I recently watched Sicko, the new documentary by Mike Moore. While it focuses much of its attention on the American healthcare system, it makes most of its argument by comparing it to the healthcare systems of countries with socialized medicine, such as Canada, Great Britain, France, and Cuba. I’m not going to get into the details, mostly because this isn’t a “hot button” issue for me (except in the abstract), but let me say this about the movie. It’s making Dawn and I question our desire to start a family in the United States of America.
As Mr. Moore says in the documentary, the difference between the American system and some of the social democracies around the world is that in the United States, we’re taught that it’s all about “me,” whereas in those societies, they’re taught that it’s all about “we.” Furthermore (and this isn’t explicit in the documentary, though it’s there too), in the U.S., you’re only good for one thing: Your worth as an employee. The whole system is based on creating and maintaining a workforce. In some of these other countries though, your worth comes from your status not as a laborer, but as a human being.
One argument against what I’m saying is that your “society” is only as big as the people you interact with. If I want to live in a society that focuses on “we” more than “me,” then I am free to create my own little commune up in Vermont where I don’t have to be subjected to the media’s endless coverage of morality-challenged celebrities, where I don’t have to interact with angry and ignorant Americans, and where I can ignore the scare tactics of my government.
That argument has been my argument for the last few years. It’s not why I moved to Vermont, but it’s one of the reasons I love this beautiful state.
But there is a time–and it’s coming–when I’m going to have to leave my little utopia and seek the help of the society at large. It could be because of some tragic accident. It could be because my wife and I decide to have a child. It could be because of cancer. I don’t know. What I do know is that whatever happens, there is a strong chance that it could bankrupt my family.
Don’t misunderstand me. I have health insurance. But what Sicko makes you realize is that insurance doesn’t matter. The healthcare system of America is a for-profit system, where the practitioners are rewarded for denying aid to the sick and injured, because if they do so, they’ve saved a company from spending money. In the movie, Mr. Moore speaks to a doctor in France, who says that, under their system, practitioners are rewarded for having healthy patients: if he gets his patients to stop smoking, if he gets them to lose weight, if he lowers their cholesterol, etc., he makes more money. In the U.S., doctors who refuse to spend money on their patients are rewarded with six-figure salaries and a prestigious career.
Here’s my own little health insurance story. It’s not much, but it’s something.
About six months ago, I went to the doctor for a regular check-up. I hadn’t been in about five years, and I wanted to get the whole work-up (i.e., blood tests). I went to this particular doctor because she was in my HMO’s network. The total cost to me should have been a $20 co-pay. No big deal. So I go in, and she does the regular stuff, and then she says, “Have you had anything to eat in the last 12 hours?” I’d had dinner the night before, so I said, “Yeah.” Then she tells me how I have to fast for 12 hours before they can do the blood work, so we make an appointment for the next week, where I’ll come in, they’ll take my blood, and off I’ll go. The whole thing will be no more than five minutes. No problem, I say. And when the appointment comes, that’s exactly what happens.
Cut to about a month later. I get a letter from my insurance company that says that the lab where my blood was sent is “out of my network,” and they won’t cover the $200 the medical center is charging. Here’s the thing though: the lab is in the same medical center where my doctor works!
That’s just the hassle for blood tests. Imagine if I had a serious injury or illness. I’m scared to think about what else they won’t cover.
I know, I know. You’re saying, “You’re going to leave the country because we don’t offer free healthcare? That’s stupid.”
But is it really? We’re talking about healthcare. This is literally a life or death issue. Not just for me. As I said before, I’m stupid enough to think nothing bad is going to happen to me (despite the fact that I don’t exercise, I eat too much meat, and I drink too much coffee and beer) or to my wife (despite the fact that she smokes cigarettes). I’m talking about my (unborn, unconceived/unadopted) children.
There was a story in Sicko about a woman (with insurance) whose infant daughter came down with a high temperature and was having trouble breathing. She called 911 and the ambulance took her to the nearest hospital. They started treating the girl, but then they found out that the woman’s insurance company wasn’t going to pay them for the treatment because the hospital was out of their network. They stopped treating her and sent her to a hospital that was in her network. By the time they got there, her daughter went into cardiac arrest. She died. Dead.
We live in a society that lets that happen. Plain and simple.
The question is: Does my family stay in the United States and hope (and work) to change that, or do we move to a country where the value of a human life is never a question of an insurance company’s bottom line?
Before I go, here’s the World Health Organization’s rankings of the world’s health systems. Here are the countries that come ahead of us:
- France
- Italy
- San Moreno
- Andorra
- Malta
- Singapore
- Spain
- Oman
- Austria
- Japan
- Norway
- Portugal
- Monaco
- Greece
- Iceland
- Luxembourg
- Netherlands
- United Kingdom
- Ireland
- Switzerland
- Belgium
- Colombia
- Sweden
- Cyprus
- Germany
- Saudi Arabia
- United Arab Emirates
- Israel
- Morocco
- Canada
- Finland
- Australia
- Chile
- Denmark
- Dominica
- Costa Rica
- United States of America
Yes, you read that right. Costa Rica has better healthcare than we do. You know who’s #38? Slovenia. And #39? Cuba. Isn’t it great to live in the “richest” country in the world?
Okay, okay. I want to talk about one more thing.
In 2006, the state of Vermont passed began the 2006 Healthcare Affordability Act, which set up a state-run health-insurance plan, called Catamount:
The 2006 Health Care Affordability Act is a first step toward achieving the goal of quality, affordable health care for all Vermonters. This legislation has one overriding goal: controlling the steeply rising costs of health care. It accomplishes this in two ways: by better managing chronic care and making health care affordable and accessible for all Vermonters. Catamount Health will be offered to eligible Vermonters in October 2007.
But what does it take to be an eligible Vermonter? “You may purchase Catamount Health if you are an uninsured Vermont resident and do not have insurance through an employer.” Uninsured means:
- You have insurance which only covers hospital care OR doctor’s visits (but not both)
- You have not had private insurance for the past 12 months
- You had private insurance but lost it because you lost your job, got divorced, had insurance through someone who died, are no longer dependent upon your parents, graduated or took a leave of absence from college
- You had VHAP or Medicaid but became ineligible for those programs
In other words, you can’t choose to be on Catamount. You can only have it if you have no other options.
