Michael Moore’s “Sicko”
As Michael Moore stated in the documentary, Sicko ‘what have we become’ when we are able to close our eyes to the plight of so many (including those who are facing financial ruin due to our health care providers who spend billions on averting helping those who may actually need health care). Meanwhile we spend billions of dollars invading a country that posed almost no threat to us. Please Congress, represent the people that have entrusted you with the fervent hope that this country can find its conscience.
This letter has not been edited.
It's hard for a country to "find its conscience" when it's run by a conscienceless "compassionate conservative" crime syndicate. The empty headed Don wields no power - "Capo" Cheney gets the dirty work done. They took his gun away, though.
Posted by drew on July 16, 2007 03:05 PMA 'country' does not have a conscience as it is not a person with feelings and a brain.
Posted by Roy on July 16, 2007 03:08 PMI didn't see Sicko, but my wife did. She said it was good and made her think.
I commented on this issue before. In my very humble opinion, I think that health care is way too complex an issue on a Federal level, although I am very much in support of a safety net for all, with personal responsibility and choice. I would prefer to see the states address this issue at a state level, where I think it could be much more manageable. I want people to understand the complexities of a system for 300+ million, vs. 66 million (population of Great Britain). I would like us to address our personal health issues, so that I am not paying for someone who is obese, smokes, drinks to excess, uses dangerous drugs, or has a dangerous lifestyle BY CHOICE, without any personal responsibility.
I think that we can and should address this issue, but it doesn't have to be just two choices. It shouldn't just be government or free market.
Posted by Dan2 on July 16, 2007 03:48 PMI agree with you completely but unfortunately these 'fake Republicans' in charge have proven that they have no real interest in the rest of us. I also think the true genius in Michael Moore's film SICKO is that he's chosen a subject the average person can actually relate to as opposed to the far more abstract and complex Iraq war. Unlike the war it doesn't require a
basic understanding of history, geography and international politics.
If you believe Michael Moore, you are as misguided as if you believe the government. The man is a genius at one thing: twisting the truth to fit his opinion.
Do the math for yourselves; don't listen to what you are told by rich white men. Yes, MM IS a very rich white man.
What is he lying about?
Posted by Tbone on July 16, 2007 04:09 PMThe fact that you have such unwavering trust in a man like Moore is unbelievable... TBone.
The man is definitely far, far left wing. I thought you more of a left of center person rather than fringe left.
Posted by KW on July 16, 2007 05:08 PMKW -
I never said I had an unwavering trust in him. He's the fox news of the left.
I was just wondering what specifically kevin was referring to. Did he lie in SiCKO?
And what makes MM "far, far left wing"? Because he is anti-war (a position that about 70% of america espouses), the fact that he thinks health care needs work? His assertations that corporations cause harm?
Posted by Tbone on July 16, 2007 05:18 PM70% of Americans would prefer we weren't involved in Iraq. Nowhere near 70% want us to pull out immediately and leave the Iraqis to fend for themselves.
MM would love for just that to happen.
What would you do without corps? It takes companies of size to give the high tech world so you can sit here and post. Big corps are also responsible for many other advances including medicine.
And MM makes more than most COE's. Shouldn't we hate him as well?
Posted by KW on July 16, 2007 05:24 PMYou won't see anyone who opposes universal health care who will address the issue of what would happen to health care in America if we reduced the funding to the level of funding in most universal health care countries, that is, to about half of what it is. In 2005, health care costs were estimated at about two trillion dollars, or about $6,700 per person, a 6.9% increase over 2004, two times the rate of inflation.
That's 16% of our gross national product. "Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5 percent in France, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development."
Dan 2 is simply wrong about his inference that costs per capita are higher for more populated countries. It seems obvious that costs per capita go down as the number of people being served by the same resources go up. It's the same principle behind merger mania by corporations.
If we reduced the funding by half, gee, we would have nearly a trillion more dollars to spend in Iraq, or on education. Or we could keep spending as it is, but instead of having the 38th best health care system we could use the money for universal health care and have the best health care system in the world. How much better do you think health care would be in Canada, or England, or Germany, etc. if they doubled the amount they spend? You won't see opponents of universal health care answering that question.
