Former Health Care Executive: Michael Moore was Right (Sicko)

[TheCouga]

Bill Moyers Journal . Watch & Listen | PBS

Wendell Potter, former Head of Corporate Communications for CIGNA, explains how there is no incentive to provide efficient care in a private healthcare system, and that the desire for more and more profit leaves many people's lives in shambles.

He also describes how other healthcare executives are isolated and insulated from the dire realities of their decisions, and how a lot of politicians that are bought and paid for by the private healthcare industry simply parrot the talking points the healthcare industry sends out.

[sub rosa]

the crucible: socialized tv talking about socialized medicine that our socialist president supports along with the rest of his socialist agenda. somebody get the nuge down here to straighten this out.

[JohnJMS]

At the risk of sounding dismissive - you don't get much more liberal than Billy Moyers. And quoting Michael Moore hurts, doesn't help, the Universal Health Care cause. Time to start quoting people that aren't choir preachers.

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

At the risk of sounding dismissive - you don't get much more liberal than Billy Moyers. And quoting Michael Moore hurts, doesn't help, the Universal Health Care cause. Time to start quoting people that aren't choir preachers.

I'm sorry, I didn't know it was Bill Moyers' and Michael Moore's opinions and viewpoints that were being espoused here. I was temporarily mistaken into thinking the opinions were that of a former healthcare executive. Thanks for correcting me on that one.

[sub rosa]

no doubt you can't get much more left-wing than bill moyers and pbs and michael moore. but to those who always point out the source is either lefty or righty - just because your source is biased doesn't mean the facts are wrong. it seems people dismiss factual assertions too casually just because the speaker has an obvious tilt left or right.

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by sub rosa

no doubt you can't get much more left-wing than bill moyers and pbs and michael moore. but to those who always point out the source is either lefty or righty - just because your source is biased doesn't mean the facts are wrong. it seems people dismiss factual assertions too casually just because the speaker has an obvious tilt left or right.

It's not even Moore's or Moyers' or PBS's views here. It's about a guy who used to be a top executive for the healthcare industry.

[sub rosa]

there was probably someone from obama's black-ops media manipulation department there threatening this guy's grandkids or something.

[sub rosa]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

It's not even Moore's or Moyers' or PBS's views here. It's about a guy who used to be a top executive for the healthcare industry.

yep. i'm listening to the interview now. they are playing a clip from "sicko" at this point of the interview. i hope it's obvious that my responses are in jest...

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by sub rosa

there was probably someone from obama's black-ops media manipulation department there threatening this guy's grandkids or something.

Probably. Or this executive is just "bitter" or "crazy" or "touting his own personal agenda." The ad hominem attacks will surely commence.

[sinister porpoise]

The people that oppose health care reform don't care about evidence. It's all about the gut.

[sub rosa]

now they're talking about how it was the insurance industry's strategy to discredit and radicalize michael moore, and threatening democrats that if they supported health care reform they would be aligning themselves with moore and become a minority party again.

[JohnJMS]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

I'm sorry, I didn't know it was Bill Moyers' and Michael Moore's opinions and viewpoints that were being espoused here. I was temporarily mistaken into thinking the opinions were that of a former healthcare executive. Thanks for correcting me on that one.

NEWSFLASH COUGA: When you say in the thread title "Michael Moore was right (sicko)", YOU ARE espousing Michael Moore's view points.

My point remains that if you want to actually get converts, the best way to do it is not to put people like Moore and Moyers into the forefront. But I get it - your thread gets more shock value if you place Michael Moore in the title, rather than Wendell Potter.

I also see the ever over-used and deliberately mis-represented figure of "47 million uninsured Americans" is used again in the piece.

Look, before this turns into another spat - let me clarify my position. I'm for Universal Health Care for children - right now. Let's get that done. However, I think trying to do the "Insurance for Everyone" task for a country this size and with such unique budgetary issues, it should be tackled incrementally. Let's roll out UHC for kids first. See how that works. Iron out any issues. Get it to work properly. Then, if it is working smoothly, I'd be far more likely to support the next step - true UHC. But just diving into this head first concerns me greatly. And as I've said before - if Obama doesn't do this in steps, showing success along the way, if he instead shoots for the big prize and misses - especially with a Democratic Super Majority - he'll set back UHC for a generation.

[sub rosa]

i'd be happy to utilize john's incremental approach if the longview was for single-payer for all. i bet if there was such a commitment, the insurance companies would suddenly become a lot more concerned about patient care.

