The Front Page: SiCKO-fantastic
Get ready. It’s coming. And it’s gonna be LOUD! You think the outrage caused by Fahrenheit 9/11 was bad? You think the pro-NRA responses to Bowling for Columbine were bad. Well, fellow citizens, it’s safe to say that you ain’t seen nothing yet. Michael Moore is back, and with a little less than two weeks before his latest example of “docu-ganda” (as his critics would call it) hits theaters, the groundswell of hyperactive handwringing is already in full flummox mode. For those who are unaware of the filmmaker’s latest screed, SiCKO tells the woeful tale of America’s medical insurance crisis. Not from the perspective of those without coverage. No, they’re the real lost causes. Moore isn’t after the easy target this time. Instead, he has taken aim at the bloated bureaucracy surrounding the nation’s numerous health care and pharmaceutical companies, and how it harms – and even kills – many of its supposedly indemnified customers.
As a result, pundit power is already working overtime debunking the film. Of course, that’s kind of tough to do when it’s yet to see a wide theatrical release (you had to go to Cannes to see the most recent screening). But in what many are calling a grandiose publicity ploy on the behalf of Lionsgate, the full length feature somehow was ‘leaked’ to Internet file sharing sites (or P2P protocols as they are known), giving anyone with a bitTorrent program and a relatively fast DSL line the opportunity to bootleg it. Add this to the already tenuous position taken by the Federal Government over the filmmaker’s last act trip to Guantanamo Bay and other points inside Castro’s Cuba, and you’ve got a mole hill waiting for the prerequisite media dung to help fertilize it into an untenable mountain. It won’t be long before the apologists and the activists get their prostylitizing panties in a nice big wad over the many inaccuracies, half-truths, and gross overgeneralizations the director determines are necessary to make his point.
Unfortunately, their fuel comes to an already raging inferno. Moore’s work post-Roger and Me is already a sideshow. Though many could have anticipated the carnival barker approach to its marketing, no one could have accurately predicted the unprecedented preparations to tear this man a new bash-hole. Naturally, it’s a division drawn down ideological lines (Conservative vs. Liberal, patriot vs. provocateur) and very much founded in a previous film that divided a nation. Fahrenheit 9/11 took on an incredibly popular President, argued against the leaders ‘security through force” scare tactics, and complained that America shouldn’t be invading a country that had no real designs on destroying us. Many called it treasonous and demoralizing to our fighting men and women. Even with the critical community under its belt, there were those who couldn’t cotton to Moore’s refusal to conform. What a difference three years makes.
Now, the focus is far narrower and more easily delineated. SiCKO centers its story on how the development of the HMO’s, and the privatization of medical care, created a crisis in coverage which literally destroys the lives of the very people it’s supposed to support. Horror stories of denied claims and wild, worst case scenarios are piled on top of already obvious dicta (insurance companies are in the business of making money) and governmental boot licking, resulting in a chaotic, corrupt system so steadfastly self-debasing that it really doesn’t need Moore’s help making it look bad. Indeed, what the filmmaker does here is basically call out the cads and have them readily admit their graft. The kicker is in the afterthought. It’s not that these companies commit these immoral crimes against human health. It’s that they do so with absolute – and in some case, law protected – impunity.
The second half of the film is a stroll through three competing socialized systems – Canada, England and France. Each one is presented like paradise on Earth, a place where no myocardial infarction goes untreated, where no late night fever lacks a free and easy cure. In the next few months, expect to hear citizens of these noteworthy nations debunking Moore’s many declarations. The Canadians are already up in arms (if ever so slightly) while Parisians in particular do not like the filmmakers definition of “average” (it’s in connection with a supposedly ‘middle class’ couple). By the time the Fall begins its annual blitzkrieg of cold and flu remedy commercials, the rest of the Westernized world will offer their two cents about universal health care and its many diverse elements.
But that’s not really the point with this latest round of rebuking. Moore, like outspoken auteur Oliver Stone, is a man better at the big picture than the multiple minutia that accompanies concepts such as facts and accuracy. No one is questioning the need to overhaul what is becoming a major financial, social, and emotional albatross around the neck of the world’s remaining Superpower. But because Moore makes his films out of theories first and statistics second, many like to undermine his truths without beginning to broach the core conceits. They somehow believe that if you can disprove some percentage of the veracity in Moore’s claims, the overall idea is invalid. Naturally, that’s bunk. The sky may not be purely blue (in fact, it is made up of many colors refracted and refocused by the moisture in the atmosphere – the tendency toward blue is the result of said reflecting), but calling it so is not a crime…at least, not inherently.
It’s like quarreling over semantics. Is France’s health care 100% free? Probably not. Do Canadians really have the wonderful, problem free universal coverage as claimed in the film? Most assuredly No. Is either system, from a purely fiscal approach to the patient, better than America’s cash machine mandate of money based acceptance/denial of coverage? Without a doubt. So why argue the potential faulty finer points? If you can agree on the foundation, do all the bricks have to be faultless as well? It may make for better debate, but since the opposition (the health care industry, the lobbyists, and politicians who kowtow to them) won’t be forthcoming with all their facts either, it seems only far to fight liar with liar. Yet it’s unreasonable to call Moore a fraud. In a country where expression is paramount among our rights, he is completely free to speak his mind. Equally, he must be open to those who will criticize and condemn his efforts, even when those assessments are more assertion than argument.