Posted by Truth on July 16, 2007 05:58 PMBoy! The media has really taken Mike Moore to task for the accuracy of his "SICKO" flick. Mike owns 0 bodybags. If only the media would would have the "NADS" to quiz "W" and Alito (SICKO's).
Owners of 1500 NOLA, 9/11 3000, and Iraq-NAM 100K body-bags. Both are UCMJ-felons (illegal separation) and AWOLees and deserters. "W" and Cong. Bush conspired and violated President Truman's executive order which desegregated all of our military units. This dynamic duo resegregated all of our military units when they carved out a slot for "W" in the racially segregated Texas Air National Guard. They simultaneously violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Alito probably made "W" blush. Alito joined the US Army ROTC program and he got 7 years of "free" college education (JD/under grad). Alito incurred an active duty military obligation of "11" years, for these taxpayer "gifts". Alito blew-off his military obligation under the guise he was federal law clerk. Federal law clerk isn't mentioned in the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and therefore, Alito and "W", should replace Scooter at a federal prison altar, so they can get some of what they have been giving black folks.
Posted by 40acresandmymuleandvetbennies on July 16, 2007 06:11 PMKW said:
"The man is definitely far, far left wing."
Bill O'Reilly is his Edgar Bergen...
Posted by Charles B on July 16, 2007 06:53 PMif its the governments job to provide you health care why oh why did not your hero billy boy clinton enact it into law?
get over it and go buy your own insurance and stop asking everyone to pay for it for you.
if you really want socalised health care move north of the states and find out how great it is. with all you libs find wrong with America why do you stay here? just remember there is not an anchor in your butt.
40acres: Your right to rant is fully supported and even encouraged. But, could you please either rotate your material, or add some new subject matter?
Posted by carl on July 16, 2007 07:07 PMI just don't want to have to wait to have an MRI because of a heart attack for six months or until death which happens in the one-payer health system such as in England, Canada, Australia, etc......
Watch the documentary "Dead Meat", it is made by Canadians about the Canadian health care system.
Posted by not here on July 16, 2007 07:14 PM"Dead Meat" is an American made exploration of the Canadian Health Care System. It still makes some interesting points.
http://onthefencefilms.com/video/deadmeat/deadmeat.html
Posted by carl on July 16, 2007 08:41 PMI don't think the fault with gov't exists within a particular party. I see so many attacking Bush and Cheney as if they are the heart and soul of what's wrong with America.
I do agree that we are headed down the tubes both morally and financially but it will not be made better with a different administration holding on to the reins.
When are we going to understand that men don't give a damn about anyone but themselves and no matter who we put in charge, they are looking out for what they consider to be important from their own selfish perspective.
God is the only one Who can govern the men He has created. We have legislated Him out of our lives and now we see the results. It will only get worse until He returns.
I'm not trying to open a can of worms about Who God might be. I personally believe that Jesus is exactly Who He said He is and from the record we have in the Bible, He claimed to be God.
But..............no matter what you call Him, Buddha, Muhammed, Krishna, or whether you think men will evolve into a diety of some sort, ..................until He shows up, prayfully sooner than later................this world situation will not get better. We have created the means to destroy ourselves quicker and easier than ever before and no one is going to put that genie back in the bottle but the Lord.
Posted by skeptical on July 16, 2007 09:19 PM7:00-
Health insurance is the problem, not the solution. What good is insurance going to do if they keep denying my claims? Or if they say I have a "pre-existing condition" and won't pay my claims?
Fat lot of good that does.
Posted by Tbone on July 17, 2007 09:28 AMMichael Moore IS a "Sicko". I saw the movie and have also seen people that he interviewed in the movie and what they have said after the movie. He cut out things they said that didn't fit Michael's agenda. If you believe Michael Moore you really have issues.
Posted by on July 17, 2007 10:15 AMTruth,
I said nothing about cost. I simply wrote that this issue is too complex to compare the systems that work for countries the size of California or smaller (in population). Cost is cost, and cost per capita shouldn't be a big issue in my mind. It is the complexities of a system, and the comparison that Moore makes, for a one size fits all that would need to be implemented continentally, so a better comparison would be to see how well single payer would work for everyone in Europe and compare that to the US. I think that is where the issue is misleading, and in my mind should be handled by each individual state, when discussing a US system of health care.