[sinister porpoise]

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

I'm for Universal Health Care for children - right now. Let's get that done. However, I think trying to do the "Insurance for Everyone" task for a country this size and with such unique budgetary issues, it should be tackled incrementally. Let's roll out UHC for kids first. See how that works. Iron out any issues. Get it to work properly. Then, if it is working smoothly, I'd be far more likely to support the next step - true UHC.

All the Democrats want is a publicly-operated insurance plan that people could buy into. It'd be completely self-sufficient, funded by premiums.
I'd love for single-payer but that's not even on the table. What you describe sounds like single-payer.

FWIW my biggest concern for health care reform is dramatically reducing costs and making sure that people w/ insurance do not get dropped by their insurance for BS once they get expensive ("recission"). If we don't reduce costs our economy will stay in the shitter.

[rhino]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

Bill Moyers Journal . Watch & Listen | PBS

Wendell Potter, former Head of Corporate Communications for CIGNA, explains how there is no incentive to provide efficient care in a private healthcare system, and that the desire for more and more profit leaves many people's lives in shambles.

It would seem to me that a socialized medical system would further erode the incentive to provide efficient health care. Isn't lack of expediency and efficiency the general complaint of medical systems of countries with socialized medicine?

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by rhino

Isn't lack of expediency and efficiency the general complaint of medical systems of countries with socialized medicine?

No.

People in countries with socialized medicine are much happier with their healthcare system, and think it would be absolutely crazy to implement a privatized system in their country. Furthermore, people in the US who participate in Medicare are happier with their healthcare than those who have a private insurer.

But I'm sure the right wing can come up with some story about how these people are brainwashed or deluded.

[sub rosa]

from a bunch of progressive hippie socialists:

3. Wait times in Canada are horrendous.
True and False again -- it depends on which province you live in, and what's wrong with you. Canada's health care system runs on federal guidelines that ensure uniform standards of care, but each territory and province administers its own program. Some provinces don't plan their facilities well enough; in those, you can have waits. Some do better. As a general rule, the farther north you live, the harder it is to get to care, simply because the doctors and hospitals are concentrated in the south. But that's just as true in any rural county in the U.S.

You can hear the bitching about it no matter where you live, though. The percentage of Canadians who'd consider giving up their beloved system consistently languishes in the single digits. A few years ago, a TV show asked Canadians to name the Greatest Canadian in history; and in a broad national consensus, they gave the honor to Tommy Douglas, the Saskatchewan premier who is considered the father of the country's health care system. (And no, it had nothing to do with the fact that he was also Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather.). In spite of that, though, grousing about health care is still unofficially Canada's third national sport after curling and hockey.

And for the country's newspapers, it's a prime watchdogging opportunity. Any little thing goes sideways at the local hospital, and it's on the front pages the next day. Those kinds of stories sell papers, because everyone is invested in that system and has a personal stake in how well it functions. The American system might benefit from this kind of constant scrutiny, because it's certainly one of the things that keeps the quality high. But it also makes people think it's far worse than it is.

Critics should be reminded that the American system is not exactly instant-on, either. When I lived in California, I had excellent insurance, and got my care through one of the best university-based systems in the nation. Yet I routinely had to wait anywhere from six to twelve weeks to get in to see a specialist. Non-emergency surgical waits could be anywhere from four weeks to four months. After two years in the BC system, I'm finding the experience to be pretty much comparable, and often better. The notable exception is MRIs, which were easy in California, but can take many months to get here. (It's the number one thing people go over the border for.) Other than that, urban Canadians get care about as fast as urban Americans do.

more "mythbusting" about canadian "single-payer" health care here:

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org

[rhino]

Originally Posted by sub rosa

from a bunch of progressive hippie socialists:



more "mythbusting" about canadian "single-payer" health care here:

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org

Interesting read, thanks for the link. I'm not really up on this topic, so that was informative.

[sub rosa]

and if you're one of those who like to throw the baby out with the bathwater regarding your sources of information, here's a group of physicians in support of single-payer health care. it's their faq:

Single-Payer FAQ | Physicians for a National Health Program

[billms]

I'm happy to say my household has a card carrying member of PNHP and for a long time.

[Oblong]

how come every Canadian I know, and I know a lot of them, probably 25 I'd consider friendly enough to invite to a party, all come over here to get their health care?

