I found this review at http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/movie_review/sicko.htm by Yannick LeJacq.
The review is quite long, so visit the above site to read more...
When I went to see Sicko, I sat next to a group of middle-aged, mild-mannered women who were talking softly before the movie started. Then a large picture of George W. Bush appeared on screen, and the women next to me, along with most of the theater, began jeering and laughing so loudly I couldn't hear what the President was actually saying. This continued throughout the movie. The audience enunciated each punch line not with a laugh, but with a resounding “ohhhhh!” as if this were an episode of “Yo Momma.”
You could say this is all circumstantial. But, really, I think this is what Sicko is supposed to be. Almost all the overviews and reviews I've heard of the movie begin with a phrase like, “Michael Moore: first, he took on GM. Then, he took on the NRA. Next up was the Bush administration. Now, he's setting his sights on health care.” The movie poster shows Moore putting on a doctor’s glove with a mischievous and aggressive look on his face under the tagline, “This might hurt a little.” Moore is picking a fight with someone.
Many critics have noted that Sicko is Moore's most mature work, and they praise the new observational, tragic tone he carries alongside his trademark cynicism. I agree that the opening interviews of the movie are some of the best work Moore has ever done. The first half of Sicko consists largely of individual stories of people affected by America's health care system. Moore shows people cheated out of proper financial assistance for obscure reasons, and pairs them with startling confessions by people who used to work for HMOs, describing how they received praise for denying as much financial assistance as possible. But he's only interviewing people that fundamentally corroborate his view on health care. Looking back through his films, you can see that Moore reserves the most eloquent outrage for those with whom he sympathizes.
I think this is because Michael Moore, as the ideologue that he enjoys being, has no real appreciation for journalistic research. He prefers to take a polemic than analytical approach to an issue. It's easy to see why he does this. It gives him his gruff, un-intellectual charm that's made him compelling from the beginning of his career. People didn't go to see Fahrenheit 9/11, just as I'm sure they didn't go to see Sicko, to learn anything new (you can find out very easily that socialized health care means you get treated at the hospital for free); they went because, by supporting Michael Moore, they're inherently becoming part of his rant. Through him, they're shouting at the powerful, incompetent elite they're also sick of.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
SICKO Billing - Words Directly From Michael Moore
How about some words DIRECTLY from Michael Moore!
I found this excerpt from an article in LA times.
For more on this, visit http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-moore21may21
"When people say there is no confrontation in this movie, to me there is a big confrontation in this movie," Moore said in an interview here. "Because I am confronting the American audience with a question: 'Who are we, and what has happened to our soul?' To me, that's maybe more confrontation than going after the CEO of Aetna or the CEO of Pfizer." The reason Moore feels compelled to ask this "Sicko" question is because, he feels, the country unthinkingly settles for substandard and ruinously expensive medical treatment, especially when compared with countries with universal healthcare.
"I don't have to convince the American public that there is something wrong with our health care system. I think most American people already feel that way," said Moore, who enjoys great coverage himself through the Directors Guild of America. "That's why I don't spend a lot of time in the film on the healthcare horror stories. I wanted to propose that there's a different way we can go with this. I'm hoping that the American people, when they see this film, will say, 'You know, there is a better way, and maybe we should look at what they are doing in some of these other countries..."
Medical Billers need to stay up with all news in health care, whether sparked from their own individual client's level OR from a documentary which brings our health care crisis to light.
I found this excerpt from an article in LA times.
For more on this, visit http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-moore21may21
"When people say there is no confrontation in this movie, to me there is a big confrontation in this movie," Moore said in an interview here. "Because I am confronting the American audience with a question: 'Who are we, and what has happened to our soul?' To me, that's maybe more confrontation than going after the CEO of Aetna or the CEO of Pfizer." The reason Moore feels compelled to ask this "Sicko" question is because, he feels, the country unthinkingly settles for substandard and ruinously expensive medical treatment, especially when compared with countries with universal healthcare.
"I don't have to convince the American public that there is something wrong with our health care system. I think most American people already feel that way," said Moore, who enjoys great coverage himself through the Directors Guild of America. "That's why I don't spend a lot of time in the film on the healthcare horror stories. I wanted to propose that there's a different way we can go with this. I'm hoping that the American people, when they see this film, will say, 'You know, there is a better way, and maybe we should look at what they are doing in some of these other countries..."
Medical Billers need to stay up with all news in health care, whether sparked from their own individual client's level OR from a documentary which brings our health care crisis to light.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Medical Billing - "Transparent" Charges; Is This Possible?
As I have mentioned, previously, a DRASTIC change to our health care system, LIKE Socialized Medicine, makes me nervous as a Medical Biller. I feel that this type of change would put my job in jeopardy.
I did, however, see a news segment recently that spoke about "Transparency" in insurance billing and payouts, according to specialty and whether the services received by the patient were done so at a hospital, clinic or private practice.
