the meantime, I hope you don't mind me sharing your thoughts and impressions in your well-written memo. And if the rest of your executive team hasn't seen "Sicko," it opens in an additional 100 cities tonight for a total of over 700 screens across North America. Attendance went up a whopping 56% on the 4th of July, higher than any other film in the theaters right now. But don't be scared, and certainly don't be ashamed to be a capitalist. Greed is good! Especially good for you. There's nothing like having the pre-existing condition of being rich, should you ever get sick and need help.
Yours,
Michael Moore mmflint@aol.com www.michaelmoore.com
P.S. Join me at noon EST, today, when I'll be chatting with U.S. Steelworkers, the California Nurses Association, and whoever stops by to talk about "Sicko" and the industry's attempt to stop this movement. Check my website for details.
[The following memo was written by Barclay Fitzpatrick, VP of Corporate Communications for Capital BlueCross]
I was able to see Sicko last night in Lancaster. There were about 30 other viewers in the theatre covering all age groups. I have attached the well-written memo from one of our partners, which describes cases used in the movie, to the end of my memo. Also attached are the latest talking points from BCBSA. I will focus on impact to our brands, issues, and suggested strategies in this memo.
The Movie You would have to be dead to be unaffected by Moore's movie, he is an effective storyteller. In Sicko Moore presents a collage of injustices by selecting stories, no matter how exceptional to the norm, that present the health insurance industry as a set of organizations and people dedicated to denying claims in the name of profit. Denial for treatments that are considered "experimental" is a common story, along with denial for previous conditions, and denial for application errors or omissions. Individual employees from Humana and other insurers are interviewed who claim to have actively pursued claim denial as an institutionalized goal in the name of profit.
While Humana and Kaiser Permanente are demonized, the BlueCross and BlueShield brands appear, separately and together, visually and verbally, with such frequency that there should be no doubt that whatever visceral reaction his movie stirs will spill over onto the Blues brands in every market. Here are some examples:
- Horizon BlueCross/BlueShield is picked out early in the film in a collage of stories citing bad treatment of members.
- BCBSA is cited for rejecting a woman for coverage due to a high BMI - "too fat" is written across the screen over a copy of her application denial letter, which describes the BMI rejection.
- BlueShield of California denied coverage for a diagnostic test, which the patient later received overseas. Patient sues BS of CA and medical director admits to not 'seeing' the actual denial letter, which was given an electronic signature.
- BlueCross of California denied payment for a major surgery after they discovered a previous yeast infection, then dropped the person for coverage. This is followed by an interview with a person who claims to have been a specialist at finding inaccuracies in applications to enable post-treatment payment denials.
- A BCBSA card is shown while the narrator describes how they (insurers) got wealthy.
In typical Moore fashion, Government and business leaders are behind a conspiracy to keep the little guy down and dominated while getting rich. Nixon Oval Office tapes are used to show how the initial idea of a 'less care = profit' enterprise was supported by the administration and became the HMO paradigm. Legislators are presented as bought stooges for the political agendas of insurers and big Pharma. Insurers are middlemen in the Medicare Modernization Act - which is presented as a trick to charge seniors more for their prescription drugs.
Doctors are barely touched - only in the course of discussing the AMA's work to sink early efforts in the 40's and 50's to start universal health care. He takes efforts to show that doctors live well in other countries despite the existence of universal health care. In follow-up interviews, Moore has stated that he has spoken to and knows many doctors, and "doctors aren't the problem".
In the second half of the movie, Moore walks us through individual stories of the Canadian, British, French, and Cuban health care systems where everything is free and - he reminds us repeatedly - no one is ever denied service because they can't pay. In addition to health care, the government provides free day care, college, and someone to do your laundry. Everybody gets along and takes care of each other and life is beautiful because there is universal health care. As a viewer, you are made to feel ashamed to be an American, a capitalist, and part of a 'me' society instead of a 'we' society - and the lack of universal health care is held up in support of that condemnation.
The Impact Moore's movies are intentionally intense and his objective in Sicko seems to be to revive the earlier Clinton efforts - not to achieve universal coverage with this movie, but to push the topic to the top of the agenda. He will be just as successful whether proponents mount momentum or discussion entails key stakeholders defending why it won't work.
As a health care industry educated viewer it is easy to pick out where Moore is cultivating misperceptions to further a political agenda, but you will also recognize that 80%+ of the audience will have their perceptions substantially affected. In demonstration of its impact, an informal discussion group ensued outside the theatre after the movie. While some people recognized how one-sided the presentation was, most were incredulous and "I didn't know they (the insurers) did that!" was a common exclamation followed by a discussion of the example.
The unfortunate reality for Capital BlueCross is that as the market leader, we will be affected both in brand and as employees as Moore's efforts in the movie and surrounding PR activity are seen by more of the community. The impact on industry savvy Sales' contacts should be minimal, while the impact on small business decision makers, our members, the community, and our employees could be significant. Ignoring its impact might be a successful strategy only if it flops, but that has not been the history of Moore's films nor the way this one appears to be headed. If popular, the movie will have a negative impact on our image in this community.
There should be no doubt that many of our employees will be asked what they think of the movie by friends, family, and neighbors. We should anticipate that our customer service people will be asked about particular cases from the movie and if we follow similar policies. Word and phrases we have routinely used to date in policy change communications or denial letters, such as "Investigational", will be seen as affirming the film's contentions. The national BCBSA response - while coming out against the film's divisiveness and focusing on the positive work of the Blues - steers media inquiries about policies and denials back to the plans themselves.
There are 4 key areas of misperception cultivated by the movie that we should consider in any messaging strategy:
- That the industry is all about HMO's. Moore cultivates this further in his interviews. The reality is that HMO's are a minority product and have been for some time.
- The movie attacks insurers for a profit motive, but makes no distinction among for-profit and non-profit insurers, and in its execution places the Blue Plans together with the for-profit insurers.
- All plans and employees - from leaders to service representatives - are painted as motivated by profit to deny claims, and only those with crisis of conscience have come forward to confess their sins.
- Perhaps most damaging of all, Moore completely fails to address the most significant driver of health care costs - our own lifestyle choices - and seeks to focus attention and efforts on the alluring 'quick-fix' of universal health care. It has taken a generation of poor nutrition and exercise to get obesity and related health issues - and subsequent costs - to their current levels, and Moore's movie fails to acknowledge the causal relationship or need to change (he briefly touches the subject in a non-memorable way). Contrast this to the recent Health Care Symposium held in Harrisburg - where a panel of representatives from Government, Insurance, Hospitals, Business, Physicians, and even Lawyers agreed on one thing - that there was no quick fix and that Health and Wellness was the critical area of focus.
Suggestions I believe the most successful strategy will not be in attacking the movie for its weaknesses or misperceptions, but in distancing ourselves and our brand from the groups and motivations he attacks, demonstrating the good that we do and achieve (aligns with BCBSA strategy), and in articulating our disappointment that he did not address the truly relevant issue of improving our health and wellness. We will convene a team to consider other approaches and work on potential messages for media inquiries, customer service, and employees.
Confidential Memo (from partner)
SiCKO - viewed on 6/26/2007
Takeaways
- The main theme of the movie is that American society needs to focus on the "we" and not the "me" in healthcare.