[eastside billee]

They're just diluted.

[FloridaTigers]

Michael Moore's depiction of a perfect Cuban healthcare system was wrong.

[SweetLou]

Originally Posted by Oblong

how come every Canadian I know, and I know a lot of them, probably 25 I'd consider friendly enough to invite to a party, all come over here to get their health care?

That's funny, any Canadian I've ever talked to make fun of the US health care and say they have the best.

[billms]

Originally Posted by eastside billee

They're just diluted.

more of that cheap watery Canadian whiskey, huh?

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by FloridaTigers

Michael Moore's depiction of a perfect Cuban healthcare system was wrong.

That's not how he described it.

The impression I got from Sicko was that even the underfunded Cuban healthcare system wouldn't refuse to treat patients like they do in America. That in no way implies that it's perfect.

[Blue Square Thing]

Originally Posted by rhino

It would seem to me that a socialized medical system would further erode the incentive to provide efficient health care.

Quite so. I'm sure their administrative costs alone would be far in excess of your private healthcare providers. And I'm also sure that they'd be bound to push brand name drugs on their clients rather than the cheaper generics. Every single time. And probably order lots and lots of quite unecessary testing procedures and have a massive oversupply of things like MRI scanners.

Quite so.

Originally Posted by rhino

Isn't lack of expediency and efficiency the general complaint of medical systems of countries with socialized medicine?

I'm sure you must be right again. The people there must just be mindless automata who believe everything their government tells them. They just don't know what's good for them some people. Nothing like hard work to make people grateful for the health care they can afford.

I'm sure you agree.

[FloridaTigers]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

That's not how he described it.

The impression I got from Sicko was that even the underfunded Cuban healthcare system wouldn't refuse to treat patients like they do in America. That in no way implies that it's perfect.

They don't refuse anyone, but Cuban medicare is terrible. You might as well not have health care at all. Why leave out the sub par conditions doctors have to work with? The lack of supplies the government has available to hospitals? The fact that electricity is cut off from hospitals at random for unspecified amount of times?

I don't think Moore was too clear in outlining his purpose of the whole Cuba thing. It seemed like he took people to Cuba just to say "Hey, even evil commie Cuba has healthcare that America can't provide!"

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by FloridaTigers

They don't refuse anyone, but Cuban medicare is terrible. You might as well not have health care at all. Why leave out the sub par conditions doctors have to work with? The lack of supplies the government has available to hospitals? The fact that electricity is cut off from hospitals at random for unspecified amount of times?

I don't think Moore was too clear in outlining his purpose of the whole Cuba thing. It seemed like he took people to Cuba just to say "Hey, even evil commie Cuba has healthcare that America can't provide!"

Yet Cuba is not that far behind the US in regards to life expectancy.

[eastside billee]

I was wondering, has anyone done a study on how many Americans go to Canada for medical treatment?

[FloridaTigers]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

Yet Cuba is not that far behind the US in regards to life expectancy.

Wouldn't that be due to our life style as a nation?

Couga, I'm all for universal healthcare. But Michael Moore isn't someone I'd like to "lead the way" for it. The US should extensively study other nations with socialized medicine and try to get it right before applying it.

[Edman85]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

Yet Cuba is not that far behind the US in regards to life expectancy.

Correlation/Causation

[mtutiger]

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

At the risk of sounding dismissive - you don't get much more liberal than Billy Moyers.

Was Jeffrey Wigand's interview with 60 Minutes about the tobacco industry 10 years ago moot too? After all, they're all a bunch of socialist bunny hugging commies over at Black Rock.

[JohnJMS]

Originally Posted by mtutiger

Was Jeffrey Wigand's interview with 60 Minutes about the tobacco industry 10 years ago moot too? After all, they're all a bunch of socialist bunny hugging commies over at Black Rock.

No. Wigand's interview was not moot. Kind of a different situation there mtutiger. Wigand wasn't discussing or promoting major new legislation that was controversial and would cost the taxpayers untold 100's of millions of new tax dollars to fund a brand new bureaucratic structure of the federal government. And you edit my post down to and totally destroy the point I was making - which is it's time to start putting people at the forefront that aren't choir preachers like Moyers and Michael Moore.

[mtutiger]

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

No. Wigand's interview was not moot. Kind of a different situation there mtutiger. Wigand wasn't discussing or promoting major new legislation that was controversial and would cost the taxpayers untold 100's of millions of new tax dollars to fund a brand new bureaucratic structure of the federal government.

