Universal Free Health Care (.......nanny and laundry)
Ronald Gross
Rgross at harthosp.org
Mon Jul 2 14:46:47 BST 2007
Ken,
I am in awe! What you have written is (as usual) well said - balanced,
fair, and without bias.
I expect that this will show up in the New York Times, Washington Post
and the Chicago Sun Times - NOT! As with Mr. Moore, all of these
political - OOPS - publications would probably not print something this
analytical and balanced. Just the same, I think that your piece should
be submitted to as many publications as possible as an Op ED.
Congratulations...and thanks for continuing to say what needs to be
said - and, at the very least, for functioning as a moral compass!
Ron
>>> <KMATTOX at aol.com> 7/2/2007 12:03 AM >>>
I have now seen the movie, SiCKO, in its entirety, twice - once on the
small
computer screen and then, today, in a theater. I went to the theater
to see
the people, listen to their reactions, and also see and hear the movie
in a
big screen setting. And, indeed, some of the material is better
appreciated
in the theater, rather than on the small screen.
First, someone has changed the image of the producer, Michael Moore.
Both
in the movie and on the publicity talk shows, he is less angry, less
hostile,
and has “cleaned up” in speech and appearance since his previous
movies and
books. He is a producer and was very, very specific in what he wished
to
create, and he created it. He knew just what he needed to show, what
he needed
NOT to show, and in what order he needed to show the material.
Unfortunately, the movie approaches an extremely complex and
many-faceted
issue in a totally superficial manner, the goal being to elicit
emotions and
reactions with regard to the dismal state of health care in the United
States.
Many of the essential elements for the success of our health care
network
were totally omitted. Just a few of these omitted issues include:
1. Biomedical research,
2. the long list of medical educational issues
(nursing,
allied health, pre med, medical school, graduate medical education,
continuing
education, etc.),
3. Critical Care and all of its ramifications
a. Sepsis
b. Futility
c. End of life expenses
d. Demands of families regarding doing “everything” in
critical care
4. Complex operations done (and expected) almost
exclusively in the United States, such as thoracoabdominal aneurysms,
etc.
5. Regulatory Industrial Complex and its
contributions to
the cost of health care in the United States
6. Medical legal issues, although MM has talked
about
medical legal issues in the talk shows
7. Costs of new pharmaceuticals (the majority of
which
are developed at great research and safety costs in the United States)
8. and many many others
I was sympathetic and in agreement with a number of points that the
producer
made repeatedly. These include:
1. Condemnation of the greed, cold-bloodedness, profit motive
of the
insurance industry
2. Condemnation of the same thing in HMOs
3. Condemnation of managed health care in general
4. Criticism of big money that the pharmaceutical industry
throws at
politicians (and the politicians who take it)
5. The hundreds of millions of dollars spent by insurance,
HMOs, and
industry for LOBBYING
7. Condemnation of Sen HR Clinton for her greed in receiving
the
second highest amount of lobbyist money AND in her ineffectiveness in
addressing
health care reform in the 1990s.
8. Hassle factor in the sea of paperwork
9. Condemnation of insurance and HMO medical directors and
doctor
reviewers who are rewarded for DENIALS
The producer’s main point throughout the movie and in his final scene
was a
plea/demand for UNIVERSAL FREE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL (and he tossed in
f
ree day
care, free college, and free nanny visits to new Mom’s). This is
where I
totally part ways with his views and motivations. No service is
FREE. He
visited 5 countries to prove his point about “free” care – UK,
Canada, France,
and Cuba and the US. Both access and quality of care in the UK,
Canada,
France and Cuba, according to what was presented in this movie, are
superb.
Furthermore, patients and physicians in these countries could not be
happier with
their respective systems. Based on this movie, the paperwork hassle
factor
that both docs and patients deal with in the US is nonexistent in
these
countries. Also, based on this movie, the cost of all these government
provided
services is not a hardship on anyone or any group. Not a single person
interviewed in any of these countries had a remotely negative thing to
say about
care, quality or even taxes to support the system. Contrarily, ALL
interviews in
the US were totally negative – not ONE success story was presented.
Hence,
my greatest criticism of this movie – bias to the point of
deception.
There appeared to be a good bit of manipulation of timing of events to
support the producer’s position. For instance, when attempting to
present the AMA
as an organization opposing “healthcare for all,” he showed a
portion of a
speech from Dr. Annis, President Elect in the AMA in the EARLY 1960s.
This
was more than 40 years ago. Such mixing of past and present was
common
throughout the movie.
I listened to and watched the views of the people who accompanied Mr.
Moore
to Cuba. I have tried to read in the newspapers about just what was
done for
them in Cuba which they did not get in the United States. One was
apparently given a diagnosis of sarcoidosis, which he did not have
prior to going
(although sarcoidosis is often a dx of exclusion). One was taken off a
couple of
her medications, something we all do when we see a referred patient.
Others
were given outlines of treatment plans for them to try when they go
home.