Don’t get me wrong. That’s a good thing. A great thing, even. But as the legislature says, it is only “a first step.”
What’s more though: You have to pay for it (the rates are on a sliding scale based on your salary). When you go to the doctor, you still have a co-pay. And there is an “out-of-network” fee that doubles the cost of your deductible. There’s a co-pay for prescriptions. Etc.
Compare that to France, Canada, or even Cuba, where you never need a checkbook to go to the doctor. In Britain, the co-pay for prescriptions is 6.65 pounds, which is like $10. That’s a co-pay that never goes up, regardless of how many pills you need or what kind they are. When I was done with my check-up, I had two prescriptions I had to get. One of them was a standard co-pay of like $10, but the other cost $35. That’s a couple of days worth of groceries to some families.
So yes, Vermont and other states are trying to take the lead on this issue (with Massachusetts’ new system at the helm), but what they’re doing barely even brings us close to the systems enjoyed by the citizens of other countries.
There was one guy, an older Brit who lived through WWII, who said that after the war, the country decided that if they could spend all that money to kill people, then they could definitely spend that same amount of money to save people.
The United States spends OUR TAX DOLLARS on waging an immoral war. According to the Project on Defense Alternatives, the President’s FY 2008 budget requests $483 billion for the Defense Department. This does not include the cost of waging war in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor the costs of general counter-terrorism operations, for which the President has requested another $141.7 billion. “It does not include non-DOD expenditures for homeland security ($36.4 billion) or the Veterans’ Affairs budget ($84.4 billion). Nor does it include the request for supplemental funds for outstanding FY 2007 war costs ($93.4 billion).” When you factor in everything, from the wars to the DOD budget, to the VA budget, etc., the President is requesting $861.5 billion for expenditures related to the military.
The American Academy of Family Physicians, meanwhile, reports that:
President Bush’s proposed budget cuts renege on the promise made to seniors by reducing how much Medicare will cover for their medical services and increasing their premiums and co-pays. The Bush budget would cover fewer children rather than more, reduce access to preventive care, and do nothing to facilitate the transition to electronic health records….The 2008 budget proposal would sharply decrease Medicare reimbursement for health care provided to seniors by primary care physicians. According to an AAFP survey of more than 2,000 family physicians, one out of five family doctors have had to stop seeing new Medicare patients because of payment reduction….The White House’s proposed elimination of funding for essential primary care training programs would mean fewer doctors to care for underserved populations – the elderly, poor, disabled and those who live in rural areas and the urban core. By zeroing out all funding for these Health Professions Grants for training in family medicine, the Administration is compromising access to quality, affordable heath care for Americans.
In this country, the national government is CUTTING healthcare spending and INCREASING our military spending. This the action of a system that favors death over life.
As I said before: Does my family stay in the United States and hope (and work) to change that, or do we move to a country where the value of a human life is never in question?
75 Comments
Kyle, I feel these posts are just a knee jerk reaction you get when you watch movies like this; Gore’s movie, this one, etc. and your comments of “It’s making Dawn and I question our desire to start a family in the United States of America.” where you going to go? Where else in the world would you want to be if, heaven forbid, you dawn or child gets deathly ill, cancer, etc? Malta? No you would want to be in say Boston, where the best cancer doctors and hospitals are, chicago where the best child hospitals are. Where you family is for a support system. I respect your compassion but I think you just react too fast to things you read or see, without thinking the whole situtation through. Perfect example is KC Callahan’s baby’s medical issues. They went to Boston, ended up in Ohio for brain surgery and thank god, he is doing better. BUT KC and Mark had the family support system in place for $, child care, work related issues, etc. and i believe that’s a big reason he is doing better and her whole family is still one. I’ve never seen sicko, don’t plan too, as of now, so this is just my opinion.
Shawn, I think that’s definitely true. The best available medical care is in the US, and it definitely works for those who can access it. However, this access is decreasing to the point that only a certain sector of Americans (including those who work full-time jobs) can actually get that top-notch care, or care at all. Three things that stand out for me (all of this is according to the US Census):
1.Nearly 47 million Americans, or 16 percent of the population, were without health insurance in 2005
2.The number of uninsured rose 1.3 million between 2004 and 2005 and has increased by almost 7 million people since 2000 (hello, President Bush)
3.In 2005, 27.4 million workers were uninsured because not all businesses offer health benefits, not all workers qualify for coverage and many employees cannot afford their share of the health insurance premium even when coverage is at their fingertips
I personally know several people who work 40 hours a week and pay their taxes…and yet, are constantly living under the threat of a single illness/accident putting them under a mountain of medical-related debt. My point here (and I’m just echoing Kyle at this point) is that a for-profit health care system is not in the public interest for Americans.
First Shawn, I don’t understand why you wouldn’t see Sicko. God forbid, you might learn something.
Second, I didn’t say we WERE moving out of the country. I said the movie made us think about it. I don’t know where we would go and I haven’t done any research on any place.
Third, my health insurance doesn’t cover blood tests. I wonder how it would deal with brain surgery. And yes, Boston has great hospitals, as does Ohio, apparently, but I have to wonder, are those hospitals in my network? And if not, what does it matter to me that they’re any good? I have just as much access to them in Vermont as I would in…say…Ireland.
You might imagine that there are better doctors in the United States, better surgical wings, etc. but if I can’t afford one, what good does their existence do me? In another country, the question of cost never enters into it. If my family needs help, we get the best available. Period.
I don’t need to see sicko to tell me our health system is F@#ked up, I know that. Why stress myself out watching something I already know.
I have no answer on how to fix healthcare, or in the position to make the change. I also live with the anxiety of medical bills I would have to pay if something bad happens.
Hell - for my Son to come into this world is costing me something like $55,000.00. thank god for my health insurance.
