The Broken Health Care System

I finally made time out of my busy schedule to watch the ultra-liberal, Michael Moore's new documentary called SICKO. After watching this movie, I would recommend the world to watch it, or at least those living in the US. The movie is basically about how the US health care system is broken and how it is not as wonderful as we all claim it to be. There are about 50 million people in the US without insurance, but this movie is not necessarily about them. Instead, Moore focuses on how grossly inadequate health insurance is for the rest of the 250 million people living in this country and how the insurance companies control what can and cannot be treated.

He makes a great point about how we have grown up learning to despise a socialistic society where everyone is treated equally and works for the betterment of the community as a whole. We've been told over and over by schools and by our democratic government that a socialized or nationalized health care system would mean that the government would end up running peoples' lives and that important health decisions would be taken out of the hands of our family doctors. Some how our country has developed into one where we have an "Every man is for himself" attitude. We've bought into a capitalistic society where the laissez faire philosophy rules the day and the rich and powerful continue to get the best services. Who cares about those who cannot pay for all their medical bills? It's not your problem if someone dies of congestive heart failure because he had inadequate health care coverage through corporate insurance companies and cannot afford to pay out of pocket for certain necessary treatments. It's not my problem, right? Wrong. It is my problem because that same person could have easily been someone I know or a family member, or even me. Would you want to live in a country where the public cares about your health and well-being so that you can be a productive member of society? Why do the rich and the powerful only get fair treatment and the right to quality health care?

The right to quality health care. This theory gives me a segway into another good point that Moore made. I've thought about this point in the community health courses I took in college, but I never realized how true it is until now. Why is it that we do not consider health care to be a public right? Why is it that in our individualistic society we have left the poor, the sick and the old to die on the streets purely because of their inability to pay for medical care? I believe a mark of a great country is one where the government and the nation takes care of those who do not have the means to take care of themselves. That is why we have a somewhat socialistic society when it comes to our public education system, our fire department and our police department. We allow our children to go to public school without paying for an education. We allow people to use the fire department when there is a fire without paying extra. We also rely on the police to keep our streets and neighborhoods safe without paying extra. Why is it then that people have to pay extra for health care? Aren't people paying enough taxes so that they can receive quality care without having to pay deductibles and co-pays and relying on private insurance companies who will end up screwing them in the end? Oh wait, our taxes go towards funding the military instead. Apparently, people do not have enough compassion to pay for the health of fellow Americans.

It's a sad state when Americans rely on health insurance companies who only care about profit and the bottom line rather than one's health. It's also sad when our government continues to tell us that nationalized or socialized medicine will not work because it will take the decision power out of the physician's hands. It's just sad to hear this right wing propaganda when we can see that poorer countries in other parts of the world have better health care systems than ours while we are spending millions to line the pockets of the insurance companies. Instead, why don't we utilize that money in a more efficient manner and invest in a so-called Nationalized health care system?

Below is an article I found describing how the government is already controlling our health care and how it severely limits what doctors can do. I think we can do better than our current system.

Ex-surgeon general accuses Bush officials of censorship
Says they chose agenda over facts
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Los Angeles Times July 11, 2007

WASHINGTON -- President Bush's first surgeon general alleged yesterday that administration officials prevented him from providing the public with accurate scientific and medical information on such issues as stem cell research and teen pregnancy.
"The reality is that the 'nation's doctor' has been marginalized and relegated to a position with no independent budget and with supervisors who are political appointees with partisan agendas," Dr. Richard H. Carmona told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. "Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological, or political agenda is ignored, marginalized, or simply buried.
"The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in a democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds," said Carmona, who served from 2002 to 2006. "The job of surgeon general is to be the doctor of the nation, not the doctor of a political party."
Carmona testified alongside former surgeons general C. Everett Koop and David Satcher, who served in the Reagan and Clinton administrations, respectively. They also told the committee that they faced political interference, particularly on morally charged issues such as sexuality and drug use.
But Carmona said some fellow surgeons general told him the interference rose to new levels during his tenure.
"The surgeon general has to be independent if the surgeon general is going to have any credibility," said Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and the committee chairman. The panel is considering changes that would insulate the surgeon general from political crosscurrents.
Administration officials had no immediate comment on Carmona's denunciation, but the Health and Human Services Department was expected to issue a statement. The House hearing occurred two days before a Senate panel is to meet to consider the nomination of Kentucky cardiologist Dr. James W. Holsinger Jr. to succeed Carmona. Holsinger already has drawn political fire from leading Democrats and gay and lesbian organizations. As a lay member of the United Methodist Church, Holsinger has strongly opposed the liberalization of church policies toward gays.
Surgeons general are viewed as public-health advocates who serve, in essence, as the nation's family doctor. Previous surgeons general have played pivotal roles in debates about smoking, drunken driving, mental health, and disparities in medical treatment between whites and minorities.
Carmona said that he expected that would be his role when he came to Washington, but that his attitude was politically naïve.
When the issue of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research came up early in Bush's first term, Carmona said, he felt he could play an educational role for administration officials and the public by openly discussing the latest scientific research.
Stem cells can be grown into any type of cell in the body, and some scientists see the promise of a cure for Parkinson's and other diseases in them. But producing embryonic stem cells has involved the destruction of human embryos, raising moral issues that some, including many religious conservatives, find profoundly disturbing. In 2001, Bush limited federal funding for stem cell research and has since blocked attempts by Congress to lift the restriction.
Carmona said he was told to stand down from playing any educational role because a decision had already been made. He also said administration appointees who reviewed the text of his speeches deleted from them references to stem cell research.
Likewise, on the issue of preventing teen pregnancy, Carmona said he was not allowed to deviate from the administration's position that abstinence was the best approach. In fact, he said, he believes a variety of approaches are needed, including contraception for sexually active teens. The administration did not want to hear the science, but wanted to preach, Carmona said.