- This broad message is an overlay for the specific criticisms of the healthcare industry - the movie asks where the morality of the American public lies and contrasts America's approach to health care unfavorably with other nations.
- SiCKO does not go into any depth about how health insurers operate how the health insurance business works - instead it fixates on what it characterizes as the profit incentive to deny care to patients (e.g. examples of barriers to getting health insurance if you are not healthy; examples of people being denied expensive tests or procedures; examples of efforts to deny reimbursement after care has been received.)
- The film draws no distinction between not-for-profit and for-profit insurers - in fact the Blue Cross/Blue Shield brand is intermixed with the for - profit brands as background reference points. o One scene shows a Blue Cross / Blue Shield logo as Michael Moore's voice over begins, "While the healthcare companies get wealthy..."
- The health insurers that get the most airtime are -- Kaiser Permanente -- Humana -- CIGNA -- Blue Cross of California -- Aetna
- No Pharma companies are mentioned - but SiCKO suggests in multiple instances that prescription drugs are overpriced -- At a pharmacy in London, prescription drugs are £6.65, no matter how large the dose -- In Cuba, one bankrupt 9/11 worker's inhaler costs 5 cents, instead of $100
Further Notes
- Some of the examples of denial of care highlighted in the film:
-- A woman with Kaiser Permanente takes her 18-month daughter to the hospital in an ambulance, only to be told to go to an in-network hospital. By the time they reach the second hospital, her daughter has stopped breathing and dies 30 minutes later in ER.
-- A woman with Blue Shield of California has a tumor but is denied requests to get an MRI, or to see a specialist. While on vacation in Japan she is given an MRI, and eventually returns to the U.S. to demand treatment from her insurer.
- In the ensuing court case, a doctor admits to denying her request without having reviewed it.
-- Blue Cross of California approves one woman's $7,500 treatment, but the approval is later denied for her failure to report a previous medical incident - a yeast infection.
- "They're just looking for a way out," she says
- Other examples of how health insurers avoid paying for treatment:
-- One graph (from Humana) shows that doctors with the highest % of denials get a bonus.
-- Michael Moore interviews a former health insurance employee who specialized in denying care to patients retroactively - by finding inconsistencies in their medical records.
-- A 5-minute piece in the beginning of the movie .
- The film also focuses on the politicians and the funds they raise from Pharma and other player in the health care industry and alleges that the system has been heavily influenced by lobbyists and contributions.
Barclay Fitzpatrick Vice President Corporate Communications Capital BlueCross (w) 717-541-7752 (c) 717-329-3648 barclay.fitzpatrick@capbluecross.com
MichaelMooreTalkingPoints61807.doc
Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Talking Points in Response to Michael Moore's "Sicko" June 2007
1) The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) and the 39 Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies are committed to improving the U.S. healthcare system for our nearly 100 million members through continuous innovation that reflects the ever-changing healthcare landscape and the needs of the consumer.
2) The Blues recognize the need for improvement of both the coverage and delivery of healthcare. But the divisive tone set forth by Michael Moore and his movie "Sicko" is not helpful. Positive change to our healthcare system can be best achieved through shared responsibility, not recrimination. To ensure Americans have access to the best healthcare that is both timely, efficient, and of high quality, requires the collective contribution of all stakeholders -- consumers, providers, employers and the government.
3) The Blues participation in the Health Coverage Coalition for the Uninsured is a primary example of how the broader healthcare community is working together to reduce the number of uninsured in the United States.
4) The Blues are working on myriad initiatives that ensure Americans have access to quality and affordable healthcare. Each day, Blue Plans across the country are bringing healthcare value to their members in a number of ways such as new advances in health information technology and greater access to cost and quality information. In addition:
-- The Blues recently created Blue Health Intelligence a data resource that will shine light on emerging medical trends and treatment options in an unprecedented way. To further the use of evidenced-based medicine, BCBSA has called upon Congress to establish an independent, payer-funded institute that will study the comparative effectiveness of new and existing medical treatments and procedures.
-- Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies are at the forefront of healthcare transparency by providing their members with online access to real-time information related to provider quality and the cost of common healthcare services. In addition, the Blues have committed to making personal health records available to their members by 2008.
-- We are working to ensure that Medicare is funded appropriately and that seniors continue to have access to comprehensive benefits.
5) The Blues are proud of these efforts and we will continue to work with consumers, providers, employers and the government to provide Americans with the healthcare services and information they need to lead full, healthy lives.



88 Comments so far
Show AllA friend told me last night over dinner that she has just recently been diagnosed with breast cancer. Fortunately, it's in its early stages, and that, combined with her relative youth and otherwise good health, gives her a great chance of a full recovery.
Rosy news, right?
Wrong.
She has one of those "health insurance for one" policies that, unfortunately for her, means that she must leave her home and move back in with her parents, because she cannot afford to live on her own AND pay for the medical expenses of her surgery and treatment, and this is, sadly, going to be a permanent arrangement, as she faces years of mounting medical bills that will force her to be supported by her parents instead of living on her own and supporting herself.
Meaning that her aging parents are going to have to take in an adult child and permanently support her as she faces a catastrophic and life changing illness. NO ONE should have to face these kinds of situations when faced with something like cancer. This outrages me when I think of what impact this illness will have not only on her, but her family as well.
Yes, she will fully recover eventually, and yes, she will be able to get back to life as she knew it once her treatment is over, but she will spend years in debt to medical bills as a result of this illness, forcing her to rely on her aging parents for support. You can buy extra "catastrophic illness" medical insurance - for a price, but why should you have to spend more money and buy another policy JUST IN CASE you do get a serious illness that will require more than just routine medical care?
It's all such a racket. Reading this post convinces me all the more that it is. At least someone had the cojones to leak this memo to Michael Moore. Thank goodness that they did so that we could know about it. And thank you and bless you, Michael Moore! "SiCKO" is a powerful indictment of the for-profit health care industry that I hope gets more people pushing for universal single payer health care.
These memos, predictably, fail to address the substance of Moore's criticism: that the profit motive is not compatible with effective health care. I saw the film and was moved by it. The alternating experience of shameful treatment by the US system with the positive treatment by the four other nations eventually accumulated into a state of shame for our horrendous system and admiration from those nations that have taken a more we-based, caring path towards one another. If these memos are any indication, change towards universal, effective coverage will not come from the insurance industry, profit or non-profit, but from a more progressive, more caring Congress.
HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!! I think I am going to throw up I laughed so hard at that memo from BCBS. The thing they seem to not understand is that people now get that "not for profit" definitely does not deny the CEOs their private jets (United Way) and McMansions. Is there anybody out there who has NOT had a personal horror story which could cause even that corporate suck-up VP to flush? Keep it up BCBS - you're only helping us get closer to universal health care.
Why are they involved in the process at all if it wasn't for the sole purpose of making a buck?
It is obvious they haven't got a leg to stand on and even resort to blaming the victim by suggesting that diet and lifestyle were the greatest contributors to peoples health problems ("...and seeks to focus attention and efforts on the alluring 'quick-fix' of universal health care. It has taken a generation of poor nutrition and exercise to get obesity and related health issues - and subsequent costs - to their current levels") Don't you know it is their fault they get sick!
"BCBSA has called upon Congress to establish an independent, payer-funded institute that will study the comparative effectiveness of new and existing medical treatments and procedures"
Another deep pockets scheme similar to the pharmeceuticals claiming they have to charge obscene prices for R&D, when it is really used for advertising. R&D is generally provided by the taxpayer.