So in other words, Mr. Potter isn't allowed to have an opinion in this case and share it because it is a piece of legislation? I really don't see the point you're trying to make here

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

And you edit my post down to and totally destroy the point I was making - which is it's time to start putting people at the forefront that aren't choir preachers like Moyers and Michael Moore.

What does Bill Moyers and Michael Moore have to do with the opinion of Mr. Potter?

[Melody]

Does a marketing dude really count as a "health care executive"?

[JohnJMS]

Originally Posted by mtutiger

So in other words, Mr. Potter isn't allowed to have an opinion in this case and share it because it is a piece of legislation? I really don't see the point you're trying to make here



What does Bill Moyers and Michael Moore have to do with the opinion of Mr. Potter?

You sure are missing the point - and I think deliberately so because you are smarter than this.

1. I never said Mr. Potter isn't' allowed to have an opinion in this case - you said that.

2. For the THIRD time - my point is putting the name Moore upfront on this issue speaks to the choir - not the congregation. If I check back, the only thing in this thread I said I disagree with Potter on is his assertion of 47 million uninsured Americans.

3. Moyers and Moore have nothing to do with the opinion of Potter. I never said they did. That said - Potter would come off more credible if he didn't sit down with an interview only with a guy who agrees with him in lockstep - and that happens to be Moyers.

4. I'm for incrementally moving towards UHC. I just don't think it's wise, practical, nor will it be successful to try and cram it down American's throats all at once.

If you still don't understand my point - I give up.

[mtutiger]

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

You sure are missing the point - and I think deliberately so because you are smarter than this.

1. I never said Mr. Potter isn't' allowed to have an opinion in this case - you said that.

2. For the THIRD time - my point is putting the name Moore upfront on this issue speaks to the choir - not the congregation. If I check back, the only thing in this thread I said I disagree with Potter on is his assertion of 47 million uninsured Americans.

3. Moyers and Moore have nothing to do with the opinion of Potter. I never said they did. That said - Potter would come off more credible if he didn't sit down with an interview only with a guy who agrees with him in lockstep - and that happens to be Moyers.

4. I'm for incrementally moving towards UHC. I just don't think it's wise, practical, nor will it be successful to try and cram it down American's throats all at once.

If you still don't understand my point - I give up.

Whatever... it comes across like you're saying Mr. Potter's opinion is not relevant because he was on Moyers' show, which is guilt by association.

[JohnJMS]

Originally Posted by mtutiger

Whatever... it comes across like you're saying Mr. Potter's opinion is not relevant because he was on Moyers' show, which is guilt by association.

I can't see how you take it like that. Did you not read any of the other replies in the thread? My point was completely clear. And even if it wasn't, my last reply to you certainly was. You seem to be the only one having trouble with it. But like I said, I don't think you do. I think you get the point. But instead you quote the first line from the 2nd reply in the thread - ignore everything else I've written - and try to make it seem like I'm making a point that I never stated in order to debate me on something I never said. When that doesn't occur, and I make it painfully obvious to anyone that can read what my points are - you still reply with what you think it "comes across as" and then accuse me of 'guilt by association' - even though you know that's a completely inaccurate statement in regards to what I wrote.

Let's try and get back on topic. If you want to discuss my actual opinions and or points on this topic, look no farther than where I break it down for you in my previous post. That, and my larger overall point on UHC you left out so I feel compelled to repeat it -

I'm for Universal Health Care for children - right now. Let's get that done. However, I think trying to do the "Insurance for Everyone" task for a country this size and with such unique budgetary issues, it should be tackled incrementally. Let's roll out UHC for kids first. See how that works. Iron out any issues. Get it to work properly. Then, if it is working smoothly, I'd be far more likely to support the next step - true UHC. But just diving into this head first concerns me greatly. And as I've said before - if Obama doesn't do this in steps, showing success along the way, if he instead shoots for the big prize and misses - especially with a Democratic Super Majority - he'll set back UHC for a generation.

If you want to discuss those - I'm game. If you want to discuss the fictitious points I don't believe in and that I've repeatedly here clarified for you as inaccurate - don't bother.

[SweetLou]

Originally Posted by FloridaTigers

The US should extensively study other nations with socialized medicine and try to get it right before applying it.

Exactly. What's really embarrassing is that Taiwan did just that, benchmarking all the countries health care plans, and the United States wasn't even on their list.