[QUOTE=DrDeth]
There are these things called “books” and “newspapers”.
[/QUOTE]
Which you have to pay for, just like a ticket to Moore’s movie, to learn from them.
Unless you only read stuff at your local, socialized, public library, which you pay for through your local taxes.
If you are not inclined to seek it out on the internets, why not go see the movie? It will prepare you better to disparage it than preconceived notions.
[QUOTE=Leaper]
Interestingly, the AP, perhaps sensitive of being called too liberal, wrote an article with some points to rebut some of Moore’s claims and such.
It’s especially interesting because I don’t think I’ve ever seen an article like this from the AP. It seems like an unusual tack. Perhaps they felt all the other angles of the film were already covered.
[/QUOTE]
What’s also unusual is that they refer to Moore’s failure to include much in the way of rebuttal by the health and drug companies without mentioning the several news item from 2004 and 2005 when those companies were threatening their employees with termination if they talked to him. They apparently didn’t want their own voices heard.
[QUOTE=Red Barchetta]
I hear this line every damn time a Michael Moore film comes out, and every damn time I end up seeing the film, and end up feeling exactly how I did beforehand.
Moore’s films are little more than exercises in manipulation and fact-bending. I almost laughed during several ridiculously unbelievable segments in 9/11.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know that you’ll feel differently this time or not, but it really is a much different and better film than his recent efforts. I doubt very seriously you’ll be laughing this time.
I’ll extend the same deal to you, as well. In fact, I’ll up the deal to all three of you; see the movie, come back and tell me you didn’t think it worth the price of a movie ticket, and I’ll send you $50.
[QUOTE=duality72]
You’ll have to see the movie to understand. If you do see the movie and still don’t think you should have had to pay for it, I will personally reimburse you the cost of the ticket. I extend the same deal to Liberal, too.
[/QUOTE]
I do appreciate your offer, but I don’t doubt that it’s a good movie. In fact, even FoxNews gave it a good review. They said that Moore has “matured”.
[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
What’s also unusual is that they refer to Moore’s failure to include much in the way of rebuttal by the health and drug companies without mentioning the several news item from 2004 and 2005 when those companies were threatening their employees with termination if they talked to him. They apparently didn’t want their own voices heard.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting, but not surprising. After all, Moore didn’t set out to make, and is not known for making, a film with both sides properly balanced and debated.
In fact, that’s the flaw of the article - assuming that it was Moore’s intention to do so, and that it’s a failure on his part, necessarily, that he didn’t. Then again, I’d argue that getting both sides, albeit from different sources, makes the film MORE interesting.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Instead of socializing medicine, why not enact and enforce laws against deception and fraud? Why not force the insurance companies to pay up on legitimate claims?
[/QUOTE]
Because the problem here is not primarily a fraud problem.
[QUOTE=Leaper]
Interesting, but not surprising. After all, Moore didn’t set out to make, and is not known for making, a film with both sides properly balanced and debated.
In fact, that’s the flaw of the article - assuming that it was Moore’s intention to do so, and that it’s a failure on his part, necessarily, that he didn’t. Then again, I’d argue that getting both sides, albeit from different sources, makes the film MORE interesting.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not logical for people in these companies, or their defenders to justify refusing an interview and then complain that their side is not adequately presented. If he couldn’t get them to talk if he tried, they have no right to complain they don’t hear their side.
One could argue that their veiwpoint is more than adequately represented in the effect of the laws they lobby congress to pass and their not-too-difficult-to-encounter advertising.
I just saw the movie as well, and I really liked it. I think it was very interesting to show examples of several people under the NHS in the UK and Canadian citizens receiving national healthcare.
I hope it will do at least something to stem the urban legends of Canadians dying waiting in line to get vital procedures performed.
[QUOTE=ladyfoxfyre]
I hope it will do at least something to stem the urban legends of Canadians dying waiting in line to get vital procedures performed.
[/QUOTE]
I recall Moore himself playing off that one in Canadian Bacon.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Instead of socializing medicine, why not enact and enforce laws against deception and fraud? Why not force the insurance companies to pay up on legitimate claims?
[/QUOTE]
I am no expert on the insurance industry, but there’s a common thread to most stories I’ve heard of people being denied expected coverage.
Basically, insurance companies are allowed to keep private much of the information that they base their decisions on. This makes it awfully hard for a customer to determine that they have indeed been victim of fraud, unless someone in the company acknowledges it (ala the whistleblower in John Grisham’s “The Rainmaker”).