And don't expect nothing from Congress as long as they get their pockets lined.
Look at his talking point #2:
"To ensure Americans have access to the best healthcare that is both timely, efficient, and of high quality, requires the collective contribution of all stakeholders — consumers, providers, employers and the government."
He got something right there: insurance companies are NOT one of the stakeholders who should be involved!!!
And as for the for- profit/not-for-profit issue, isabella is correct. The BCBS of Vermont is "not for profit" but the CEO was compensated $845,000 in 2005.
Please, all readers with a conscience (which I assume is everyone reading this), send this article (or link) to EVERYONE you know. Especially people you know (with warm blood coursing through their veins) who work in the medical insurance field, it will inspire others to step up.
Just after seeing the brilliant SICKO, I told my friend that I believed this film will encourage others to whistle blow like none before, because there are smart, caring, empathetic, good, courageous people working in almost any company, looking for a way they can make a difference. Thank you to the awesome person who leaked this memo. You have saved lives (ie by getting more people to want to see SICKO). You have made a real difference. Who else out there wants to save some lives? Who out there is courageous? Who out there feels mostly powerless against this insane corporate/political system. Who out there is a true patriot? Leak something today! Feel great about your life tomorrow! Who knows, you might get to be part of SICKO 2, (which I hope Michael M. will do). I predict a FLOOD of real juicy whistleblowers, as well as more heartbreaking public accounts of how criminal and immoral our healthcare system is. Sure, we all know by now Michael Moore is one of the most courageous filmmakers out there, but he can't do it alone. Let's mobilize!
A challenge to other documentary filmmakers: Get crackin'! Maybe Michael or someone could organize a film festival called "SickoDance" or "The Sicko Film Festival". And the winner of the competition would get the much coveted "Sicko Award" (some kind of trophy). I leave it up to everyone to come up with a fitting statue design.
Exactly. Not for profits still have a "bottom line," still capitalize on denying care, still have administrative overheads of 18-20%, still have fatcat CEOs--and, in sum, are still morally indefensible.
It's truly Hobbesian for them--everyone for himself and God for all. I have a friend who thinks this way. He believes in "personal responsibility" and "Why should I have to pay for someone else when they didn't take care of themselves?"
And he was a Catholic seminarian!
That is not Christian, but it fits with the American mythology of pulling oneself up by one's boot straps, the Horation Alger myth, etc.
Notice any attempt to appeal to human beings' innate solidarity is promptly attacked and squashed in the US. They definitely do not want people to incline toward solidarity with their fellow man--that is anathema.
And that was the point of the movie. Moore interviews American expats living in Paris, and at one critical point, a woman says "In France, the government is afraid of the people. In the US, the people are afraid of the government, of acting up." And then he pans to footage of waves of strikes and protest marches throughout France.
And this, my friends, is absolutely true. I lived in France, and practically every day I was there for that year, there was a strike going on somewher, a walkout, etc.
When the people in France are not satisfied with their government, THEY SHUT THE PLACE DOWN.
In America, it's well nigh impossible to get even two people on the same page on anything. And the powers-that-be count on that!
As Tony Benn, former Old Labor MP said in the movie, there are two ways of controlling people: by keeping them in fear, and by demoralizing them--extinguishing their hope. Hopeless people don't vote, don't act up, take orders and hope for the best.
After watching the movie, this is what I came away with. Wouldn't it be great if what we did for a living actually allowed other people to be helped rather than being hurt or ignored?
How many people have jobes where they are causing misery to other people by denying medical aid, or building weapons, growing tobacco etc?
The economy is driven by one thing - money. A little money for the employee to make their conscience feel better, and a lot of money for the CEO and the shareholders.
We were told there wasn't enough money to pay for national health care, yet they found money for an illegal war. Go figure.
PS - I've been denied by Blue Cross twice for a pre-existing condition. I currently have no health coverage.
Probably the most telling point (wonder why Mr Moore omitted this?). In the US, in excess of 15% of GDP is spent on health care, while in the countries where there is socialized health care, this is around 10% (Canada, Germany, UK).
In the main, people in the US work longer than people in most other countries. Further, given our consumerist culture, people want more (and in the case of low end jobs, have no choice but to work more), and there-for have to work more, people working three and four jobs are not all that uncommon. Not enough time to relax, eat properly, socialize, etc (we lag very far behind other nations in this) is the result. To blame this on the people, as in life-style choice) is the height of arrogance.
Mr Moore focused, all too briefly, on the compensation packages of management in the health care industry as well as the 'K-street' monies paid to politicians. This is where our insurance money is really going to, and not to the people who need assistance.
Mr. Moore, could you please take on Big Pharma SOON!!!! Strike while the iron is hot!!!!
Thank you for a very informative movie.
Don't think you are safe even if you have GREAT insurance. The incompetence present in the hospital system could very well kill you even with insurance. My Mother had a stroke and was in the hospital for five months. The bill was over half a million dollars which was paid in full between her medicare and tricare for life. The care was abysmal and they almost killed her with the wounds they gave her. Her second trip for one month cost half a million as well and they managed to finish the job and kill her the second go round with their incompetence. Our health care system SUCKS and yes, some doctors are part of the problem as well as the nurses that are only there to meet and marry a doctor and don't really give a damn about their patients. I lived it and i KNOW...
As a child care provider I do not make near enough to pay insurance premiums AND preventative care which the insurance companies won't cover. It is ridicuous to say that they are involved with keeping people healthy. Every few years I try again to find just a disaster coverage policy, but it is not available if I admit I am seeing a chiropractor. The prices they charge to cover even the unlikely disaster are not realistically possible with two children college age, so we live with that threat hanging over our heads as we eat right, excersise, research and take supplements, work towards a community that values our contribution to the well being of all. Their system is a criminal failure, I hope that it dies soon. We deserve the benefits of single payer, Universal Health Care.
The talking point of for-profit vs nonprofit is really bogus as it pertains to the Blues. BSBSA changed their own rules in 1994 to allow their companies to convert to for-profit entities. According to Consumers Union,
"The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) changed their rules in 1994 allowing BCBS plans to become for-profit corporations. Today there are 64 Plans Licensed by BCBSA: 38 nonprofit; 16 mutual; and 14 for-profit. As conversions go forward, consumer and community advocates are working hard to see that the health of community and the non-profit charitable assets are well protected."
We here in New Mexico went through such a conversion in 2001. My family's BC/BS premiums have increased 144% since then, with no additional coverage, no less deductible, and BC/BS never once paying out on a claim.
Don't be taken in by the nonprofit guise of the Blues or anyone else. Non-profit insurers and providers are converting throughout the country in order to increase profits - whether shown on the books as bottom line profit or exorbitant salaries and perquisites for nonprofit executives.
The only way to effectively change the health care system is to frame it as a personal health care issue, not as an insurance issue. Universal Health Care is about people receiving care and their providers receiving realistic compensation, not a gaggle of middlemen raking the cream off the top of the pie before any of us get even a taste of a crumb of the crusty bottom.
I agree with ragnarok that Kucinich is the only one on the national scene who is pushing for real health care reform. The rest of the candidates, including our insurance coddling Governor Richardson, talks only about rearranging the pieces on the board, not really changing the rules so that we, as individuals and a country, can all win.