This seems like an interesting idea and I'll explain why.
The current system varies to extremes.
I have TWO Physical Therapy clients. Each submits an identical code. One of my clients receives a reimbursement of $69.27, while the other - for the exact same code - receives $16.38! What is with these numbers?? There is no rhyme or reason and getting a valid explanation from a payer is next to near impossible.
It's almost as if the representatives employed at these carriers are unable to explain such vast differences in payouts also.
In a revised "Transparent" health care system, all providers within a specialty would be reimbursed at the exact same rate, regardless of history or longevity, or which size the moon was at the time while credentialing with the carrier.
There would be SOME variation depending upon the location of the services; hospital, clinic or private practice. But, Medicare would need to impose such a regulation in order for all carriers to follow suit.
Asking Medicare for a change to this magnitude is like asking the sun to quiet its rays for a while; impossible!
However, the only organization that could force Medicare to oblige would be the government, somewhat, unfortunately...
SICKO and Michael Moore are, of course, considered fiercely liberal.
What this movie has done though, is forced a dialogue to occur regardless of one's position in the political spectrum. A republican from Iowa - Charles Grassley -is the individual that coined "Transparency".
Many advocates for change in our health care system see this point of view as the closest to the best outcome for all to date.
What do you think??
I did, however, see a news segment recently that spoke about "Transparency" in insurance billing and payouts, according to specialty and whether the services received by the patient were done so at a hospital, clinic or private practice.
This seems like an interesting idea and I'll explain why.
The current system varies to extremes.
I have TWO Physical Therapy clients. Each submits an identical code. One of my clients receives a reimbursement of $69.27, while the other - for the exact same code - receives $16.38! What is with these numbers?? There is no rhyme or reason and getting a valid explanation from a payer is next to near impossible.
It's almost as if the representatives employed at these carriers are unable to explain such vast differences in payouts also.
In a revised "Transparent" health care system, all providers within a specialty would be reimbursed at the exact same rate, regardless of history or longevity, or which size the moon was at the time while credentialing with the carrier.
There would be SOME variation depending upon the location of the services; hospital, clinic or private practice. But, Medicare would need to impose such a regulation in order for all carriers to follow suit.
Asking Medicare for a change to this magnitude is like asking the sun to quiet its rays for a while; impossible!
However, the only organization that could force Medicare to oblige would be the government, somewhat, unfortunately...
SICKO and Michael Moore are, of course, considered fiercely liberal.
What this movie has done though, is forced a dialogue to occur regardless of one's position in the political spectrum. A republican from Iowa - Charles Grassley -is the individual that coined "Transparency".
Many advocates for change in our health care system see this point of view as the closest to the best outcome for all to date.
What do you think??
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
SICKO Billing - Single Payor System Would NOT Impact Quality of Care?
As a Professional Mdical Biller, I continuously seek information on the possible impact of a change in our health care system.
The reason that I do this, is because I survive on the process as it exists today.
Private practice owners generally do not have the resources or the money to support the overhead in keeping medical billing in-house. They seek an outsourced solution, like ME to process electronic medical claims on their behalf.
I am convinced that a single payor system would NOT improve anything BUT the paperwork currently required. That is it. It would not impact the quality of care at all.
So, with that said, perhaps health care system in the US shouldn't change all that much?
What I would like to see change are the numbers of people that lack health coverage go away entirely.
Every person deserves health insurance and all should have it for proper medical care.
I found this quote at http://whynow.dumka.us/2007/07/02/more-on-the-sicko-issue/
"Paperwork is a major cost of the American health care system that would be radically cut by a single payer system, and would have no impact at all on the quality of care. This is something that the insurance companies could have done decades ago, but chose not to, and just made it worse. Confusing billing procedures delays payouts, and that is one of the reasons they do it, no matter what they tell you."
And, I agree.
The reason that I do this, is because I survive on the process as it exists today.
Private practice owners generally do not have the resources or the money to support the overhead in keeping medical billing in-house. They seek an outsourced solution, like ME to process electronic medical claims on their behalf.
I am convinced that a single payor system would NOT improve anything BUT the paperwork currently required. That is it. It would not impact the quality of care at all.
So, with that said, perhaps health care system in the US shouldn't change all that much?
What I would like to see change are the numbers of people that lack health coverage go away entirely.
Every person deserves health insurance and all should have it for proper medical care.
I found this quote at http://whynow.dumka.us/2007/07/02/more-on-the-sicko-issue/
"Paperwork is a major cost of the American health care system that would be radically cut by a single payer system, and would have no impact at all on the quality of care. This is something that the insurance companies could have done decades ago, but chose not to, and just made it worse. Confusing billing procedures delays payouts, and that is one of the reasons they do it, no matter what they tell you."
And, I agree.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)