I notice on a lot of these threads that partisan thought clouds compromise and understanding of a topic. Too bad, but very indicative of why we can't get anything done on big issues. Think about it, since I can remember, and in looking through history, the main political issues have been health care / social security, education, and the environment. Yet NOTHING is done and all they continue to be are talking points. Try actually reading my posts Truth, or Drew, use the brain in your heads and wipe the cloud of partisanship away from your vision.
Posted by Dan2 on July 17, 2007 10:18 AMso Truth: So you answer your own question. What would happen if we reduce "funding" by one halF? My funding? your funding? do you mean taotal spending or government funding> You've been ranting about this for days and I still can't determine what you are asking. No wonder no one chooses to answer your question, it makes no sense so you can rebutt any way you like!
AF
Once again, M. Moore needs to have rectal surgery to get his far left head out of his a**
I find him and his money-making, far left, agenda movies disgusting! Propaganda, propaganda, propaganda. Truth be damned!
All this man cares about is the bottom line...MONEY!
Posted by A on July 17, 2007 03:30 PMWhy do people think you need to see MM's schlockumentary before you can evaulate it's merits?
I don't have to listen to Jane Fonda, Barbara Streisand, Dixie Chicks or Al Gore to know they aren't a good sources for truth or facts.
And I have no intention of giving any money to them in the form of buying tickets either.
Posted by KW on July 17, 2007 04:29 PMTo TBone and to others of you who ask what Michael Moore is lying about:
Michael Moore uses propaganda at any level he can. For instance, he once compared the Taliban to the Minute Men of the American Revolution. But then in SiCKO he goes to Guantanamo to show the great health care they get from the U.S. military, but is critical of it.
Moore loves to hold Cuba’s health care system up as something to be admired. Yet he does not tell you that in Cuba patients have to bring their own bedding, toiletries, clothing, and that antibiotics are as scarce as hens teeth, unless you are one of the wealthy communist officials.
Moore shows the very worst possible clinic in a skid row area of America and compares it to what appears to be a run of the mill clinic in Cuba when in fact it is one of the clinics afforded only to the communist leadership there. If Moore tried using those sorts of tactics the other way around to make Cuba look bad he would be at best put in prison and more likely executed by Cuban authorities.
He points out that too many Americans lack health insurance, but ignores the fact that most are uninsured for only brief periods of time. Nor does he mention that nearly 10 million of the 47 million uninsured Americans are actually eligible for Medicaid, but fail to apply. Others in that 47 million could get health insurance but are either well to do youngsters between 17 and 30 years of age who would rather buy the latest in electronics or that new crotch rocket motorcycle, or are wealthy, older people who could afford health insurance but don’t need to because they can afford paying the full bill of whatever a doctor or hospital charges.
Moore highlights the stories of several Americans who were denied reimbursement for experimental treatments. Some of the results are tragic, indeed. But do any of you actually believe that our government bureaucracies are going to pay for those experimental treatments? Hee, hee. Think again.
In Canada, 1 out of 10 patients sit in emergency waiting rooms for up to 12 hours. Moore does not mention that. He generally overlooks the flaws of national health care systems. For instance, he downplays waiting lists in Canada, suggesting they are no more than inconveniences. He interviews apparently healthy Canadians who claim they have no problem getting care. He even follows an uninsured American who slips across the border from Detroit to visit a free Canadian clinic.
Yet somehow, Moore couldn't find any of the nearly 800,000 Canadians who are currently on the waiting list for treatment. Nor apparently did he have time to interview Canadian Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, who wrote in a 2005 decision striking down part of Canada's universal care law that many Canadians waiting for treatment suffer chronic pain and "patients die while on the waiting list."
In his film, Moore struggles to find the payment window at a British hospital. It might not have been so funny if he had talked to any of the 850,000 Britons waiting for admission to those hospitals. Every year, shortages force Britain's National Health Service to cancel as many as 50,000 operations. Roughly 40 percent of cancer patients never get to see an oncology specialist. (In the U.S. patients can usually get in within a couple of weeks.) Delays in receiving treatment are often so long in the U.K. that nearly 20 percent of colon cancer cases considered treatable when first diagnosed are incurable by the time treatment is finally offered. Luckily for the British health practitioners those patients die before costing the system too much time and money. At least they don’t become too much of a bother!