In 1989 I got sick without health insurance. Got over it, but got tagged with a "preexisting condition".
In 2004 I went looking for health insurance. Denied.
In 2005 I got prostate cancer. Got it early, but it cost me fifty-thousand bucks, which I am still paying for.
In 2006 I got kidney cancer. Got it early as well, but I stacked up my credit cards & still haven't paid off the debt.
I make over $60K a year. I also live in a wrecked RV pulled by an old pickup truck. Money? Ain't got any. Property? Fugiddaboudit.
And I was not able to afford the followup tests after the last cancer, so I may not even be well yet.
Does AmeriKKKan health care suck? well YEAH...
The movie is great, the message is clear; we all want and need the single payer universal health care system that all other industrialised countries already have.
But we do not have the power to make it happen, and it will not happen anytime soon because our politicians want or need the money of these parasitic companies.
Guess what, that memo is not the only one floating around.
I know people that work in the insurance industry and they received E-mails asking them to call their representatives and voice their support for the way things are now.
The E-mail explicitly mentions Michael Moore's movie as their target, also note that this E-mail was sent many days before the movie was released.
We the people are expected and manipulated to do this against our own interests,to support the current administrative waste,obscene CEO's paychecks, and profits before life, health and decency.
Enough is enough !
http://kucinich.us/issues/universalhealth.php
CALL CONGRESS Free 1-866-338-1015 Do it NOW!
SEE THE CBS 60 MINUTES DOCUMENTARY EXPOSING THE DRUG COMPANIES and THEIR INFLUENCE IN CONGRESS.
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=2635796n
I generally endorse Moore's approach (haven't seen the movie yet.)
But here's one point the insurance executive makes that has a grain of truth.
"Perhaps most damaging of all, Moore completely fails to address the most significant driver of health care costs - our own lifestyle choices - and seeks to focus attention and efforts on the alluring 'quick-fix' of universal health care. It has taken a generation of poor nutrition and exercise to get obesity and related health issues - and subsequent costs - to their current levels, and Moore's movie fails to acknowledge the causal relationship or need to change (he briefly touches the subject in a non-memorable way)."
Well, that's right. We have health issues related to the USDA and farm policy, and issues related to the design of suburbia, and issues related to energy policy, cars, and the lack of walkable/bikable environments that are deeply implicated in poor health.
NONE of that is an excuse for not having universal health care coverage. In fact, health insurance companies are wrapped up in those problems too. What have THEY done to create walkable urban environments and discourage the car-centric designs, or reduce the influence of Archer Daniels Midland et al on the quality of our food and our corn syrup laden diets? Absolutely nothing.
In fact while they want to control their loss ratios, they also benefit from the need for expensive services globally, because insurance premiums have to be large enough to cover the cost of care, and the more money cycles through their industry the better they do on their REAL business, which is managing the "float"... investing the money between when it comes in and when they have to pay it out.
So the insurance companies have no real interest in the health of the American public as a whole either. They want THEIR own enrollees to be healthy and low cost, and play all sorts of tricks to select healthy enrollees, but they want the potential health care related cost risk to continue to be large enough to justify large premiums and to devote a significant part of the national economy to their industry.
No. The insurance companies are blood sucking bureaucratic vampires, taking anywhere from 5% (at say Kaiser) to 40% (look it up) of each premium dollar for themselves, paying out 95% (Kaiser and a few other relatively admirable plans) to as low as 60% (the worst ones) for medical services.
Compare that to U.S. Government run health care, aka Medicare, which pays out about 97% of each dollar for actual medical services, and requires only 3% for bureaucratic overhead. Why so small? Because its run by the government which isn't allowed to be a parasite on the public.
We already have universal government health care in America as long as you are over 65. It's good enough for your parents. It's good enough for you when you hit 65. It would be damn good for the rest of us right now.
Universal Medicare.
Medicare for All Americans.
The time is now.
Calling them "the Blues" is like pissing on the cross.
I just got back from seeing Sicko. I live in Jacksonville FL and that is a city with a 1 million plus metropolitan area. Sicko was playing in only one theater across the county line.
The movie opened a week after a national debut. The audinece was enthusiastic enough to applaud and cheer during certain parts of the movie and laugh and hoot with derision at certain other parts (Bush, Cheney, and other American political leaders statements and especially Billy "I got mine so to hell with you" Tauzin and the rest of the congressional and adminstration leaderhip (including Hillary who is shown for the sell-out that she is)as their payoffs from the healthcare industry were listed.
At the end of the movie several ladies at teh back of the theater were handing out flyers with contact infolrmation for those who wanted more information on how to change tings and they were doing a brisk business.
But in Jacksonville FL it looks like BCBS, Aetna, Humana, etc. are alive and well and trying to do damage control by smothering the movie's distribution in favor of more escapist crap.
The health insurance, HMO, and Pharma had better be very afraid because Michael Moore has finally lfted the rock under which these human cockroaches live and it is a disgusting sight.
I wonder if we could start a doctor co-op for the doctors that really want to treat people with dignity, compassion and for a fair wage?
Regretfully, the current health care system we have in this country is more of a symptom then of a cause.
It is just one symptom of a much larger problem with the American body politic and our society.
"Let's get national health care!!!" sounds really great and I sure hope that Mike's film moves us in that direction. But deeper more fundamental problems have to be confronted before any real reform happens:
the prostitute relationship between the corporations and the politicians
the corporate controlled media
the general attitude of social darwinism that exists in American society.
I once thought that a non-profit organization meant that the organization had an all volunteer workforce, that received no pay. I have known for some time that others do not share my definition, but I think I'll still keep my definition deep in my heart.
I am very glad that Michael Moore made the film SiCKO and I hope it will usher in a single-payer, Medicare for all. I will e-mail Barclay to let him know that many of us already knew about problems in the U.S. healthcare system and were already in favor of a single-payer system.
Health Care Insurance creates upside-down inside-out and backwards profit incentives.
Insurance companies profit most by selling its product those who need it the least.
Insurance companies profits least or loses when it sells to those who need its product the most.
"SICO" had a great way of pointing out some of the following problems caused by the PERVERSE INCENTIVES of our medical system.
1) Doctors turn people away who have inadequate or no coverage. . . .
2) Patients forgo treatment until their conditions become urgent. . . .
3) Adults working full-time jobs are advised to go part-time to qualify for Medi-Cal benefits. . . .
4) Others are encouraged to spend down everything they've saved to get public assistance.. . .
5) Hospitals are forced to inflate rates because insurance companies cut reimbursements. . . .
6) We build hospitals without emergency rooms to serve only the insured. . . .
7) Health insurance companies try to sell to the healthiest people and then limit their sales in the area needed the most, pre-existing conditions. . . .
9) We pay for care in the least efficient way possible -- after people get sick and need emergency or hospital care. . . .
With the U.S. medical system the most profit goes to the insurance company that sells the most insurance to the healthiest and avoids covering the neediest.. This leads to a system where everyone has the incentive to do the wrong thing.
So, there is Medigap, Medicare, Medicaid, Medi-Cal, and a medic with medevac, when all that is needed is a Single Payer system.
Arlen
SICKO is a different sort of movie; I laughed and was red hot angry when I saw the other two movies F 9/11 and his very first at the theaters. I have 'em all on DVD, too.