What else is new? When any patient presents with continuing symptoms,
we
manipulate their treatment plans and their medications if there is not
an
operation or directed acute interventional treatment which is
indicated. Quite
frankly, I saw nothing in the Cuba trip that gave anything new to any
of those
accompanying Mr. Moore. I was impressed that while in Cuba, I saw none
of them
appear to be dyspnec, or lacking energy. I was impressed with their
HIKE
down the hillside to the Navy Base. Interestingly, neither of the two
“patients
” with lung problems (and obese) exhibited shortness of breath. I
also know
that the Cubans would also go out of their way to maximize the
propaganda
opportunities of this visit. Many on this list have been to medical
or surgical
meetings in Cuba, as have I. The Cuban doctors are very dedicated and
hungry for new knowledge. Many of their facilities are often not as
well equipped
as ours, and I have seen hospitals far different from the examination
rooms
shown in the Havana Hospital in this movie. If all I had to base my
reactions
of medicine in Cuba was this movie, I would “know” that there is
a state
of the art hospital and virtually free pharmacy on every corner and
available
to any and all who need services.
There are members of this list server who reside in Canada, Cuba,
United
States, France, and England, and we all respect each other. Each of
us knows
the many differences in our “systems,” both good and bad. We know
the many
frustrations with our own “system”. We know of two, three, or
even four
tiers of care in EACH of the cited countries. We know of rationing by
various
means and limitations. None of the negative issues in any country
except the
US were even mentioned, much less openly discussed. I have been told
by
Canadian physicians and patients of various pro
blems with that system.
I have
just been in London for a week and heard about the frustrations and
regulatory
difficulties of the NHS from the physicians’ points of view. AND I
have
gotten an “ear full” of the frustrations from French surgeons I
know, all of
whom have second offices to see “private patients” who pay cash.
Mr. Moore
cited none of this other side.
This is not the time and place to criticize other country’s health
care
delivery system, for we all have our share of horror stories and
difficulties, as
well as great successes. I have cited many of the problems in the
United
States, and Mr. Moore re-stated many of the problems many on this list
have
expressed in the past. However, he only gave one side of the story
– his side
- to push his vision of FREE CARE (up to and including the government
doing
his laundry) for ALL.
Most of the members of this list server have at one time or another
been on
a debating team. One overstates a point to make a point and picks the
most
extreme examples of good and bad that can be found to accentuate the
point to
be made. Mr. Moore has done that in SiCKO. I would have found this an
exceptional piece of film and, indeed an historical event, had he had
the insight,
intellect and integrity to just as aggressively present the opposite
side of
the debate. In that way, the American people and the world could have
seen
and possibly comprehended the many complicated aspects of health care
and come
closer to a solution.
I was interested to see who attended the movie. This is the second day
that
SiCKO is showing in Houston and is in three movie theaters. I went at
a “
popular movie going time.” Several of the 15 movies showing were
sold out
15-30 minutes before the show started. SiCKO was shown in one of the
smaller
rooms and was only about 25%-33% full. About 15% of the attendees were
Medicare
age, and 2 people were receiving supplemental oxygen. I was a bit
amused to
see a lady come in on a “Hover-Around.” I wonder how many people
in the
UK, Canada, Cuba and France have those paid for by their governments?
I saw NO
other doctors in the room that I recognized, and I do know many of the
Houston doctors. I estimate that about 30 nurses were present, as
they were
carrying the flyers sent to nurses across the country by the
California Nursing
Union. Every time a statement was made about giving FREE anything,
such as
child care, laundry, cooking, extra vacation time for a honeymoon,
(anything to
be paid by the government), there were murmurs of approval, sometime
clapping, in the theater. Based on the Houston attendance, I would
not think this
show will have a very long running at the box office. Because it
presents a “
you can and should have it all at no real cost to YOU,” I have no
doubt that
many individuals and groups will “latch” onto this film and
champion it. I
cannot envision it having any long term real societal impact on health
care,
simply because it does not present anything new or offer solutions on
HOW we
reach this nirvana state that is enjoyed in France, UK, Cuba and
Canada.
At one point, Mr. Moore emphasized that the US is a country where
people are “
afraid of government,” afraid to speak out and demonstrate –
implying this
was quite different in France, Cuba, Canada and the UK. I’m still
puzzled
by that premise. When in recent history have Americans had ANY
reticence about
speaking out and demonstrating???
I will admit again that some of the central core complaints are common
among
patients, nurses, doctors, organized medicine, and medical
professional
groups. Those core issues about which there is agreement were cited
in the first
paragraphs of this review, and I will not repeat them. It would be
wonderful if we could unite in addressing THOSE core issues with a
massive
communication effort to policy makers
(inside and outside the
government). I am afraid
that the solutions are going to be very complex and multifactoral and
not as
simple as getting the “government to give you free drugs, free
doctors, free
hospitalization, and free laundry services.”
Kenneth L. Mattox, MD
************************************** See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.
--
trauma-list : TRAUMA.ORG
To change your settings or unsubscribe visit:
http://www.trauma.org/index.php?/community/
Confidentiality Notice
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or proprietary
information which is legally privileged. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please promptly contact the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy all copies of the original message.
More information about the trauma-list
mailing list