That’s what I’m saying. In another country….for example, in France, not only does the government pay for everything, but they’ll even send a person to your house twice a week to help with the laundry and cooking. They even help new mothers learn how to change diapers, prepare milk, etc. That’s right: The goverment will come do your laundry.
Add on the five weeks minimum of vacation time + time for when you have a new kid or when you get married, and you’re talking about a healthcare system that actually cares about health.
The answer to fixing healthcare is to stop it from being a for-profit system. It’s worked in several places throughout the world, almost all whom have better healthcare than we do. We’re not talking “the best single doctor or the best single surgical unit.” We’re talking generalized healthcare: better infant mortality rates, longer life spans, etc.
We don’t have to “fix” the one we got. We got to take it out back and shoot it (and the insurance lobbyists responsible for it), and then just take the model that the French, the English, or the Candians have.
Kyle, let me just say that as a Candian (dual citizen) with family who lives there, healthcare is far from optimal up there.
The story about the little girl is questioanable, I have not seen it and do not trust Moore, but I am willing to bet it is not the norm. As a matter of fact I know of at least 5 incidents where the total opposite happened. (people without insurance getting help, or people with less insurance getting help)
What’s optimal?
Hmmmmm…..first I read kyle’s post and had my head nodding like a sumbitch….then I read Shawn’s retort and thought “Damn, he’s right”…..but then I ready Kyle’s response and thought “yeah, WTF”.
So I guess what this means is that I’m as reactionary as kyle and ultimately as practical as Shawn…which means I try to get my hands on as much of this incendiary material as I can…consume it, feel outraged, contemplate moving, then slide back in to practicality with arguments like “Well, at least I’m surrounded by the best doctors in the world (even if I can’t afford them, its still comforting)”
HOWEVER, one thing that stood out to me (and caused an equal amount of outrage) was Shawn’s comment about not watching the movie….that really pisses me off, becasue neither Kyle (nor I) would never not watch/read anything because he “didn’t need to be told how F’ed up something is”…in fact that’s exactly why things get so F’ed up in the first place. We absolutely all need to take in as much information (from both sides) as we can. It is (and I firmly believe this) the only way possible to make a semi-informed decision. I hate when people use the excuse that something is biased as a reason to not experience it. WHAT IT ISN’T BIASED? Of course its biased and biased people are typically the most motivated to write books, make documentaries, and try and educate the world. If every piece of media were 100% objective and unbiased, it would be boring and nobody would want to be a journalist or documentarian. People who care deeply are also the people who speak out and communicate. We are lucky that we have the Michael Moore’s and Mel Gibson’s (wince) and anybody with half a brain who cares about “caring” and “thinking” should be running to go out and take all of this in. THEN, try and make your own informed opinion about all that you’ve seen/read/heard, etc…
I just can’t understand someone taking the time to post a comment about somebodies else views on a Movie and then include in the same comment BTW “I’m not going to see it”
HUH?!?!?!?!?!?!
Shawn, I totally agree that being around the best possible health care is advantageous and that being around your family in a time of need is ultimately the most important factor in deciding where you want to raise your family…
but I urge you to reconsider your stance on not seeing this movie. As you’ve already proven, the subject interests you (at least a little) so do yourself a favor and go listen to what the man says…then come back and tell us how full of $hit he is….I know I’ll be here to hear you out.
Let me put it this way when ever there is a problem my family has almost always come down here. So you end up paying twice because you pay higher tax’s and then have to pay down here for better care.
I hate Moore.
I hate moore. The reason why I don’t want to see it is that he completely annoys me. So I have a hard time watching any of his movies.
I just do not trust him. It would be like if Dick Chaney made a documentary, I probably wouldn’t see that one either.
Here here…
This is from an article in Yes! Magazine, entitled, “Does Canada Have The Cure?”
That’s not all:
It then goes through all the data, and says in conclusion:
Here’s some info from another article (a blog post that uses quality sources), entitled, The many myths of Canadian health care:
The numbers continue:
They’re not done yet. According to polling data, the number of Americans going to Canada for their prescription drugs is “72 times the number of Canadians seeking care in the US.”
So, to answer your assertion, Justin, these survey show that “less than 0.1% of Canadians are expressly seeking care in the U.S.”
If Dick Cheney made a documentary I would run out and see it (specifically because I don’t trust him and dislike him)
Here, here.
Kyle, the healthcare system is fine if and only if you live near a couple cities namely Montreal and Toronto. I have actually exerienced Canadian Healthcare but if you want to believe in polls and such have at it.
Adam there are somethings I will not waste my time on Moore is one of them.
I require my students to read stuff from climate skeptics, just so they know what each side’s saying…this is crucial for their ability to make well-informed statements. So, sign me up for Dick’s documentary…
Speaking of, how many documentaries are there by the Dick Cheneys of the world? Not many…why is that?
I found an article in the San Jose Mercury News, written by Michael Tanner (author of “Healthy Competition: What’s Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It“; he is also a member of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank dedicated to limiting the power of government). The article attempts to de-bunk Sicko. You can read the whole thing yourself, but since you have to register (freely) to read it, I’ll quote some of it here:
The article continues:
And there’s more:
And lastly:
(Here’s another article about the British NHS: “Operations cancelled as NHS runs out of money.”
–
And Justin…as far as having good healthcare near big cities in Canada. Boston has great hospitals too. How does that help me if I’m living in rural Maine?
Are you saying that there are not good hospitals in maine? The drop off between Boston hospitals and Maine hospitals is a lot less then the drop off between New brunswick Hospitals and Ontario hospitals.
But all that is besides the point, if we are both paying tax’s that go to the same healthcare system why shouldn’t all the care be the same?
Dovev, I agree with having people understand the other peoples point. That is why I play the blog republican here sometimes.
I just do not trust what Moore says, its not that I am disagreeing with the point.
People who claim that they’re liberal minded and are annoyed by Michael Moore are total fucking idiots. In some ways they are worse than the Republicans.
