Clinton campaign demonstrates repeated incompetence

[DanaC]

One of the really interesting points raised in Sicko, is the way 'socialised medicine' has become a bogeyman in American politics. It's something I find very difficult to understand. You (lookout)don't trust your government to run such a system, yet you do trust insurance companies: insurance companies which routinely try to deny their responsibility to pay for treatment. I saw a website, think it was from a link here, about how to fight insurance companies for what you need. It focussed on the way the companies would try to deny when they have no right to...the advice was good, it told you what to say and how to say it...but you shouldn't have to fight for routine medical care.

You say emergency treatment is available to all. Emergency treatment doesn't cover such things as chemo, oxygen for those with lung conditions, cortisones for those with chronic skin conditions etc, etc.

In Sicko Moore examined some attitudes towards socialised medicine, and looked at the way the medical system in the UK and Canada has been portrayed in America as a failed system. Yet the same people who think socialised medicine means gurneys in the corridor and year long waits for treatment don't seem to percieve the massive health inequalities which exist on their own doorstep.

Many millions of Americans have no health insurance. Yes, if they break their leg they can get emergency treatment (followed by a bill and chased by debt collectors), but what about when they develop diabetes, cancer or goiter problems? What about the routine medical care they need for chronic conditions like asthma, eczema, psoriasis or emphacaema? Unless they are amongst the rather small group of people who qualify for medicaid, those people cannot access such routine care.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: health care provided by private insurance companies, or private hospitals are blinded by the need for profit. Their main responsibility is not to their patienmts it is to their shareholders. The insurance companies have a goal: to take in as much money as they can and to pay out as little as they can. How can that be reconciled with the patients' need?

[eta] again this is something I've said before, but I think it's worth repeating: I find it very hard to understand how the richest country on this planet, the one with the most resources, both physical and human, can have so many millions of its citizens living in fear of illness because they are unable to access medical care should the worst befall them. Third world countries have a decent excuse for such a situation, the wealthiest nation on earth, in my opinion, has not. Don'y mistake this as an attempt to bash America. I believe that America represents much of what is best in the modern world. But it also represents some of what is worst. The willingness to allow fellow citizens to languish in distress, uncared for and untended because they do not have adequate finances, or the right job, falls into the latter category. Even for those who have played by the rules and done everything your system requires (Like Brianna) there are still monumental gaps in coverage.

Being sick, whether just dealing with pain or distress, or actually fearing for your survival is hard enough. Having to cope with a massive financial burden, fighting for every bit of coverage you get, or simply having no access at all to the treatment which will cure or ameliorate your condition must be appalling.