But this film, left me with a feeling that is hard to describe. Rather than hot anger, I felt a searing cold anger because although I have health coverage, I don't get good care and that is what a lot of people experience. But that is not the only thing that made my anger turn cold, it is that for the first time the people of this good country are having to look outside our borders for examples of how to improve the quality of our lives.
Universal health care is a right we must push for.
The film isn't showing in Europe yet. I am happy that Michael Moore is dealing with the subject - although his take on European health care is, according to pre-reviews, a bit too rosy. There are moves to dismantle universal healthcare, since America, often reviled, is at least as often imitated. And it's not necessarily always that universal either in every European country, there are people who are not insured, depending on each country's system. But a job that doesn't automatically include health (and pension) insurance for you and your family is per definition an illegal job in western Europe.
Still, at least I've never met anyone here in Europe who is suffering from pain and is waiting to turn 65 in order to finally get treated for free, like I've encountered in the United States.
The one major difference for patients is that in most western European countries, a homeless and a millionaire would, say, get the same costly state-of-the-art cancer treatment. Everything else would create a front-page scandal most places. The millionaire would be likely to get it in posher surroundings, though, since s/he would have taken out extra private insurance to pay for that.
Almanac & Sally UUKent: I am truly sorry that you or a close friend are facing cancer. One thing no one mentioned is the VERY likely connection between exposure to chemical contaminants, the detritus of big industry, and cancer. There is no basis in nature for the levels of chemical processing our bodies are being forced to do. Michael Lerner of Tikkun had his body tested in a procedure known as "body burden" that revealed over 100 industrial chemicals/solvents in his tissue. Every time a writer begins to mention the probable link between pesticide/herbicide exposure (it's ON so much of our produce, and some is now, thank you Monsanto, being GENETICALLY MELDED to food items like soy, in a process said to reduce the need to spray herbicide. Great. Let's just all eat it! sounds like a wise plan. Not.) they go real gently and it's almost like by stating the obvious, they've violated some sacred mantra.
If memory serves me well, then I believe MONSANTO was behind the development of Agent Orange (and/or Dow), and leads in the "war on drugs" spraying crap now in Columbia sure to cause cancers in the next generation of children eating infected foliage/plant products. Here's the really scary part, companies that profit from CHEMICAL warfare devices are on the cutting edge of genetic FOOD technologies. THIS use of chemicals is what's slowly killing a great many, it's like giving the American Indians tobacco. We all have long-term genetic structures and some groups are more susceptible to certain types of exposure than others. And don't think the military isn't hip to this, and doing some of its own sci-fi weapons research based on weapons that are designed to affect ONE racial or genetically similar group.
Diet, exercise, NOT smoking, moderate everything else is a MUST... but how much of the toxic exposures in our water, soil, air and food can we really contain or control these days? THAT is the rub.
A few excerpts from print media articles within the last 2 years:
The growing trend toward consumer-driven health plans has prompted the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association to enter the health care banking business. The Office of Thrift Supervision has approved a federal savings bank charter for Blue Healthcare Bank, owned by 33 Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies.
The California Department of Managed Health Care reported that it has fined Blue Cross of California $1 million for violations. Blue Cross of California was fined for "routinely" violating state law by canceling health insurance policies when policy holders got sick or pregnant.
Piedmont amended its lawsuit in the Fulton County Superior Court against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia, alleging the insurer violated the court's injunction to stop false advertising and unfair and deceptive trade practices. Piedmont also complained Blue Cross is refusing to provide continuity of care coverage as required by the contract and Georgia law.
In the largest penalty ever assessed against a health insurance company in New York, Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield was fined $1.1 million for violations of state insurance law. Empire rejected claims for certain treatments while paying others, charged unapproved rates to customers, failed to maintain accurate claims files and did not cooperate with the state's investigation.
Federal regulators have launched a formal investigation into the stock options practices at UnitedHealth Group Inc.
UnitedHealth Group, the parent of UnitedHealthcare of Ohio, said in a regulatory filing Tuesday that the Securities and Exchange Commission had issued a formal order of investigation. UnitedHealth said earlier this month it may need to adjust its historical earnings by as much as $660 million to fix accounting for the stock options in question.
The Insurance Division of the Oregon Department of Consumer & Business Services has issued a $20,000 civil penalty against PacifiCare because of improper claims denials. A routine market conduct examination and subsequent investigation by the State agency uncovered a consistent pattern of denying payment of emergency room claims without a proper investigation.
UnitedHealth Group, the nation's second largest health insurer, and its subsidiary Pacificare of California were named in a lawsuit yesterday for canceling the health insurance policy and refusing to pay medical bills after a cancer patient sought treatment. (D'ANNA vs PACIFICARE OF CALIFORNIA #GIN057028) The lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of San Diego by attorneys Robert K. Scott and Scott Mahoney of the Irvine-based Law Offices of Robert K. Scott. The lawsuit adds UnitedHealth Group and Pacificare of California to the growing list of California insurers who have been accused of revoking health care polices after patients get sick. I was repulsed when I learned that the CEO of UnitedHealth Group had 1.6 Billion in stock options while I am being harassed by collection agencies for the medical bills Pacificare refused to pay UnitedHealth Group Inc Thursday announced a 38% jump in its third-quarter earnings, aided by gains from last years PacifiCare acquisition. Recent revelations of a "conflict of interest" have been reported at the DMHC during hearings on the merger between UnitedHealth and Pacificare in California. "I was repulsed when I learned that the CEO of UnitedHealth Group had 1.6 Billion in stock options while I am being harassed by collection agencies for the medical bills Pacificare refused to pay", said Salvatore D'Anna, the Plaintiff in the lawsuit.
The Georgia Insurance and Safety Fire Commissioner continued to issue fines against Georgia HMOs for allegedly failing to pay claims on time in violation of Georgia law, imposing a $199,894 fine against Prudential Health Care Plan of Georgia, Inc.
WellPoint -- the nation's largest health insurer -- its subsidiary Blue Cross of California, and Blue Shield were named in 13 new lawsuits today for canceling health insurance policies and refusing to pay medical bills after patients sought treatment. The new lawsuits build on 10 similar lawsuits filed against Blue Cross and WellPoint three weeks ago by attorney William Shernoff of the Claremont-based firm of Shernoff Bidart & Darras. The lawsuits bring to light a grave threat to patients by companies trying to avoid paying legitimate claims, according to the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR).
WellPoint announced on Wednesday that its 2006 first-quarter profit increased by 20 percent in part because the company paid less in medical claims. WellPoint is getting fat by breaking its promises to patients. Overturning insurance coverage after patients get sick is a devastating abuse that must stop," said Jerry Flanagan of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. "These illegal retroactive cancellations make a mockery of health insurance."
mike2 writes: "But here's one point the insurance executive makes that has a grain of truth.
"Perhaps most damaging of all, Moore completely fails to address the most significant driver of health care costs - our own lifestyle choices - and seeks to focus attention and efforts on the alluring 'quick-fix' of universal health care. It has taken a generation of poor nutrition and exercise to get obesity and related health issues - and subsequent costs - to their current levels, and Moore's movie fails to acknowledge the causal relationship or need to change (he briefly touches the subject in a non-memorable way).""