The Dick Cheney’s of documentary are ALL of the major news sources…and Rush Limbaugh. Michael Moore is one loud voice against many many morons. Good for him. I was not a huge fan of the film Farenheight 911, but I’m so glad that it was made. As others from this site have said, It’s important for people to see thought provoking movies on just how corrupt American policies are.
About health care: I just got health insurance last sept after marrying Deb. It was the first time since 2000. Apparently the small businessperson is not afforded the same medical rights as an employee to a larger company. If there is a country out there that will look at my back after an injury at work (without breaking my bank), sign me up, I’ll move.
I have a terrible story about severing my finger and being denied from a hospital that supposedly has FREE care. So I drove to another hospital. The funny part is I ended up stuck in traffic right next to the doctor that denied me. I kept honking the horn and waving to him with the bloody rag on my right hand. Eight stitches later I was out a shit load of money and a few weeks work (unpaid of course).
Moore sucks, honestly. He for the most part lies about stuff that does not need to be lied about. He is a giant gas bag and I would not donate any of my time to anything he does. I wasted my time with Farenheight 9/11 and as the saying goes lie to me once shame on you lie to me twice shame on me.
yet you defend bush… - justin… - blogging republican to even out the information doesn’t take away from the fact that you’re defending the biggest liar of them all… - moore is a film maker… - he doesn’t have the power to veto stem-cell research…
michael moore makes a few movies and you hate him…
bush wages war around the globe… - what?
Honestly, I defend Bush only when people get a little out of hand on stuff they couldn’t possibly know. Also it more schtick to keep people on their toes. I am more anti all politics then anything I think it breeds corruption.
But Moore takes subjects that should be so easy to fight for and screws them all up by. Moore is a film maker, but his crap is closer to mockumentary, or straight fiction then a documentary.
Seriously though, you’re not an idiot, sorry.
I am actually not bothered by lies. It’s how the right pushes forward. I lie regularly, we all do. Even if Moore were dishonest (which I don’t believe) I wouldn’t really care.
Americans generally do not hear world news, which makes them stupid. Stupid people need help. Documentaries about the U.S. help stupid people learn. Throw some exaggerated facts in there and you may actually wake stupid people up.
Justin, keep in mind the average viewer is not as well rounded or intelligent as you.
I just think that with these issues he is doing it a disservice by constantly over exaggerating things. As much as gore is a hypocrite, An inconvenient truth was done very well. I learned things it motivated me to do things and I trusted what was said, even though Gore personally sucks. People will actually not watch this because of Moore, how does that help the cause?
Oh and I never said I was liberal minded so I took no offence.;)
“moore takes subjects that should be so easy to fight for”? - are you kidding me? - if you have to fight for it… - it’s not an easy thing to obtain…
fahrenheit 911… - the scene when moore was walking around d.c. asking the congressmen to enlist their children into the army was fucking brilliant… - it took guts… - not slander or exaggerations…
My point is that the issues he takes he shouldn’t have to lie/exagerate to get his point across, so no I am not kidding you.
you’re kinney me, right?
just read the NYT review of Sicko….thought some might be interested:
It has become a journalistic cliché and therefore an inevitable part of the prerelease discussion of “Sicko” to refer to Michael Moore as a controversial, polarizing figure. While that description is not necessarily wrong, it strikes me as self-fulfilling (since the controversy usually originates in media reports on how controversial Mr. Moore is) and trivial. Any filmmaker, politically outspoken or not, whose work is worth discussing will be argued about. But in Mr. Moore’s case the arguments are more often about him than about the subjects of his movies.
Some of this is undoubtedly his fault, or at least a byproduct of his style. His regular-guy, happy-warrior personality plays a large part in the movies and in their publicity campaigns, and he has no use for neutrality, balance or objectivity. More than that, his polemical, left-populist manner seems calculated to drive guardians of conventional wisdom bananas. That is because conventional wisdom seems to hold, against much available evidence, that liberalism is an elite ideology, and that the authentic vox populi always comes from the right. Mr. Moore, therefore, must be an oxymoron or a hypocrite of some kind.
So the table has been set for a big brouhaha over “Sicko,” which contends that the American system of private medical insurance is a disaster, and that a state-run system, such as exists nearly everywhere else in the industrialized world, would be better. This argument is illustrated with anecdotes and statistics — terrible stories about Americans denied medical care or forced into bankruptcy to pay for it; grim actuarial data about life expectancy and infant mortality; damning tallies of dollars donated to political campaigns — but it is grounded in a basic philosophical assumption about the proper relationship between a government and its citizens.
Mr. Moore has hardly been shy about sharing his political beliefs, but he has never before made a film that stated his bedrock ideological principles so clearly and accessibly. His earlier films have been morality tales, populated by victims and villains, with himself as the dogged go-between, nodding in sympathy with the downtrodden and then marching off to beard the bad guys in their dens of power and privilege. This method can pay off in prankish comedy or emotional intensity — like any showman, Mr. Moore wants you to laugh and cry — but it can also feel manipulative and simplistic.
In “Sicko,” however, he refrains from hunting down the C.E.O.’s of insurance companies, or from hinting at dark conspiracies against the sick. Concentrating on Americans who have insurance (after a witty, troubling acknowledgment of the millions who don’t), Mr. Moore talks to people who have been ensnared, sometimes fatally, in a for-profit bureaucracy and also to people who have made their livings within the system. The testimony is poignant and also infuriating, and none of it is likely to be surprising to anyone, Republican or Democrat, who has tried to see an out-of-plan specialist or dispute a payment.
If you listen to what the leaders of both political parties are saying, it seems unlikely that the diagnosis offered by “Sicko” will be contested. I haven’t heard many speeches lately boasting about how well our health care system works. In this sense “Sicko” is the least controversial and most broadly appealing of Mr. Moore’s movies. (It is also, perhaps improbably, the funniest and the most tightly edited.) The argument it inspires will mainly be about the nature of the cure, and it is here that Mr. Moore’s contribution will be most provocative and also, therefore, most useful.
