'Sicko' numbers mostly accurate; more context needed

[Amplify]

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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

CNN source

[Zeus_Hunt]

Downloading it now. :P

[Amplify]

I would personally reccomend this documentary to anyone who's willing to see the darker side of things, there will always be details that are omitted willingly by the media and government of any country and some people like to shine some light in said areas. Granted, you can't swallow everything without chewing first so one still needs to be critical.

I personally believe Michael Moore did a great job in this film, giving some good comparison points between the health care system and what caught my attention, that I hadn't really contemplated before honestly is that if even a country like Cuba, which has suffered the grave consequences of an embargo and commercial neglect can have universal healthcare, how is it possible that the wealthiest country in the world can't and even so, have much better care like Michael Moore clearly pointed out.

[Chicano666]

Becuase all the wealth goes to the corporations and a few individuals. People say, the wealthiest nation, but don't really focus on where the wealth really is/goes.

[Amplify]

Becuase all the wealth goes to the corporations and a few individuals. People say, the wealthiest nation, but don't really focus on where the wealth really is/goes.

Surely, but that's pertinent to all countries, in some countries it's more severe than others. Did you even know that if the seven (I believe it's the seven) most wealthiest men were to donate 10% of their wealth world hunger would be non-existant? So it's relevant to the entire globe. In a country like the United States where the population is around three hundred million inhabitants, where most of the world market develops and moves, how can the state not have a grand enough budget to be able to offer its citizens health care? How about the money Bush has already spent on this war, how could that money have not been invested in something like this proposal in times of peace?

There are pros and cons, one can't be too extreme because when you're too far left, you can't see your right too well and when you're too far right, you can't see your left too well. Nevertheles it's preposterous to believe that the U.S isn't in capability to execute such a project, whether or not it pleases everyone, well, that's much different.

[Chicano666]

True, I always try to maintain a neutral or central position because there are not just one or two ways of doing things, nor is everything Black & White. Theres various ways of resolving issues and thats what people don't see (or are prevented from seeing). For info on military spending, the WRL (War Resistors League) has info | hompage .