I would point out that preventive healthcare is built into the British medicare system. Doctors get bonuses for getting patients to cooperate in lowering blood pressure, cholesterol, weight, smoking, etc. We aren't quite that advanced in Canada yet, but we're trying. Right now, we're scrambling to recover from the assault on our medicare system under the terms of the "Washington consensus." If NAFTA isn't pitched overboard, Canada will eventually join the US in adopting the very system Moore exposes in his film.
Complexityexists wonders:
I wonder if we could start a doctor co-op for the doctors that really want to treat people with dignity, compassion and for a fair wage?
#######################
Good thought wrong target. The problem is not with the Dr.s, nurses, and other health care professionals.
The problem is a system that administers health care (through insurance, HMO, hospitals and other ancillary services)as for profit businesses.
This means that the basic mission (flowery "Mission Statements" to the contrary notwithstanding) is to make a profit rather than to care for the sick and injured. If there is a choice to be made between the two profit is the prime directive that drives every business.
Further, the more people who are denied coverage, the bigger the profits that the "business" of health care administration makes at all levels.
Therefore, high profits and improving health care are antithetical to each other because the only way to increase profits is to either deny claims or coverage whenever possible or to reduce the quality and quantity of care.
Therefore a reasonable solution does away with the "for profit" motive of health care adminstration and has payments administered by a government agency with a program that covers all and is paid for by all (unlike the deal congress and their staffs and many state legistlatures and their staffs whose health insurance is paid by other state workers and considered a perk of employment).
No system is perfect, but with everyone pitching in to the fund through taxes it makes it possible to spread the risk over the widest possible pool of potential payers.
Hey, us Australians are just as fat and disgusting as you yanks and we manage with universal health care OK.
We gotta get rid of insurance companies if it's the last thing we ever do
Regardless what BCBS says, Your Insurance Coverage Sucks.
Congress doesn't care, we give them EXCELLENT coverage.
The Bush/Cheney Crime Group doesn't care.
Who owns all the buildings and property in this country? INSURANCE Companies.
Who takes your money and gives you nothing back? Insurance Companies.
DO NOT LISTEN TO INSURANCE COMPANIES....They are Vampires and you are the tasty morsel.
Thank God for Michael Moore, one (1) person who has the BALLS to show the truth.
zooeyhall, you're right on!
TBB, that was great research you presented. Devastating response to that internal memo.
Kristina, I am also a Registered Nurse, and I'm very sorry to hear about what happened to your mother and your loss. Joy is right. When I worked in the hospital, I lived her list. I loved and hated hospital work. I loved my patients and their families, I hated the hospital regulations which were not in place to serve patients' needs. I know when people are overworked and overstressed they can be surly, they take shortcuts that can jeopardize others, and most of all, they are at risk of making mistakes. All nurses know this, they aren't being lazy when they warn of patient safety when the patient to nurse ratio gets too large. We don't go into nursing to harm others (and I haven't yet met a doctor I'd want to marry - everyone has their public and private persona, and you see both in the hospital).
complexityexists, not everyone can afford to pay a doctor a fair wage, especially when you add in the radiologists, pathologists, hospital charges, lab tests, well, I guess you get the idea. Single payer health care spreads the cost all over the place, making it affordable for everyone, not just the well off. It also removes the profit motive which distorts how health care is delivered, and releases almost 50% of costs from overhead to care delivery (30% to insurers and another 20% in doctor and hospital fees are spent dealing with insurers). This present system is an insane way to deliver health care. Single payer would not involve itself in the doctor patient relationship as the insurance industry has done so disastrously.
I love how the person who wrote the memo describes the film as "divisive". God, if there ever was a film that is inclusive, it's "Sicko". Moore shows people from all walks of life, black, white, Arabic, Indian (in Europe too), middle-class, poor, men, and women. He shows how all people are being shafted by the American health care system, but at the same time, shows us how much better things can be. It's as tremendously hopeful as it is bitingly critical.
As evidenced by that memo, the health care industry is trying to cover its collective ass right now. They're running scared.
The funny thing about one of the talking points in the end of the e-mail is the VP saying they are developing ways to give consumers access to "cost and quality" information. Why should cost be an issue to a consumer who is getting health coverage? With universal health care, the patient gets the care they need and cost isn't an issue to them. It's like, "thanks for the info about your costs and quality, Blue Cross." Hmm, should I pay less and get shitty coverage or more and get better coverage?
come to El Salvador for Cuban trained medical professionals and more...
USA is screwed. nukes soon I assume
www.tropicooltours.com
Peace
come to El Salvador for Cuban trained medical professionals and more...
www.tropicooltours.com
Peace
Kristina40, I am very sorry for your loss and sorry that you had such a negative experience with your mom's hospital care. If you truly feel that malpractice was a contributing factor in her death, then you should seek legal assistance. If you feel that her care was substandard or the staff unprofessional, then that should be reported to hospital administration as well. But please don't propagate more stereotypes about nurses.
As someone who has been a nurse for over 25 years, I can assure you no one is a more vocal advocate for patients and quality of care than nurses.Most of us (at least my generatiion) did not go into the profession for the monetary compensation, prestige or the great working hours........and definetly not to marry a physician! Most of us had a strong interest in life sciences, as well as an enjoyment of working with people and a desire ease the suffering of the sick and make an impact on patient care. When people are very ill and very afraid, they need a strong advocate to fight for them, that's us.
Nursing shortages are quickly becoming a crisis situation.
An ANA survey conducted of 7000 nurses determined that:
78 percent of nurses skipped meals and breaks to care for patients.
58 percent worked voluntary overtime.
58 percent were unable to attend in-service continuing education programs due to increased work.
51 percent experienced stress-related illness.
42 percent stayed late (off the clock) to finish charting and patient care.
34 percent experienced an increased use of sick time.
33 percent worked involuntary overtime.
Despite the sacrifies on the part of nurses to provide decent patient care, most go home after their shifts feeling totally inadequate and unfulfilled, knowing that there was so much left undone for their patients.
Hospitals have attempted to cut costs by getting by with as minimal a nursing staff as possible.To save money, hospitals not only let nurses go, but began replacing registered nurses with less-qualified, lower-paid licensed practical nurses and nursing aides.Until patient care and safety becomes a priority over the bottom line profit margin in the healthcare system, nothing will change.
BTW, nurses are Michael Moore's biggest supporters.
the biggest slap in the face, as Moore pointed out, is that the health insurance companies shelved out 100 million to congresspersons in 1994, and delve out millions more every year, especially every election year to these corrupt politicians. Also go look up how much they spent to mold the medicare bill in 2003. All on the public record.
The Hundreds of millions spent by health insurers to lobby congress. Now isn't it fucked up that they then go ahead and deny crucial coverage to thousands of people?
Such a shame though. With a single payer system, the CEO of Blue Cross will only be able to afford 5 yachts, not 6. Oh the horror.... the poor crooked wealthy, our aristocratic moral and social superiors who make all their money by moving money around...what hell they must be living through.
Hillary's make believe Health-care was a
fraud from the begining. She had Zoe Baird
the head honcho from Aetna creating her
system that would have kept the Insurance
fingers in the pie. Dump Hillary now ladies,
she is a fraud with her new millions as is
her not so Hubby Billary who has accumulated
all those millions from Corporate America.
Dump the Clintons along with the Bushies.
