Sicko (the movie)

<p>Momof2inca:</p>

<p>I was joking about pregnancy, but I wanted to make a larger point that some “medical conditions” are not so easily dealt with through good living.<br>
Some populations are more likely to fall prey to some diseases than others, Tay-Sachs disease, sickle cell anemia. What is to prevent health insurers from charging Jews or blacks more for health insurance? It’s a very slippery path from charging less for clean living. Because, ultimately, the idea is not so much encouraging healthy habits–this can be done through education–but avoiding high health care costs.</p>

<p>momof2inca,</p>

<p>the subsidy point you make is excellent.</p>

<p>Momof2,</p>

<p>I compliment you and your husband on his hard work to control his type II. I do think your the exception rather than the rule. I will look into the other day fasting as I am concerned that is not healthy for a type II as a more scheduled fewer carb small meals is the general consensus on mantaining a stable bsugar. It’s the highs and lows that cause the damage and create the risk. </p>

<p>In my case, fasting beyond a few hours(8) increases bsugars dramatically and I have to make sure I eat a small something every few hours. This is the problem with type II, it is an individual illness and different treatments are needed for different people. Your mood even alters your bsugars. </p>

<p>But diabetes is just one of many nagging self induced illnesses we’ve cornered here in the states. I honestly don’t think as a group (individually some can) we can change. The only thing we can hope for is to reintroduce a healthy lifestyle (not just by talking about it) to our youth. Old dogs we care for, young pups we train. </p>

<p>I just don’t think we’re really ready to attack the root cause of high health care costs… the use. The way to reduce the use, is to change the base causes of illness…“us”. The “us” part would take decades. It took us a while to get to this point.</p>

<p>Take profit out of it, or put profit into keeping people well.</p>

<p>H had a medical test done in a hospital a few months ago, and I got the copy of the bill from our insurance company. The procedure (not including doctor bills) was around 17,000! The amount our insurance company had negotiated with this in network hospital was about 1,700 (10% of the amount that we would have been asked to pay if we did not have coverage)! The hospital can manage to do the test for 1700, but look at the mark up for uninsured folks! Fortunately, the test results were fine (all negative), and my H is fine.</p>

<p>We’ve all heard the story of the $20 Tylenol. I think markup like NEM describes is very typical.</p>

<p>Glad your DH is fine though!</p>

<p>Allmusic, Thank you. </p>

<p>It is just amazing. Something is drastically wrong, that someone without insurance is asked to pay 10X more than someone with insurance. </p>

<p>Also, we pay for our own insurance premiums, and I don’t have to tell you that what we are paying can send one of kids to an instate college every year!</p>

<p>northeastmom:</p>

<p>That is exactly right. Some time ago, I read an article according to which uninsured patients get charged more than insured ones in order for the hospitals to make up for what they consider the shortfall from insurance companies and Medicare.<br>
Another thing: people who buy individual health insurance pay as much as those who buy family health insurance through an HMO.</p>

<p>I think it would be interesting if people would name the insurance companies, drug companies about which they are speaking. I am going to see Sicko tomorrow and will post some stories then. I will say now that one drug company who pulled a stunt similar to bullwinkle’s issue, with me, was Medco. My doctor and I did fight with them for months and they finally paid.</p>

<p>I think everyone who is telling a story should name the CORPORATION pulling this nonsense.</p>

<p>Analysis: ‘Sicko’ numbers mostly accurate; more context needed</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/06/28/sicko.fact.check/index.html[/url]”>http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/06/28/sicko.fact.check/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I’m the Director of Employee Benefits for a Fortune 500 company. I’ve also served on several professional organizations that study consumers’ attitudes toward health care and the health care system. I’ve been in the employee benefit field for over 25 years.</p>

<p>IMO, neither the insurance companies nor the pharmaceuticals nor the doctors nor the hospitals nor the big companies who employ us and who actually pay for our benefits are the bad guys. The problem is that they’re all (reasonably) trying to make a buck. (Yes, even Marcus Welby has to eat.)</p>

<p>And yes, we are generally unhealthy as can be. Poor health definitely means we’ll spend more on medical care than if we were healthy.</p>