E.g., when I moved from West Virginia to Baltimore/Washington as a young, unmarried male, I experienced auto insurance rates that kept going up year after year despite my having no accidents or tickets. My agent told me they had statistics that made this a fair decision. Since I was an apparent abberation, I asked if I could examine these statistics (I have a mathematics/statistics background) to determine what was making my rates so high. I was told that these statistics were proprietary.
Apologies for the hijack, but I would be interested in hearing from those with more factual knowledge on this subject.
[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
It’s not logical for people in these companies, or their defenders to justify refusing an interview and then complain that their side is not adequately presented. If he couldn’t get them to talk if he tried, they have no right to complain they don’t hear their side.
[/quote]
Couldn’t the two things be considered separately? They didn’t talk to Michael Moore because they knew that their POV wouldn’t be presented fairly or seriously (a more than fair assumption, I say, considering his previous films - and not surprising, considering he’s trying to make a point), AND they’re complaining ABOUT Moore not presenting their POV fairly or seriously. In other words, I’m saying that their not speaking to Moore could be considered a SYMPTOM of their complaint of not being treated seriously, not a CAUSE. (Ironic, talking about symptoms when discussing a movie about medical treatment.)
I don’t agree, but I don’t think it’s NECESSARILY a logically inconsistent POV, unless I’m missing something. If I were, I wouldn’t be surprised.
And for that matter, suppose they had talked to Moore. Do you really think they’d come out any the better for it? Absolutely not. Why would they? If they did, it’d undercut Moore’s point. As far as he’s concerned, he has a responsibility to his message, not them. Why should he treat them with any fairness? Why should they expect any?
Agreed. It’s sort of like claims of Christian or white oppression in America. The dominant tend to forget they’re dominant when faced with a loud opposing voice.
[QUOTE=randwill]
Unless you only read stuff at your local, socialized, public library, which you pay for through your local taxes.
If you are not inclined to seek it out on the internets, why not go see the movie? It will prepare you better to disparage it than preconceived notions.
[/QUOTE]
I am not disparaging it. Moore is an interesting Filmaker. But I go to the movies for entertainment. If I want discussion, thought, politics and propaganda, I do it by reading.
Perhaps someone will publish a novelization or manga version of Sicko, after which you’ll be empowered to comment intelligently. Until then you might wish (although you are by no means obligated) to avoid threads about movies you haven’t seen, nor intend to see unless you are personally reimbursed by the filmmaker for your attendance.
[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
Perhaps someone will publish a novelization or manga version of Sicko, after which you’ll be empowered to comment intelligently. Until then you might wish (although you are by no means obligated) to avoid threads about movies you haven’t seen, nor intend to see unless you are personally reimbursed by the filmmaker for your attendance.
[/QUOTE]
Why? I paid my dues here, and I am not commenting on the specifics of this exact film, but of a certain *type *of film.
Nor do I bother with Manga. 
The film slayed me, it really slayed me. I’m a pretty big proponent of cold-hearted capitalism. I admit that my heart doesn’t bleed too much for the poor and supposedly disadvantaged, and yet this movie tugged at even my heartstrings and had me thinking “Hmm… maybe socialized healthcare isn’t such a bad idea after all.”
Then I had some time to reflect and had a “Wait a minute” moment where I went back over all the reasons in my head why I wouldn’t support socialized healthcare. And I realized I still don’t, but I do feel that the power of insurance companies could stand to be knocked down a notch, and I would support any and all inintiatives moving them toward non-profit status with greater regulation and requirements for acceptance of claims.
[QUOTE=sunacres]
But not here. It’s fucking sad. And I thought the Cuba segment was particularly effective. Our heroic good samaritans, because they weren’t “covered,” have been left to suffer. And even a US-ostracized banana republic has the humanity to take care of them, no questions asked.
[/QUOTE]
Like others here I have a problem with the Cuban segment. For one thing, despite the cute blackout I don’t buy the premise of “pretending to go to Guantanamo and landing in Cuban territory instead.” There is no way Moore does that without the express approval of the Cuban government, which does not come by easily, so there must have been many negotiations to get there. And permits to visit Cuba and film and travel there not free, Moore must have paid a good amount to shoot in Cuba.
Second, Guantanmo and Havana are at almost opposite extremes of the island. That trip does not happen with explicit approval and participation of the Cuban government for all kinds of things, including logistics and transportation, again not free. And by the way there are hospitals near Guantanamo.
Later when Moore meets the pharmacy and the hospital staff I have to call major bullshit. Again, nothing like this happens in Cuba without the approval and supervision of the Cuban government, consequently Moore is not portraying, despite what he claims in the movie, the care that is available in Cuba to street level Cubans. He is portraying the care that is available to rich foreigners, in which case he could have gone to any hospital in the US.