“Sicko” is not a fine-grained analysis of policy alternatives. (You can find some of those in a recently published book called “Sick,” by Jonathan Cohn, and also in the wonkier precincts of the political blogosphere.) This film presents, instead, a simple compare-and-contrast exercise. Here is our way, and here is another way, variously applied in Canada, France, Britain and yes, Cuba. The salient difference is that, in those countries, where much of the second half of “Sicko” takes place, the state provides free medical care.
With evident glee (and a bit of theatrical faux-naïveté) Mr. Moore sets out to challenge some widely held American notions about socialized medicine. He finds that British doctors are happy and well paid, that Canadians don’t have to wait very long in emergency rooms, and that the French are not taxed into penury. “What’s your biggest expense after the house and the car?” he asks an upper-middle-class French couple. “Ze feesh,” replies the wife. “Also vegetables.”
Yes, the utopian picture of France in “Sicko” may be overstated, but show me the filmmaker — especially a two-time Cannes prizewinner — who isn’t a Francophile of one kind or another. Mr. Moore’s funny valentine to a country where the government will send someone to a new mother’s house to do laundry and make carrot soup turns out to be as central to his purpose as his chat with Tony Benn, an old lion of Old Labor in Britain. Mr. Benn reads from a pamphlet announcing the creation of the British National Health Service in 1948, and explains it not as an instance of state paternalism but as a triumph of democracy.
More precisely, of social democracy, a phrase that has long seemed foreign to the American political lexicon. Why this has been so is the subject of much scholarship and speculation, but Mr. Moore is less interested in tracing the history of American exceptionalism than in opposing it. He wants us to be more like everybody else. When he plaintively asks, “Who are we?,” he is not really wondering why our traditions of neighborliness and generosity have not found political expression in an expansive system of social welfare. He is insisting that such a system should exist, and also, rather ingeniously, daring his critics to explain why it shouldn’t.
Yeah, I linked to it in the sidebar for “Links of the Day” today, since, you know, this stuff is copyrighted and to copy and paste an entire article is against the law (note the ellipses and blockquotes I used when quoting the San Jose Mercury News article).
whatever.
First off, I think that it’s important to recognize that Moore uses a film-technique that can hardly be considered a “traditional documentary”. I don’t think he’s masking this at all because of his explicate use of an almost fairy-tale-like narrative style to get the point across. The film contains all the archetypes that are used in the fairy tale genre: damsels in distress, evil villains, and of course, the wise fool, Michael Moore himself (the “propaganda” charges of the film are even equatable to a fairy tale - what little girl DOESN’T want to be the princess?). Using this whimsical style, Moore portrays health care issues in a way that is totally unique and totally from himself. And for this I greatly commend him.
The point is, I see Moore’s work more as art - political theater? gonzo documentary? - than a hard scientific study produced for the purpose of brainwashing masses of liberal sheep. Like any good artist, Moore causes the audience to FEEL something about the society we live in - remember being able to FEEL, not just sitting back, numb to all the effed up disgusting happenings of the american government EVERYDAY? (See “The U.S. vs John Lennon” for a example of how the gov. and r-wingers treat a cultural icon who has a “stirring” effect on it’s audience. Don’t want the people to THINK now do we?)
Secondly, I agree with Kyle -the fact that this country has the best of the best resources but has very limited access, is a slap in the face. Yeah, perhaps more people die of certain diseases in the above mentioned countries, but how many cancer cases could have been avoided in THIS country had their been more preventative coverage. (Sidenote: I found out recently that my health “insurance” as an AmeriCorps*VISTa (Volunteer in SERVICE to america) will not cover an effing check-up. Are you kidding me?).
Also, in regards to the article Kyle quoted:
“Every year, shortages force the British National Health Service to cancel as many as 50,000 operations.”
What’s the flip-side? You don’t have a chance AT ALL for surgery.
What the film (re)proved to me is that the american political system is full of selfish, disgusting, money-grubbing sluts.
I think your biased towards agreeing with kyle.
Your just jealous ’cause I got to marry him and you didn’t!
Nicely done, Dawn. No, not the “outing” Adam part, but all the other stuff.
Does anyone have ant information regarding how many medical patents come from the money out of the US? My point would be if there was not a way for companies to make a lot of money would they try as hard as they do now to make medicine? If the US went public would the amount of money into these companies drop? How would this affect the research for new cures? I will not pretend to know the answer, but I would imagine it would have to.
My main question is Does the US system being private(and spend billions) allow other countries to be public?
Also have any of you had to deal with any government agency? Can you imagine how difficult and frustrating(and corrupt) it would be to deal the government agency in charge of healthcare.
Regarding medical patents…
Right now, the system works where private companies pay for the salaries of thousands of scientists to create new drugs that the company can then patent and make tons of money on.
Three things:
That system need not change. Holding the patent for a drug does not mean one must then administer the drug. Government-paid doctors would be just as free to prescribe a privately-patented drug as they are to prescribe a…”open source”…drug. The pharmaceutical companies are not the insurance companies.
Also, even if the pharma industry became socialized, why do you assume the individual scientists wouldn’t want to work on trying to cure cancer if private companies weren’t paying them? These scientists are motivated not by money, but by the thrill of the research, the potential of becoming the person who “saves the world,” and the the pleasure of making a contribution to society. In my previous day job, I spoke to hundreds of pharmaceutical scientists, trying to figure out what motivates them. I’ve never heard them say it’s the money (Pharma sales people are a different story).
And lastly, the whole drug-patenting system is ridiculous anyway. These drugs should be in the public trust. But that turns this whole debate into a intellectual-property issue, which is a-whole-nother argument.
There would be a trickle down affect, the government would not spend the amount of money that the public does, the companies would not have the amount of money to spend on research.
Private companies make most of their money in the US market, if things went public then I am willing to bet they would start to get nickle and dimed (hello public education system).
One way to gauge this would be to watch any of these companies stocks if this was even hinted at, I bet they would all drop.
Now the scientists you talked to I am sure said they are not motivated by money but I bet they average about 170k+ a year. It easy to say things like that when you make a lot. I can not see a person go to school for 8+ years, rack up 100k+ in college loans and then settle for 50k a year job just to save the world.