There is no doubt that the many health care insurance companies here in America are negligent at best and in some cases down right cruel. The FDA should be heavily investigated for the Nazi-style tactics they impose upon US citizens (such as actually forcing a 16-year old kid to undergo chemo therapy – literally under an armed guard – when beforehand he was getting great results with alternative natural medicine).
However, with many large problems involved in our health care system, it is still very, very good. 18 of the last 25 winners of the Nobel Prize in medicine either are U.S. citizens or work here. 1 out of every 7 doctors in Canada sends patients to the U.S. for treatment. Americans played a key role in 80 percent of the most important medical advances of the past 30 years, according to a survey by the president's Council of Economic Advisors. American men are more likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer than men in other countries, but we're less likely to die of it. Great Britain has a 57% death rate from prostrate cancer. Fewer than one in five American men with prostate cancer will die from it, while a quarter of Canadian men will, and even more ominously, 57% of British men and nearly half of French and German men will.
In the U.S. if a baby is born and dies after an hour it is still considered a live birth. But in the counties where universal health care or socialized medicine (whatever you want to call it) if the baby dies within 12 hours they consider it a still birth. That way they can make their numbers look better when it comes to infant mortality rates.
80% of the world’s patients come to America for MRI’s. That’s another thing Michael Moore does not reveal.
When former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi needed heart surgery last year, he didn't go to France, Canada, Cuba or even an Italian hospital - he went to the Cleveland Clinic, in Ohio, USA.
Mountain Cat:
Plagiarism is pretty rude.
Just so our fellow readers know where you got much of your info:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8483
It makes you look less smart but more honorable when you credit others for their work.
Posted by Charles B on July 17, 2007 07:40 PMWho cares where he got the info...it's relevant...
Posted by on July 18, 2007 08:02 AMCharles B.
How typical of you to try making it sound like I am “less smart” rather than try showing how “smart” you think you are with an accurate and durable rebuttal. If you don’t like what your opponent is saying you can always resort to attempts at impugning their intellect and/or integrity, especially when your opponent is telling the truth.
I didn't plagiarize. The CATO Institute still has their story well in tact on their website and I didn’t steal it from them. Don’t get you flowery panties in a bundle over it. Most of what I wrote was in fact my own words. It would have taken a ton of time to re-write what I got off the CATO site. So big deal, I did a quick little copy and paste. Had I not, I still would have typed out the same things. Don’t try to fool everyone here that you have never done the same thing. If I had simply cut and pasted the link to the site the ilk who admire Michael Moore would have never gone to it.
Doing what I did does not make the words any less accurate. Nice try.
Sorry I undermined your poor attempts to justify socialize medicine. Maybe you ought to take note of how bad it really is rather than railing against those who point out the truth about it.
Mountain Cat admitted:
"So big deal, I did a quick little copy and paste. Had I not, I still would have typed out the same things. Don’t try to fool everyone here that you have never done the same thing."
I have never plagiarized others writing/research without crediting them or linking to it. I challenge you to prove otherwise.
"If I had simply cut and pasted the link to the site the ilk who admire Michael Moore would have never gone to it."
I admire Michael Moore and I had already read the CATO article when I read your post. That's how I knew you didn't write it.
There goes that theory.
I was just trying to suggest you give credit where credit is due when you post. It's both polite and honest- two character traits you admire right?
Posted by Charles B on July 18, 2007 08:44 AMSpot on Mountain Cat!! Excellent post!!
Charles B. and a few others who post on these threads use these attacks when someone raises a legitimate point, and he and his cronies have nothing valid with which to counter.
They try to call attention away from the debate by attacking the person calling them names etc.
Then the attack is used as the irrational basis to discredit the information presented by the person being attacked.
Look at Charles B last post. It is a prime example of this middle school tactic.
Posted by A on July 18, 2007 08:54 AMA,
Charles B admires Michael Moore. That’s about all one has to say about Charles B. But, notice that he still has no good come back about the issue itself.