<p>But the problem is the disjointed system we have. </p>

<p>My company is a for-profit company. When our medical costs increase, it directly hurts our bottom line. This is a major problem for the U.S. auto industry – GM, Ford, Chrysler. Not only are those companies paying for active employees’ and their family’s health care, they’re paying for thousands of retirees’ health care too. So companies cut back on coverage and shift costs to employees. They look like bad guys to their employees and, sometimes, to the entire universe (think Wal-Mart). </p>

<p>BTW, health care costs are one major major reason we’re losing ground to overseas companies. </p>

<p>Then, because my company can’t afford the continuing increase in health care costs, we tell our insurance company to figure something out or we’ll go to another insurer. So our insurance company negotiates greater discounts with the doctors and hospitals.</p>

<p>The doctors and hospitals are p*ssed. Sometimes they drop out of the insurance company’s network because they don’t want to or can’t afford lower reimbursements. Other times, the docs have to increase their patient load to keep up the same level of income. This makes the insurance companies look like bad guys.</p>

<p>To make sure my insurance company is paying out only on claims it should be paying, my company hires a cnother company to conduct a claims audit every few years. We’;re assured that the insurance company is only paying the claims they should be paying, that they’re not paying twice, that there’s no fraud, etc.</p>

<p>The insurance company also hires a lot of medical clinicians to make sure that the criteria under which they pay a claim is based on scientific fact. For example, bariatric surgery will only be covered if the patient meets very specific criteria. The public views this as sometimes unreasonably denying care or coverage.</p>

<p>I was once berated by a female employee with breast cancer whose doctor wanted to do an autologous bone marrow transfer. (That is, her own marrow treated and re-introduced into her body.) At the time, it was an experiemental treatment; it had not been proven to be safe or effective. First, the employee suggested to me that we were denying coverage for this treatment because she was a woman and breast cancer is a woman’s disease. Then, when the treatment was still denied, she e-mailed about 50 colleagues at work to tell them how mean and rotten we were.</p>

<p>We finally paid for the treatment out of a separate budget.</p>

<p>The woman died about a year later.</p>

<p>About three years later, autologous bone marrow transplants were shown to be ineffective.</p>

<p>Then there’s all the wasted time and money to determine whether Insurance Company A or Insurance Company B should pay for something . . . .</p>

<p>Our system stinks. It’s horrible. Rube Goldberg couldn’t have thought of anything more complicated.</p>

<p>We need a single-payer system not so the government can decide what’s covered, but simply so that determination of what’s covered is consistent, so that there’s only one payer to worry about, so that they monkey is off the backs of US for-profit companies.</p>

<p>BTW, of all dollars spent on health care in America today, about 50% is already paid for by the government – through the military, through Medicare (for > age 65s), and through Medicaid (for poor people). There is also the massive Federal Employees Health Care Plan, which is paid for by our taxes.</p>

<p>But the problem with all this is, politics and special interests. I think we will eventually have a national healthcare system, but I think it will take several more decades until we’re there.</p>

<p>Whoosh. Sorry for the long post.</p>

<p>And BTW – in terms of “discounts” that we insured people (or our insurance comapnies) receive, versus what “uninsured” people pay – I’ve wondered for YEARS what the true “cost” of a procedure is. Insured people subsidize the uninsured. All the hospital knows is what it costs to run the hospital. Ask the hospital how much your quadruple bypass surgery will cost. It will NOT be able to tell you.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That is passed along in the premiums, IMO, and it really kills us.</p>

<p>Oh, and VeryHappy, I cannot blame your employee for emailing others, and fighting for the treatment that she believed might help her. She was fighting for her life. I would have done the exact the same thing. The fact that a treatment was found not to work at a later date is another issue. She was probably fighting for anything that would add time to her life.</p>

<p>NYT’s has been running a series for the last several weeks related to some of what Very Happy posts.</p>

<p>I remember Amgen being mentioned as giving “kickbacks” to Drs. who prescribe their anemia drug. This is an IV medication that has to be administered in a Drs. office or hospital.</p>

<p>Suddenly, this drug that was developed for anemia is also being prescribed “off label”, or for other conditions besides anemia. There is not a specified dose for the off label use. Of course Drs. increase the dose, and still get the kickbacks
from Amgen.</p>