Free us from this new Royalty, maybe we need another Boston Tea Party.
Every resource or dollar that is committed to the treatment of a patient is a unit of wealth that doesn't go into the pockets of the corporations and their stockholders. There is a variant on this theme that tends to go unnoticed, however, and that is that the allotment of a resource for the treatment of additional patients is also a resource that isn't expended for the benefit of those who currently have excellent access to the health care system. I believe that this idea accounts for quite a lot of the opposition towards single-payer type proposals that come from the health care "haves." They don't want a bunch of newcomers clogging up "their" hospitals, "their" clinics, seeing "their" doctors and surgeons, using "their" medical equipment, and so on and so forth. This is what they're concerned about when they warn of long waits and "rationing," but it's not concern for the population at large but rather concern for their own conveniences and usages of health care resources.
Of course, we as a society could decide to use some of the great wealth out there to significantly expand the amount of resources to cut down or eliminate the extra crowding, but that of course would be foolish when you consider that there are wars to be fought, extravagant weapons systems to be built, corporate subsidies to be made, stadiums to be constructed, profits to be maximized, and wealth to be accumulated as quickly as possible in as few hands as possible (after all, you can enlarge the pie only so much, and there are some very hungry appetites out there).
Since devoting more wealth to expand the delivery of health care resources is out of the question, it would be best for those who are satisfied with the status quo if the less fortunate - meaning the lazy and undeserving, of course - would either fuck off entirely or content themselves with whatever extra crumbs are thrown their way. It's what's good for the country. Goddamn it, it's what's good for the world!
I feel like I'm in a support group. Last Friday, I went to my dentist for a very sore and swollen gum over my front teeth - obviously an absess. After an x-ray, my dentist determined I needed a root canal and he would proceed immediately after I signed the treatment agreement, and saw the cost and what my insurance covered.....after insurance, my portion was $320.00. I was asked how do I want to pay for that? I told the person, I don't have any money at the moment, can I be billed? She replied - well, how on earth did you expect to receive any treatment today without any money?
So I was offered to pay or leave. I had to leave, with a head full of poison, no antibiotic, just me and the untreated absess.......insured, gainfully employed....and I can't afford to take care of my teeth! This is not the world I felt I lived in a few years back.......what happened?????
I'm experiencing a serious disconnect in this discussion because no one has addressed the real problem. The insurance industry, and the health insurance industry in particular, are what they call on Wall Street, "institutional investors." In fact, the liquidity of the insurance companies, since they deal in nothing but money and have enormous amounts at their disposal, is an ongoing bonanza for the investment banking community. To pull the rug out from under this slush fund by changing over to government sponsored health care would cause the stock market to collapse overnight. That's why it will never happen as long as the corporate filth and their stooges in Congress have anything to say about it.
purvis ames, The National health Insurance Act would not kick in overnight, it would take several years, so no rugs would be yanked out.
That's not why the corporatocracy and their stooges would fight it, it's the loss of money for both. Ideally we should combine it with clean election campaign funding. Might as well kill two birds with one stone.
One of the roles that Insurance companies play is as "watchdogs" over the health care providers. Insurance companies oversee the practices of health care providers to make sure they don't try to screw the patient.
LOL! That's pretty funny Suresh! That WAS a snark, right??
What no one in the health insurance industry (for profit or non-profit) can understand is that the mere existence of an insurance industry adds some 30% to the cost of our medical care, adds an unnecessary burden to both health providers and patients, and opens up myriad opportunities for abuse. There simply is no valid reason why medical care needs the insurance industry; a logic apparent to everyone in most countries in the world but not in our profit-based society. I have lived and traveled expensively abroad, and I know from personal experience that most non-Americans look with disbelief and bewilderment at our expensive and splotchy medical system.
The BCBS Fitzpatrick memo states in part:
– A woman with Kaiser Permanente takes her 18-month daughter to the hospital in an ambulance, only to be told to go to an in-network hospital. By the time they reach the second hospital, her daughter has stopped breathing and dies 30 minutes later in ER.
– A woman with Blue Shield of California has a tumor but is denied requests to get an MRI, or to see a specialist. While on vacation in Japan she is given an MRI, and eventually returns to the U.S. to demand treatment from her insurer.
These two examples are enough, in and of themselves, to prove that our insurer-based scheme of health care coverage is in dire need of replacement. After all, if these injustices can happen to anyone, what's to say they couldn't happen to you or me? We can't take that chance. We have to change the system.
The era of insurer coverage is over. The entire insurance model is no longer applicable to health care. Here's why:
Insurance is an organized gamble designed to spread risk so that coverage against loss is affordable to all at risk. This only works when most of those insured do not suffer the loss that is insured against. For example, most car owners never crash their cars, most homeowners never lose their homes to natural disasters, most business owners are never sued for negligence, and so forth. In such cases, there is ample room in the cost equation to cover all participants against losses most of them will never encounter and still provide for the administrative costs and reasonable profit for the insurers.
This is not the case with health care. In the old days, very few people availed themselves of health care the way almost everyone does today. People never went to the doctor unless they were very sick. No one took cholesterol-reducing drugs, no one took drugs for depressive disorders or OCD, there were no bypass surgeries, no MRIs or CAT scans, no chemotherapy, no array of prescriptions to be on for the rest of your life, and eventually everyone got old and died at younger ages than they do now, usually at home and certainly not draped with wires and tubes connected to sophisticated life-extending machinery in costly hospital rooms. In such a world, health insurance was a viable scheme because most of the people who had it did not file claims against it, and of those who did, most of them did not do so most of the time.
Now, however, the story is quite different. Practically everyone uses health care services. Preventive care has become important, doctor visits common, prescriptions ubiquitous and ongoing, high-technology testing essential, and there seems to be a long trend toward managed care with everyone on some kind of treatment program or regimen. On top of that, we live a good deal longer. As icing on the cake, everyone's inevitable demise is treated as a catastrophic illness with all the attendant costs. There is no way the classical insurance model can accommodate this kind of universal high utilization.
Compounding the problem with insurance in this age of health care is that on top of the actual costs of services are the administrative costs, salaries and, in most scenarios, profits. These must be paid with premiums. Simple arithmetic shows that premiums must be high, much higher than the costs of care, in order to be able to provide coverage at all. Thus, as time goes on, only the well-to-do can afford ever-more-costly coverage. Something has to give.
And that something has to be the health insurance model itself. It simply is not viable any longer. Its time has passed, and since just about everyone now needs and uses health care, there is no room for private enterprise in providing health "insurance" without driving costs way higher than they need to be in order to pay for care and services. Thus the only model that makes economic sense in today's world is a single-payer taxpayer-funded universal system.
Should not we, the taxpayers, enjoy such benefits? Why not? We are paying, so why shouldn't we receive something in return in this glorious super-charged society? How proud should we be of a system that leaves earnest but unwealthy citizens to fend for themselves while the elite enjoy essential services? Why should one citizen's health and life be more highly regarded than another's in our national way of life? Just because one has money and the other does not? What kind of moral values does that denote?