This is at least the fourth film (I refuse to call them documentaries) that Moore has produced, and each and every one of them have vastly gapping holes which have been exposed to anyone willing to see them. Yet people still fall all over themselves whenever he has something to say. They love what he says. So they are either gullible or they love intellectual dishonesty when it comes from a fire-breathing liberal. They don’t care about half-truths or all out lies. Actually, a half-truth is still a total lie. Yet, they scream that George Bush is a liar, but when someone is a liar about an agenda they support, they admire that liar.
Posted by Mountain Cat on July 18, 2007 09:28 AMThis seems like an appropriate time to repeat what I posted in another thread about health care:
Whenever there is a thread about universal health care, you are assured of seeing some posts providing anecdotal stories about wait times. Of course, anecdotal stories are hardly a basis for judging a nation's health care system, but it does give a feeling of satisfaction to the poster.
So, what to do?
We could look at the various surveys of healthy care systems. The trouble is they all show our heath care system to rank behind the health care systems of a number of universal health care countries.
So, naturally, the opponents of universal health care take issue with them.
Perhaps there is a survey by an outfit that has a bias in favor of business. Let's look for one.
Good news, conservatives!!! I found one. It is by that conservative stalwart, Business Week, entitled:
THE DOCTOR WILL SEE YOU --- IN THREE MONTHS
Here are some excerpts:
"In reality, both data and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long or longer than patients living with universal health-care systems."
Well, we're off to a bad start. But let's move on:
"All this time spent "queuing," as other nations call it, stems from too much demand and too little supply. Only one-third of U.S. doctors are general practitioners, compared with half in most European countries."
I don't blame the U.S, doctors. They are good capitalists and there is a lot more money in specializing.
Well, it's still not looking so good. But I'm sure there is a silver lining in this cloud. Let's see if we can find it:
"On top of that, only 40% of U.S. doctors have arrangements for after-hours care, vs. 75% in the rest of the industrialized world."
Hey, look; the doctors need to rest; golf can be a tiring sport.
Don't give up:
"Consequently, some 26% of U.S. adults in one survey went to an emergency room in the past two years because they couldn't get in to see their regular doctor, a significantly higher rate than in other countries."
Now, that's good capitalism at work. The health care system makes a lot more profit off of the emergency room that it does off of regular treatment areas.
But Wait: EUREKA, I HAVE FOUND IT. An area in which the United States excels and is leaps and bounds ahead of those universal health care nations:
"The Commonwealth study did find one area where the U.S. was first by a wide margin: 51% of sick Americans surveyed did not visit a doctor, get a needed test, or fill a prescription within the past two years because of cost. No other country came close."
Darn!! Now, I'm flat aggravated. Tell you what, let's just print the whole dang thing:
The Doctor Will See You—In Three Months
The health-care reform debate is in full roar with the arrival of Michael Moore's documentary Sicko, which compares the U.S. system unfavorably with single-payer systems around the world. Critics of the film are quick to trot out a common defense of the American way: For all its problems, they say, U.S. patients at least don't have to endure the endless waits for medical care endemic to government-run systems. The lobbying group America's Health Insurance Plans spells it out in a rebuttal to Sicko: "The American people do not support a government takeover of the entire health-care system because they know that means long waits for rationed care."
In reality, both data and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long or longer than patients living with universal health-care systems.
Take Susan M., a 54-year-old human resources executive in New York City. She faithfully makes an appointment for a mammogram every April, knowing the wait will be at least six weeks. She went in for her routine screening at the end of May, then had another because the first wasn't clear. That second X-ray showed an abnormality, and the doctor wanted to perform a needle biopsy, an outpatient procedure. His first available date: mid-August. "I completely freaked out," Susan says. "I couldn't imagine spending the summer with this hanging over my head." After many calls to five different facilities, she found a clinic that agreed to read her existing mammograms on June 25 and promised to schedule a follow-up MRI and biopsy if needed within 10 days. A full month had passed since the first suspicious X-rays. Ultimately, she was told the abnormality was nothing to worry about, but she should have another mammogram in six months. Taking no chances, she made an appointment on the spot. "The system is clearly broken," she laments.