<p>The biggest misprescribers (according to several of the NYT’s articles in this series) are Psychiatrists. They also get kickbacks and prescribe all kinds of antipsychotic medications for adolescents, also for off label uses. And then, don’t forget all the drug companies making meds for ADD, ADHD, which is practically non-existent in other countries as a diagnosis.</p>

<p>I don’t know if Moore covers this in Sicko, but do people know that major Corporations, while they are not allowed to cancel a Pension (unless they are filing for bankruptcy) according to federal law, may cancel retirement Medical Benefits, or the part of your Pension designated Medical? Many corporations are doing this today. IBM and other big outsourcing companies are leaders of this practice.</p>

<p>I find it hard to feel empathy for those Very Happy does.</p>

<p>I don’t know that I feel empathy. I understand their motivations, however.</p>

<p>Basically: If comporations paid for everything that employees and their family members wanted, they’d be bankrupt. Why should this come out of companies’ bank accounts? Why not tax everyone for health care and give everyone health care, that is based on scientific rationale?</p>

<p>Northeastmom, should American companies pay for treatments that have not been shown to be safe and effective? We might as well just pay for coffee enemas and laetrile.</p>

<p>OK, I have a question. Why does it cost $135 for an office visit that lasts 5 minutes, in which someone listens to your heart, looks in your ears, takes your blood pressure, and has you say “Aaaaah”?</p>

<p>I can see all the other stuff- the medicines with the enormous R&D costs, the machines that cost a fortune, etc.</p>

<p>But why does it cost so much everytime we go to see a Dr. for a cold, a sports physical, a “recheck”…there are no supplies being used, no time being used, what is it???</p>

<p>My son can get his sports physical done by a chiropracter for $10 total. They do the same exact thing at his “real doctor’s” office and it costs about $100. Why?</p>

<p>Basically, whether the insurance company pays it, or we pay it out of pocket, it all ends up hitting our pocketbook one way or another, doesn’t it?</p>

<p>VeryHappy have you read the profit reports of these insurance companies you are defending? I have. They are making a fortune, and every year increase their profits by increasing premiums, increasing deductibles, and paying for less and less medications. Because of these practices, 30-50 million middle-class Americans can no longer afford health insurance. That is the main issue.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Because you’re paying for all the equipment, all the personnel, all the infrastructure, and – yes – malpractice insurance – that it costs to run the doctor’s office.</p>

<p>A doctor’s office income might be $2 million, but his expenses may well be $1.8 million. He’s running a business, just like any one.</p>

<p>Once problem is that it is well nigh impossible to find out before the appointment what he will charge you. Heck, the doctor doesn’t even know. He gets paid by the insurance company based on how many procedures he performs, and he doesn’t know beforehand what he’ll have to do to you. </p>

<p>We have the opportunity to shop different stores and find the cheapest one. We don’t have the opportunity to do that with doctors or hospitals.</p>

<p>(And then there’s the issue of determining the quality of different doctors . . . )</p>

<p>Jamie99: I’m not defending any of the players in this mess. I’m just telling you what their capitalistic motives are. And we Americans love our capitalism. In fact, whenever someone talks about single-payor medicine, the word “socialism” is lobbed back as a significant negative.</p>

<p>IMO, there are many many reasons we have 45.6 million uninsured Americans. Yes, one of those reasons is the “greed” (aka profit-seeking motive) of the insurance companies.</p>

<p>VeryHappy, of course someone can shop around for Drs. or hospitals. True, some hospitals will only accept certain Drs. and insurances, but people do have choices. Many big employers offer many different insurance companies and plans. You are just repeating the “Party Line”, which is a big, fat, lie.</p>

<p>For those that are blaming insurance companies, as does Moore, reread VeryHappy’s post and think about who pays for most medical care: employers bcos it is mostly employer-based. Employers also decide what is covered and what is not covered by the coverage they purchase. For example, as VH noted, thier company does not purchase experimental coverage (nor does any company I know of, for that matter). Other companies purchase medical insurance that may include/exclude chiropractic, acupuncture, or has a pharmacy list (aka formulary) of approved medications – not $364 Rx’s allowed!</p>

<p>Not trying to pick on Corporate America, but just want to point out that the insurance companies offer numerous packages and employers pick they one that they want to pay for. Perhaps its time for a full tax credit so people can purchase what they WANT, which is no different than auto insurance.</p>