This is besides the point because the companies are the ones that spend the money, and if they are not making money they are not going to spend it.
What about firefighters? The Fire Dept is socialized. Although they suffer drastic pay cuts and budgetary issues the public isn’t affected. Shouldn’t health care work the same way?
Imagine if fire fighters were outside your burning house and before they all charged in to save your family’s lives they checked your coverage. Crazy right? Our taxes take care of the fire dept…hmmmm?
The problem is that doctors and such get paid a lot more then fire fighters.
like the fire dept example a lot….don’t like being “outed”
People are sick more a lot more the houses burn.
In France, the doctor Moore interviewed lived in a million dollar home, drove a Audi, and made somewhere upwards of $100,000 a year…and remember, he made more money the healthier his patients got (if they stop smoking, if they lower their cholesterol, if they exercise, etc.).
The doctors will do just fine, either way.
Like I said I do not believe anything Moore does, but are we to assume that they all are paid that well?
Also most Doctors here make more then that are they going to take a pay cut?
Did you also know that France has a 40% sales tax?
20% sales tax
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2117
“In 1999, Dr. Richard F. Davies described how delays affected Ontario heart patients scheduled for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. In a single year, just for this one operation, 71 Ontario patients died before surgery, “121 were removed from the list permanently because they had become medically unfit for surgery” and 44 left the province to have their CABG surgery elsewhere, often in the U.S.
In other words, 192 people either died or were too sick to have surgery before they worked their way to the front of the waiting line. Yet, the Ontario population of about 12 million is only 4 percent of the population of the United States. “
I don’t believe stuff I read online.
i believe stuff i don’t read online.
I guess your right the internet has been proven to be full of false crap just like Moore’s movies.
Zing
moore would destroy you… - dude… - woo ahhh yu?
(notice the todd kline accent)…
woo?
hoo.
i’m spell good.
So I finally saw Sicko this past weekend and I’m left with a few thoughts:
1. We are an utter embarassment with regards to our healthcare and this is a non-arguable point. We may have the best hospitals and best doctors in the world, and in fact I think we do. HOWEVER, our “healthcare” (not quality of doctors, etc) but the healthcare that we provide to our citizens is an absolute embarrasment.
2. The healthcare system in the United States is a corrupt, for profit system that is largely controlled by lobbyists and the insurance industry. I know this is not earth shattering news, but seeing it laid out in front of you (albeit by a polarizing force like Moore) just makes it that much more disturbing. (both morally and ethically)
3. I mean, imagine if all education was privatized and there were no more public schools….imagine if you had to be working full time with “education benefits” in order for your kids to go to school….I mean, no matter who you are, how much money you have or what kind of job you have, your kids can attend public schools. period. Because education is that important. If your mom/dad loses their job, they don’t pull you out of school because your parents can no longer afford it or no longer “have coverage”. How is healthcare any different than education from an importance standpoint, how is it any different when you think about a governments responsabilities to its citizens.
Education/Protection(police/fire/military)/Healthcare….we deserve that, don’t we.
Lastly, I watched 60 minutes last night and they had an entire segment on the healthcare system…the gist of the piece was that when it comes to our healthcare system, there is ZERO dissent (among every type of politician from every party) that the system does not work and is bankrupting our country. This is the truth, not the opinion of a political party.
Therefore, I think its even more important that everyone see the movie because at the very least, it brings to light and exposes a system that is completely and utterly screwed up…and maybe you have to deal with Moore’s biases and ridiculousness, but so what, that’s the price you pay to learn about something (in an entertaining way, no less) Of course doing online research about the healthcare situation is your best bet for real, unbiased information, but my guess is that most of you would find that a bit dry and time consuming). Anyway, the main problem (our healthcare system) isn’t a biased one, its a fact, and my guess is that nothing will change in this country until something really drastic happens, and thats too bad.
The optimist in me thinks that maybe if enough people are well versed in the problems and outraged enough (emphasis on being outraged), then maybe things can change before something bad happens (and I’m not sure what that is particularly, but it will probably have to happen to somebody important)
Lastly, there was one great line from the movie that has stuck with me. It was talking about the differences between France and the US…and it was something like this: In France, the government is afraind of the “the people” - they are afraid of riots and demonstrations and widespread unrest (this was accompanied by vides or strikes and riots and protests, etc)….they countered that by saying that in the US, its just the opposite, the people are afraid of the government and as a result are much more willing to just take whats given to them, put their head down, and keep on keepin on…..
I haven’t been able to shake that line out of my head.
All fantastic comments, Adam. Has anyone else seen the movie?
Adam, we pay for education with tax money and no offence the overall public education system in the US is really not all that good. Why would a public healthcare system be any better? Rich people would still get the best care, just like now, and poor people would have to wait. The people this would affect negatively is the middle class people with half decent healthcare now, because they would get less care then they do now and would probably be paying more. It takes me months to get a doctor appointment now what happens when the doctors is forced to take on a thousand new patients?
The problem with our healthcare compared to other countries is that our way of life, fast food, high stress, and general unhealthiness (is that even a word), is way less healthy. Although France is starting to get there with our help, well really McDonalds help.
Another point is that we are not fat because we have bad healthcare, we are fat because we like fat foods. We feed our kids mickey-d’s, then move up the fast food ladder to Wendy’s, burger king, then when we have finally hit the big time maybe some apple b’s.
Justin,
I couldn’t disagree with you more.
Your first point in rebuttal was that our public education system is not all that good. Are you suggesting we eliminate public education in favor of privatizing education. That’s really your first rebuttal point. Or, were you trying to make the point that if we make healthcare public, that it will be “not all that good” as well…I would argue that “not all that good” would be a huge upgrade over what we have now. If, as I said before, the CONSENSUS is that what we have now is a ” full blown disaster”.