It's not just broken for breast exams. If you find a suspicious-looking mole and want to see a dermatologist, you can expect an average wait of 38 days in the U.S., and up to 73 days if you live in Boston, according to researchers at the University of California at San Francisco who studied the matter.
Got a knee injury? A 2004 survey by medical recruitment firm Merritt, Hawkins & Associates found the average time needed to see an orthopedic surgeon ranges from 8 days in Atlanta to 43 days in Los Angeles. Nationwide, the average is 17 days.
"Waiting is definitely a problem in the U.S., especially for basic care," says Karen Davis, president of the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund, which studies health-care policy.
All this time spent "queuing," as other nations call it, stems from too much demand and too little supply. Only one-third of U.S. doctors are general practitioners, compared with half in most European countries.
On top of that, only 40% of U.S. doctors have arrangements for after-hours care, vs. 75% in the rest of the industrialized world.
Consequently, some 26% of U.S. adults in one survey went to an emergency room in the past two years because they couldn't get in to see their regular doctor, a significantly higher rate than in other countries.
There is no systemized collection of data on wait times in the U.S. That makes it difficult to draw comparisons with countries that have national health systems, where wait times are not only tracked but made public.
However, a 2005 survey by the Commonwealth Fund of sick adults in six nations found that only 47% of U.S. patients could get a same- or next-day appointment for a medical problem, worse than every other country except Canada.
The Commonwealth survey did find that U.S. patients had the second-shortest wait times if they wished to see a specialist or have nonemergency surgery, such as a hip replacement or cataract operation (Germany, which has national health care, came in first on both measures).
But Gerard F. Anderson, a health policy expert at Johns Hopkins University, says doctors in countries where there are lengthy queues for elective surgeries put at-risk patients on the list long before their need is critical. "Their wait might be uncomfortable, but it makes very little clinical difference," he says.
"The Commonwealth study did find one area where the U.S. was first by a wide margin: 51% of sick Americans surveyed did not visit a doctor, get a needed test, or fill a prescription within the past two years because of cost. No other country came close.
Few solutions have been proposed for lengthy waits in the U.S., in part, say policy experts, because the problem is rarely acknowledged.
But the market is beginning to address the issue with the rise of walk-in medical clinics. Hundreds have sprung up in CVS, Wal-Mart (WMT ), Pathmark, (PTMK ) and other stores—so many that the American Medical Assn. just adopted a resolution urging state and federal agencies to investigate such clinics as a conflict of interest if housed in stores with pharmacies. These retail clinics promise rapid care for minor medical problems, usually getting patients in and out in 30 minutes. The slogan for CVS's Minute Clinics says it all: "You're sick. We're quick."
Truth,
Ask those people in countries with government health care systems if they consider their cases as "anecdotal."
Oh, sorry, many of them are dead because they were waiting too long for treatment.
Of course, none of the cases you wrote about supporting your agenda were anecdotal, right?
The fact of the matter concerning what this thread is about is that Michael Moore is nothing more than a fire-breathing, America-hating, socialist pig of a political propagandist in the worst sense. Go ahead and admit the truth, Truth. Or are you gullible enough to believe what he says, hook, line and sinker?
Some would claim that Moore doesn’t hate America; he just wants to make some changes. Oh, yeah…he actually loves America, but he just wants to change every single aspect of it, that’s all.
Posted by Mountain Cat on July 18, 2007 11:10 AMMountain Cat: "Of course, none of the cases you wrote about supporting your agenda were anecdotal, right?"
Right, Mountain Cat. They were the result of a survey of many, many people and records.
As to the rest of you post, it's interesting how unfavorable facts seem to render your intelligence useless and bring out your hatred; you managed to put quite a load of hatred into just a few sentences. I noticed that you were quite silent about the Business Week article. Surely you can drum up a little hatred for that magazine, can't you?
You really do seem to be a hate-filled person. That's too bad. You have my condolences.
I don't accept condolences from weasels. And I couldn’t care less about the article from Business Week.
But you are right. I do hate Michael Moore. You probably admire him.
Posted by Mountain Cat on July 18, 2007 01:29 PM