Conservatives likes to talk about "starving the beast of government" by cutting taxes (mainly for the wealthy) and "reigning in government spending" by curtailing social programs (mainly the ones that assist the less fortunate), but consider the logical extreme of such (falsely) conservative policies. What if taxes were reduced to almost zero? There would be almost no government spending at all except for defense, and no social programs whatever. Essential broad-based services such as air traffic control would be privatized. Everyone would be on their own and services would be available only to those who could personally afford to pay for them. What a perverse and failed society that would be! Clearly, we must not fall prey to the false conservative idea that all government spending is bad. Indeed, money spent by government enters the economy, becomes part of the GDP, and creates jobs. Whatever could be wrong with that?
Health coverage must become a program wherein the government, using tax revenues, pays all the health care bills, for the good of the society as a whole. We should all be able to go to the doctor of our choice and receive whatever testing and treatment that doctor, in his or her professional judgment, deems appropriate. In other words, Medicare for all. Anything less leaves us in a failed society unable to care for its own citizens. How embarrassing and shameful is that?
When George W. Bush was a student at Harvard Business School he objected to the showing of the film "Grapes of Wrath" in class because it was socialist propaganda. He insisted that the poor are poor because they are lazy.
This will probably be the final excuse for not having universal health coverage.
The poor deserve what they get, "it's their own damn fault." The argument will be made that giving health care to the poor will be to promote laziness and reward people who deserve to be punished. The common belief is that the U$A is a meritocracy which rewards hard work and honesty, and with universal health care will become a society which rewards evil people without merit and punish the good who earn what they get. The U$A should not have the equivalent of rain which falls on both the just and unjust. Punishment, not rewards, is how the U$A should answer Michael Moore. Yet the only way to get free housing, free food, and free medical care in the U$A is to get sentenced to prison for some felony, then the tax payers will foot the bill for this merited punishment.
51 years ago, an insurance company offered to set me up with a complete agency to sell insurance. All would have been paid for. All I needed to do was accept the offer. I told the insurance company I was not interested. I took their aptitude and psychological tests just to please the personal friend making the offer.
He finally conceded that my reason given for not accepting the offer of an insurance agency could not be denied. The reason I gave was that people who could afford insurance were those least likely to need it, and that those who needed insurance most were those who could not afford it, insurance sold for profit was contrary to social conscience.
Michael Moore will be attacked for using Cuba in his movie to make his points. All I can say is that in Ecuador I have heard nothing but praise for those Cuban doctors and health experts who are in Ecuador. The U$A has a "brain drain" windfall of foreign medical school graduates who come to the United States to do their internship. Most end up staying and become doctors. The U$A medical profession now is made up of many who received their education in foreign countries, which foot the bill without benefit. This is equivalent to foreign aid. Cuba on the other hand is sending doctors to other countries to practice.
Cuba is also educating many foreigners who will return to their countries as doctors.
The immigrants who end up working in the U$A are a free gift, their education and training was paid for elsewhere. We may not have free medical care, but at least we do not have to pay all the education and training costs of immigrant labor. This is another example why immigrant labor is cheaper than native born labor.
We do get freebies in the U$A after all, besides we can enjoy hating the gifts we receive from abroad.
The insurance and pharmaceutical components of American healthcare aren't the only systemic problems.
Many healthcare providers are involved in the grub-fest of 'opportunity' as well. They are often fined, penalized, and slapped on the wrist. They rarely go to jail. Guess who ultimately pays for the fines, penalties, and legal fees related to their fraudulent conduct? http://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/cia/index.html
In FY 2006, OIG reported the exclusions of 3,425 individuals and organizations for fraud or abuse of Federal health care programs and/or their beneficiaries; 472 criminal actions against individuals or organizations that engaged in crimes against HHS programs; and 272 civil actions, which include False Claims Act and unjust enrichment suits filed in district court, Civil Monetary Penalty settlements, and administrative recoveries related to provider self-disclosure matters.
http://oig.hhs.gov/publications/docs/semiannual/2006/PRSemiannual%20Final%20FY%202006.pdf
Healthcare has become a grub-fest opportunity for theft so vast and complex that no other solution than a complete overhaul and single payer universal system will have a prayer in improving it cost-effectively. Private insurance companies servicing employers do not have the federal law enforcement and monitoring resources available to it, which Medicare and Medicaid have. And they have conflicts-of-interest as they are dependent upon healthcare providers for their 'networks' --- vital and necessary features of their HMOs and PPOs. Some large employers serve on healthcare corporate boards; many have been co-opted and 'buy-in' to whatever policies and business practices insurance entities pursue.
Facts, figures and documents are available on our Website and we update frequently. However, as extensive as it is, it documents but a microcosm of the inequities, fraud, abuse and waste, which runs rampant throughout our healthcare non-system. It is this information --- not only seemingly token or individual tragic stories --- which would drive fundamental change if the public was exposed to it and took an interest in it. http://www.healthcare-consulting.com/knowledge.html
Politicians play it safe. They mumble for incremental change. Nothing short of a complete overhaul and a single-payer universal healthcare system will provide cost-effective access and consistent quality and safety performance to all Americans.
Siouxrose--You make another good point: My kidney cancer was probably caused by a defective product. I had a habit of drinking a dozen diet colas a day; and being relatively broke, I bought them from a discount store (yeah, the really big one), where the drinks sometimes had gotten so hot that the bottom of the cans would puff out.
Now I understand that one of the ingredients in the drinks--potassium benzoate--when in contact with another ingredient in them, would break down to benzene, a potent carcinogen, when exposed to heat. Benzene is linked to kidney cancer, amongst others.
So here is another example of korporatist kapitalism gone wild. There is no meaningful screening of chemicals here in the US, particularly since the Bushthieves took power; any agency of the government which may cost the korporatists money has been gutted or eliminated outright. The philosophy now is to put the chemicals on the market & let the population test them, and only take them off if there are so many lawsuits that it is less costly to remove the defective products than it is to just pay the claims. But even that control is being removed by "tort deform", which is steadily eliminating the very lawsuits which used to act as a check on these killer companies.
So from every angle you look, you see massive corruption in the economic system of our country. The only thing keeping us going is unparalleled deficit spending. When that stops--and it surely will--we are going to have a real problem, maybe the most serious in our economic history.
And I'll even tell you when it's likely to happen--when these criminals attack Iran. And that could come any day now.
I was a provider of mental health services for 25 years, working privately. I dealt extensively with insurance companies. When managed care started to take hold where I was living, in Vermont, in the 1980's, we saw a dramatic reduction in the amount of care that was authorized, a dramatic reduction in the amount of benefit disbursed on a per session basis, treatment decisions being made by non-clinicians at a mid-managament level within the care management infrastructure, a dramatic increase in the general use of psychotropic medication, and the list goes on.
Providers should be compensated for their work, but the parasitic management practices that have come between the practitioner and the patient have made patient care no longer a priority, and replaced it with profit as the primary goal. Management companies profit by administering health care and essentially skimming off the top to create a profit margin for themselves. This commodifies people, turning them into money making units for the health care management company. That's pretty disgusting really, to profit from the misery of others.
Health care should be between practitioner and patient. In the case of a hospital, let's go back to hospitals being independent entities, not huge conglomerates. Community involvement improves care. Corporate health care is less personal, often providing a less pleasant work environment which effects patient care.
I could go on and on. Health care in the US has been taken over by capitalistic parasites. The solutions include downscaling everything, paying people to staff neighborhood clinics, imposing price and advertising control on the pharma industry, encourage use of natural healing like herbs, nutrition, psychological wellness practices, etc.