Your second point: Why would it be any better? If this is the old “the devil you know” argument…well then that drives me crazy….is there a worse reason in the world to not change than the fear that the change will leave us worse off. That is the mentality that seperates us from other countries. We keep doing the same things over and over again. Our presidents serve short terms and spend most of their time campaigning, our legislative process is so bureacratic and time consuming that almost anything can be tabled. ….its just easier to do nothing because changing things “might be worse” or “wouldn’t be that good anyway” or as Justin so eloqunetly put it “would hurt the middle class”….which just seems like the same scare tactics that our government uses against us. Trust us, you don’t want that because it will hurt the middle class (i.e. everyone)….
as far as rich people getting the best care, that does and will happen here and everywhere, forever - not an issue.
as for everyone else, poor people might have to wait (although I’m not sure why) but in the US, poor people don’t get adequate care. period. Jannell, back me up here.
as for your health arguments, those are neither here nor there and I feel you are using them to mask the fact that our system is screwed up, regardless of whether we were all fitness freaks or not….its not about our health, or the quality of our doctors, or the time it takes to be seen in an emergency room, or how long you have to wait for an operation….yeah, there are stats that say it takes longer in canada to get an operation….well, in the US it might take shorter time….but only half as many people are even eligible for the operation and only in certain hospitals, and its only 80% covered…and your insurance company will fight you tooth and nail for every single dollar (including coming after you later on and trying to get the money back, if for instance, you were a smoker at any point in your life and didn’t put that on your insurance application)
So, wait a few months for something (with no questions asked, no worries about eligibility, not a single dime out of your pocket)
or
get your operation quicker (if you have a full time job, where you might have to pay 20%, where your insurance company may or may not approve, may not approve all of it, may fight you later on to get the money back…may only approve a portion of it…)
The system in the US is working against you…companies that are trying to make a profit, create products as CHEAPLY as they can to Make the most PROFIT they possibly can…they will cut every corner possible (within and around the law) in order to make money…they will hurt the environment, take advantage of cheap labor, create crappy products, and over charge for them…
is that really the mentality you want your healthcare system to have…..Give less care, charge more money, cut more corners, fight every claim…profit, profit, and more profit. at what expense?
the only thing that does is pay doctors more which creates better doctors, better hospitals, and more innovative medicine…I WILL CONCEDE THAT…
but my feeling is that all of those things are only marginally better than the next best……..
Would you rather have an ipod with all of its innovation (because they save so much money cutting corners, that they can pay their chief engineers more)… so you get a cool product at a cheap price…but if you knew Apple was dumping sewage into your favorite lake and taking advantage of workers in the Sri Lanka and using the absolute cheapest crap available….would you be ok with that…yeah its better than the Dell Jukebox but is it that much better and worth that much sacrificing and corner cutting…well, that’s how capitalism works and in the real world, everyone is going to buy the Ipod and Apple is going to keep doing what its doing and making money and jukebox will fade away…..
capitalism is what it is and it works and it creates better products for cheaper money and makes everyone a lot of money…
its not the mentality that you want to have with your health..you don’t want people motivated by profits when they are deciding what kind of care to give you for your heart problem (well, this procedure is cheaper, so we’ll just use that one….and since it works most of the time, we’ll keep using it…we may lose a few patients and they may sue us, and we may lose…but those combined law suits will likely only be about 5 million bucks per year and if we use this procedure, it’ll save us 6 million bucks per year…..looks like we use the crappy procedure)
simple math.
Adam your posts are books.
“as for your health arguments, those are neither here nor there and I feel you are using them to mask the fact that our system is screwed up, regardless of whether we were all fitness freaks or not….its not about our health, or the quality of our doctors, or the time it takes to be seen in an emergency room, or how long you have to wait for an operation….yeah, there are stats that say it takes longer in canada to get an operation….well, in the US it might take shorter time….but only half as many people are even eligible for the operation and only in certain hospitals, and its only 80% covered…and your insurance company will fight you tooth and nail for every single dollar (including coming after you later on and trying to get the money back, if for instance, you were a smoker at any point in your life and didn’t put that on your insurance application)”
Let’s start here. The point about our health was to demonstrate that because we are all unhealthier then our counterparts in the world, our healthcare system can not be based on the same premise as theirs. Because France has healthier people, they would have less people going to the doctor ect. So the system can work there, but it would probably not work as well here.
Your whole argument about fighting tooth and nail and evil healthcare corporations fighting on what is covered and not. Well I have blue cross and have really never had a problem, but that is beside the point just wanted to point out that in some cases it works. Do you honestly think that the government agency in charge of the healthcare would not do the same thing? Have you dealt with a government agency lately? What has our government done in the past 30 years that would make you think that they could do better then what is happening now, you think things could not get worse but I bet they can.
the only thing that does is pay doctors more which creates better doctors, better hospitals, and more innovative medicine…I WILL CONCEDE THAT…
these seem important to me.
The system in the US is working against you…companies that are trying to make a profit, create products as CHEAPLY as they can to Make the most PROFIT they possibly can…they will cut every corner possible (within and around the law) in order to make money…they will hurt the environment, take advantage of cheap labor, create crappy products, and over charge for them…
Great but how is this going to change if the government is in charge? If all of a sudden companies make less money because of the change over wouldn’t they be more apt to do these negative things?
I don’t think you need a healthier society in order to have a socialized healthcare system……I think just the opposite.
I know this is just one small example (like your personal story about blue cross) but there was a doctor (kyle references this as well) in france that was paid more money if he could get more of his patients to stop smoking and lose weight. His salary actually went up….now that has nothing to do with socialized healthcare, its just good business practice…but its worth mentioning…..that could be something that hospitals in the US could do now…but private for profit businesses would be less likely to institute this than a public one.
