Author Topic: "Sicko" figures check out  (Read 1185 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
"Sicko" figures check out
« on: July 01, 2007, 03:06:38 PM »
 (CNN) -- Michael Moore's "Sicko," which opened nationwide Friday, is filled with horror stories of people who are deprived of medical service because they can't afford it or haven't been able to navigate the murky waters of managed care in the United States.
art.sicko.family.jpg

A couple featured in Michael Moore's "Sicko" leave a London hospital with their newborn.

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

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

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

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

Moore says that the U.S. spends more of its gross domestic product on health care than any other country.
Don't miss

    * Review: "Sicko" a tonic despite flaws

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

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

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

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

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

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

    * MayoClinic.com: Health Library
    * Healthology Health Video Library

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2007%2FHEALTH%2F06%2F28%2Fsicko.fact.check%2Findex.html
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Sicko" figures check out
« Reply #1 on: July 01, 2007, 04:19:38 PM »
As is true for most propanganda, you can point to a few accurate tidbits here and there.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Sicko" figures check out
« Reply #2 on: July 01, 2007, 04:30:06 PM »

Ami:  <<As is true for most propanganda, you can point to a few accurate tidbits here and there.>>

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

"a few" accurate "tidbits" eh?

What part of "his numbers were mostly right" did you fail to understand?

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Sicko" figures check out
« Reply #3 on: July 01, 2007, 04:45:35 PM »
from CNN:  <<Moore covers a lot of ground. Our team investigated some of the claims put forth in his film. We found that his numbers were mostly right, but his arguments could use a little more context. As we dug deep to uncover the numbers, we found surprisingly few inaccuracies in the film. In fact, most pundits or health-care experts we spoke to spent more time on errors of omission rather than disputing the actual claims in the film.>>

"a few" accurate "tidbits" eh?

What part of "his numbers were mostly right" did you fail to understand?

They investigated "some" of the claims, and out of those found that they were "mostly" right, which would be "tidbits" in book.

No clear documentation on the how much "some" and "mostly" were.

If "some" is 10% and "mostly" is 90%, then they proved that 9% of the claims were correct.

And what's up with Moore's fact checking team? Can't they get past being "mostly" right? Not everything's been checked and they already found errors?
« Last Edit: July 01, 2007, 04:47:09 PM by Amianthus »
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Sicko" figures check out
« Reply #4 on: July 02, 2007, 10:58:24 AM »
<<If "some" is 10% and "mostly" is 90%, then they proved that 9% of the claims were correct.>>

Yeah, and if the 10% were a random sample, they've proved 9% of claims are correct out of 10% checked, and by extrapolation that 90% of the remaining 90% is likely to be correct as well

Meantime, you haven't proven even 1% error anywhere but are going around crowing that only "tidbits" of truth are found in the whole work.  Hilarious.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: "Sicko" figures check out
« Reply #5 on: July 02, 2007, 11:12:41 AM »
Moore covers a lot of ground. Our team investigated some of the claims put forth in his film. We found that his numbers were mostly right, but his arguments could use a little more context. As we dug deep to uncover the numbers, we found surprisingly few inaccuracies in the film. In fact, most pundits or health-care experts we spoke to spent more time on errors of omission rather than disputing the actual claims in the film.


Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Sicko" figures check out
« Reply #6 on: July 02, 2007, 11:23:39 AM »
An "error of omission" generally means the guy failed to make the other side's argument.  Usually if there's any merit to the contention, the other side doesn't just sniff about omissions, it SHOWS what was omitted and makes its own case.  If it has one.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Sicko" figures check out
« Reply #7 on: July 02, 2007, 11:46:29 AM »
Meantime, you haven't proven even 1% error anywhere but are going around crowing that only "tidbits" of truth are found in the whole work.  Hilarious.

"Crowing"? Only ones crowing are the your side of the issue.

Even the movies reviewers admit that it's propaganda.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: "Sicko" figures check out
« Reply #8 on: July 02, 2007, 11:49:49 AM »
Quote
An "error of omission" generally means the guy failed to make the other side's argument.  Usually if there's any merit to the contention, the other side doesn't just sniff about omissions, it SHOWS what was omitted and makes its own case.  If it has one.

The other problem reviewers had was the lack of context in Moore's fact presentation. Basically Moore makes films the same way Bush allegedly took us to war, and according to you that would be a bad thing.


_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Sicko" figures check out
« Reply #9 on: July 02, 2007, 02:28:42 PM »
Quote
The other problem reviewers had was the lack of context in Moore's fact presentation. Basically Moore makes films the same way Bush allegedly took us to war, and according to you that would be a bad thing.

So it is acceptable in leading a country to war to only show one side of the evidence and lack any context, but if a filmmaker does it then call out the dogs?

That seems an odd set of priorities.
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Sicko" figures check out
« Reply #10 on: July 02, 2007, 02:44:59 PM »
<<The other problem reviewers had was the lack of context in Moore's fact presentation. Basically Moore makes films the same way Bush allegedly took us to war, and according to you that would be a bad thing.>>

Bush "allegedly"  (allegedly my ass!!!) lied you into a war.  If you think Michael Moore made his case the same way, by all means, let's see the alleged "lies" that he told in his film. 

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: "Sicko" figures check out
« Reply #11 on: July 02, 2007, 03:19:17 PM »
Quote
So it is acceptable in leading a country to war to only show one side of the evidence and lack any context, but if a filmmaker does it then call out the dogs?

Where did i say that ?

and what dogs did i call out ?


_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Sicko" figures check out
« Reply #12 on: July 02, 2007, 04:40:48 PM »
It seems to be the sentiment amongst the rightwing, not necessarily you Bt.

I haven't seen the film and may never (I've never seen Fahrenheit 911 either).

But it seems skewed to me that there are so many attacks on Michael Moore for only showing one side and out of context (and you cannot deny the plethora of attacks by the right-wing on Moore). Yet, the President and the media never showed both sides to the WMD "evidence" or the case for invading Iraq in general. There certainly was no context given to most of the comments.
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.