I sat through this awful movie because I did not want to comment on it without seeing it, now I wish I had not.
[QUOTE=lalenin]
Later when Moore meets the pharmacy and the hospital staff I have to call major bullshit. Again, nothing like this happens in Cuba without the approval and supervision of the Cuban government, consequently Moore is not portraying, despite what he claims in the movie, the care that is available in Cuba to street level Cubans. He is portraying the care that is available to rich foreigners, in which case he could have gone to any hospital in the US.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know about Cuba, but my experiences in other countries are consistent with the scenario presented in the film.
In 1989, I was vacationing in Australia with my wife. She had a collision with another bodysurfer and broke an eardrum. We went to the nearest hospital, walked in and she had repair surgery performed on the spot. The paperwork involved them writing down her name. The staff at the hospital was so friendly, unstressed and caring, we were just astonished. Cost of treatment: $0. They told us she should get checked in about a year and would probably require followup surgery, but it would be routine, no big deal.
By then we were back in the US. She went to her doctor and he said yes, they would need to operate to replace the temporary graft that had been installed in Australia. $5000, coverage declined by our insurance carrier.
In 1981 I worked in Saudi Arabia and suffered a pneumo thorax (collapsed lung). This had happened once before when I was a teenager and I was in the hospital for three days and it nearly bankrupt my mother. I was terrified about going to a Saudi hospital, but I had no choice. Again, three days in the hospital but this time I had a private room, attentive care and delicious food. All free.
The movie featured a Canadian golfer who had suffered a ruptured bicep and had it promptly repaired. Three years ago I had the same thing happening while carrying a too-heavy load. I’m a Kaiser member. My doctor told me my best option was to do nothing and adjust to life with no bicep. I am such a fucking sheep I trusted that this was the best medical option. Until I saw this movie I believed it.
Incidentally, my Kaiser doctors are generally very happy. They don’t make the biggest of the big bucks but they get to spend their entire day helping patients. In this sense I consider Kaiser a step in the direction of universal health care. Their only complaint: they are evaluated on the basis of what the services consumed by their patients cost. The result is I have no bicep in my right arm.
[QUOTE=lalenin]
…He is portraying the care that is available to rich foreigners, in which case he could have gone to any hospital in the US. …
[/QUOTE]
I agree that I don’t see how he could have landed and filmed anywhere at all without the knowledge of the government.
However, the entire point of the film is that these people could not have gone to any hospital in the US and received the same level of care, which was not particularly extreme. They could not afford it themselves, and their insurance would not cover it, therefore they would not receive it. My post earlier pointed out that despite the Cuban hospital visit most definitely being a “dog an pony show” arranged by the Cuban government, they showed more concern over the welfare of these American heroes than America ever will.
No, he didn’t show that the average Cuban would not receive the same treatment. The point, however, was to show the contrast between the treatment that people described by American government officials as “heroes” received in their own country as opposed to a country that our propaganda tells us is unmitigatedly evil.
Dog and pony show it may be, but it’s a travelling Dog and Pony show. Cuban doctors go all over the world providing routine healthcare for free for indigent populations, and they have some of the best-trained staff in the world. Politics cease to matter when your health is on the line. I can’t blame these folks for going wherever they could to get treated.
I can recognize that Michael Moore has his own agenda. However, when watching this movie, and watching peoples faces as they are asked about costs, makes me seriously wonder if maybe the way we think about healthcare should change, which was of course, the point of the movie.
I’m 39, female, and I’d like another child. I work 32 hours a week, my husband works full time, we both have good jobs. Health insurance from his company to cover the three of us would cost $758 a month. Just him and my daughter is $350. My car payment, which I pay an insane interest rate on is $370. We have one car. Our house is now for sale. We can’t afford it. We have a pretty small mortgage $55k. We have some money management problems that we are addressing. We have no credit card debt.
My only hope of getting two teeth fixed, having another child, getting new glasses or any preventative care are to sell my house and use the equity to pay.
The thing is, I don’t want to worry about the things I worry about for the reasons I worry about them. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.
When I asked my brother, how could I have another child, he said the same way he did. The baby is gonna come, the hospital is gonna deliver it and the bills will come. Then, when you try to get a mortgage, or a car, they see those unpaid bills and ask what happened, and you say “I had a baby.” and they disregard them, because medical items are so common. I don’t want to take public assistance, I want to be able to afford what I should be able to afford.
Sorry, my biological clock is about wound down and I don’t have a lot of options left. I just hope my house sells soon.