In some ways, I’m torn, I agree that governments screw things up…i mean most of the teachers I know are always protesting or having problems with their contracts (and we all know they are VASTLY underpaid)….and the people i know who are cops or firefighters are always fighting for more money and better benefits…its true, that the government has a way of screwing things up that privatization usually can take care of……but in this situation, I don’t think it works….I guess I’m not even arguing for socialized healthcare as much as I’m arguing for a change in our healthcare system….and the best way to find a better solution is to look around….the best systems for countries most like ours, happens to be socialized, so we don’t have to copy it…but we should at least use it as a reference point….
as for the importance of great doctors, innovationg and all that…I think its important too (just not more important than people’s lives or there general health/happiness)
A sudden switch to socialized healthcare if handled incorrectiong would probably be a disaster…but the greater point I guess is that something needs to happen and I don’t know exactly what that is….but if you look around, everyone else is doing variations of the same thing (we are the only country with this system)…so why not make some changes…
I am all for changing healthcare I just do not trust or have the faith the government can do it. What happens when Doctors start getting nickled and dimed, well lets just say I would rather have a rich happy doctor then a disgruntled poor doctor doing my surgery.
Yes, Kyle, I just saw it…awesome. It all makes so much sense.
“know this is just one small example (like your personal story about blue cross) but there was a doctor (kyle references this as well) in france that was paid more money if he could get more of his patients to stop smoking and lose weight. His salary actually went up”
I have had three different doctors in my adult life and they have all told me to eat better, not to drink, ect. They can not force people to eat better. They can not force you to stop smoking. Its backwards.
So my idea to fix healthcare that does not involve the government (although they could do it to) is if you are healthy, don’t smoke, ect you pay less. This would give the person the incentive to be healthy instead of the doctor. It would be like car ins.
I don’t know if somebody else already mentioned this (because I’m only on chapter 10 of Adams comment), but I know it was overlooked in SiCKO. American doctors actually make money from pharmaceutical companies when they push new meds. That’s totally messed up.
Damn. 68 friggin’ comments. I love it.
First, on the concept of whether government can run a healthcare system. The fact of the matter is that private enterprise obviously can’t do it. If private organizations can’t do it, we have no other option but to try a public one.
The other thing, Justin, is that I don’t think a single healthcare proposal being made in the real world would prevent private insurance companies. The only thing they do (the more progressive ones, anyway) is expand the healthcare that is now enjoyed by members of Congress to any American citizen who wants it. If you prefer to go through Blue Cross, you’re more than welcome to do so.
Here’s another anecdote for you along the lines of increasing the health of Americans: Dawn’s healthcare does not cover preventive medicine. All it covers is emergencies. Further, there aren’t even any “in-network” medical providers within 30 miles of us, so if she does need to get help, she has to drive about an hour to get it. Yay private insurance!
As for “what happens when doctors are nickel and dimed”…what about the patients? We’re the ones getting nickel and dimed right now. As one of the opening stories in the movie points out, some dude who had an accident with a table-saw had to choose between reattaching his middle finger for $60k and his ring finger for $12k. Talk about nickel and dimed.
And as mentioned, the doctors in France don’t seem to be complaining about non-payment or low wages.
But all that aside, Justin…how WOULD you fix health-care? And don’t worry, we all understand you’re not an expert. Just some pie in the sky ideas is what I’m asking for.
i’d change healthcare by blowing up every single healthcare building… - fight club style…
code orange… - threat level massively gay… - c’mon f.b.i. suck on my nipple…
Before I get to my super health plan:
The doctor in France is irrelevant on many different levels. Did he have money before he was a doctor? (Maybe that house was in his family) What is the cost of living over there compared to here? (It’s less) Is he the standard? (Probably not)
Now I could keep blue cross but my all my taxes would go up significantly to cover the cost of this. Some how I doubt I could afford it. That was my point about how the middle class with insurance would end up getting screwed. The rich would still get the best care; the middle class would end up getting the lower standard of care along the same lines as a homeless guy. Sweet, I can still work my 65 hours a week end up paying about what I am paying now for healthcare(somehow I think with our government running it, it would end up being more) but get less of a service. Where do I sign up for that? Now, what about illegal immigrants? Do they, because they are in the country get covered? Right now they, and I can only go on my experiences with people that work for me and have relatives that are here illegally, use emergency room like doctors offices.(going there for non emergencies) This is one of the reasons why emergency rooms have become what they are now with the restrictions they have. But I digress. If there is private and public healthcare you tell me who is getting first dibs on the doctor? I am betting private because the way it would end up working is that doctors would get a flat rate pay from the government, but extra from the private companies, so the doctors will always take those patients first.
You talk about Dawn and driving 30 miles, well if it goes public there would be a consolidation of hospitals so you (in the rural areas) would end up going that far anyway. This is the way it is where I lived in Canada; they can not afford to have a well equipped office in every town. Things would get dispersed by population. So that will not change.
I will come up with a super plan just have to check a couple things out.
The Michael Moore blog has fact-checked CNN’s “fact-checking”. The post even accuses CNN of libel, and demands an on-air apology. Check it out.
The key line (and this, Justin, is what your healthcare plan needs to address) is that while the United States ranks highest in patient satisfaction, “not everyone gets to be a patient.”
Oh, and one last thing from MichaelMoore.com…a post titled “Commenting on commentaries,” which is written by a person who says he has never met or corresponded with Moore.
The telling paragraph:
So instead of people who get treatment being satisfied and people without being dissatisfied lets have ev everyone exept the rich be dissatisfied. The quality of care would drop, I have no doubt about that.
the original point about Moore is that, we all know the system is a mess, this has been a political talking point for a while. It was even on West Wing for christ sakes. Now he comes on and points this out using “facts” that are questionable and instead of everyone focusing on the problem people focus on Moore. He makes evey film about him, he does something that will cause a stir but not about the topic that should be addressed.
Now in the movie does he explain how the system got into the mess its in? I know a part of it, because I helped it become what it is. Back about 10 years ago you could go into any emergancy room, at anytime and get care. No questions asked. If you did not have Ins. they would get your info then send you a bill. Medical bills, if you did not pay them, would get sent to collection. But the thing was they could not count against your credit. So what would happen is that you would get your bill when you left the emergancy room and throw it away, and never pay it. Ever. Now when I was 17-18 I did this, I am not proud of it but I had no ins. and had little money. No you multiply by a million and there you have it. Now this type of thing is not the only reason but it is a large part and it is still heppening today.
I did not spell check or re-read this so if there are mistakes sorry.