The current preemptive take on SiCKO is obviously a tactic taken from the unbelievable backlash experienced on Fahrenheit 9/11. In the case of the Republican Party, there was a need to protect a sitting president running for re-election. It was part of a strategy that guaranteed that no issue would set the campaign agenda unless the GOP were in complete control of it. In a far more damning documentary, Adam Del Deo and James D. Stern’s …So Goes the Nation, we learn that in the political trenches of each candidate, it’s war almost every second of every day. Anything and everything is fodder for advantage and opponent undermining. If, somehow, Moore had managed to gain enough credibility to sway the election, he’d have achieved a monumental democratic goal. Thanks to the massive machine in place, however, the movie had to settle for winning an international cinematic award. Toppling a soon to be unpopular war mongering President just wasn’t in the cards.
This time around, it’s all about money. Moore is doing to Aetna and Kaiser Permanente what he did to General Motors, except he doesn’t have to confront a bunch of CEOs to do so. He has hundreds of willing whistleblowers eager to expose the demoralizing practices they were part of just to earn a paycheck. In this case, the effect is more obvious and potentially potent. We see bleary eyed citizens crying, good and decent men and women whose lives have been inexplicably altered by the big bad robber baron of the 21st century – the insurance company. It’s the motion picture equivalent of shooting puppies. It may be manipulative, but it’s effective as all Hell. And better yet, it’s the perfect visual soundbite for a nation that needs its problems pitched at a text-messaging level of meaningful or they fail to register. SiCKO is a striking, nauseating, heart-wrenching, reactionary masterwork. That can’t be good news for the people over at Pfizer.
That’s why the repercussions have been so immediate and incremental. SiCKO is going to stir some response. It’s going to solidify the many grass roots consumer groups into one big voice of the people. It will more than likely be a topic on the tip of every candidates tongue as we enter 2008 and prepare for another pointless changing of the Executive Branch guard. On the other side, there will be those so lost in the jingoistic stance of the last seven years that they’ll be unable to tolerate the constant mocking of the US system (those pesky foreigners, they just love to hate us for our many liberties). They’ll milk the complicit media for as much screed time as possible, and Moore will have to appear on various chat fests to defend himself and his artistic choices. This won’t stop the conspiracy theorists for blaming each other over the film’s web appearance, nor will it defuse those already waiting for the 29 June play date to pounce.
While the leak does go to a wholly different issue regarding piracy, copyright, and Hollywood’s hopelessly outdated moviemaking model (which technology still trumps, damn those scientists), in this case, it also stokes the raging coals surrounding Moore’s most effective film to date. If the government was wise, it would back down from the bully pulpit and let the filmmaker have his medical days in the Cuban sun. In addition, the capitalistic cranks should also tone down the rebuttal rhetoric. It’s not like the multi-billion dollar health care industry needs their defending. Its got the money, and the connections, to secure its position. No, what everyone should be concerned about is the power inherent within the moving image. SiCKO may start a real people rebellion that could wrest this issue out of the hands of special interests once and for all. It may only be a movie, but it’s already having an impact. Just wait until it’s actually released.
Comments
Yes SICKO will stir a response. Among the polarized “left vs. right” chattering classes.
But in the end it will have no more effect on our lives than Farenheit 9/11. That film didn’t change the course of the Iraq war one iota. Our soldiers are still there, the injustices continue.
Mike Moore cannot reform healthcare with an edgy movie. Get real. This film will have zero effect on health policy.
Comment by Aaron Jones from Skopje Macedonia — June 18, 2007 @ 2:56 am
One clarification for the author. In France healthcare is free. 100% free. It has it’s problems, there are waiting lists for non life threatening surgeries. Emergency rooms are always crowded, doctors don’t spend too much time with each patient. So, basically the same as in the US only it is free. Completely free. In France you don’t die because you can’t pay for surgery. Also for about 50 bucks a month you get full private coverage, full, no deductibles. Yes, for 50 to 60 bucks. It is the same in Spain by the way. The country that performs more transplants in the world. If only Americans could believe that free health care is not science fiction then politicians would put it in place.
Comment by S. Peters from Spain — June 18, 2007 @ 3:02 am
your post reads as if you got all worked up emotionally and your only way to deal with your feelings was to write this. seems as if this entire piece has served more as a way for you to mitigate whats going on inside yourself as opposed to anything else.
mostly everything you have written could have easily not been said. you have verbosely stated the obvious without adding any worthwhile dialog on the topics the release of moore’s film touches on (topically therein, or in regards to its rhetorical significance et al.).
we’ll reduce what you’ve said down to the following: provocative new movie to be soon released. people already talking of it. likely more talk after actual release.
Comment by simon666 from california — June 18, 2007 @ 3:35 am
Let me add two things:
In The Netherlands, the situation is exactly the same as in France and Spain (and in most other EU countries, by the way). Healthcare is free, and if you desire private or specific coverage (for care that is considered cosmetic or alternative), you pay about $100 a month.
However, “free” is of course not true. The medications, hospitals and doctors are paid for - obviously. It’s just that the income tax from whole nation combined is doing that. And thusly, somewhat dependent on that tax system, the broadest shoulders carry the heaviest burden.
However, this will not work in the U.S. No matter what Oprah says, Americans are still a selfish, cruel and vengeful people. It will take many decades for this to change.
Comment by Peter27 from Netherlands — June 18, 2007 @ 4:11 am
Healthcare in France is free. The systeme believe that good health should not be the privilege of the few, and that medical progress should be shared. Beside that, these services are of excellent quality and there are no waiting list that I am aware of. This may sound incredible or propaganda but, it is absolutely an obviousness for every french people. Before going abroad, I had no idea that it could be otherwise and was appalled when I found out. SICKO is going to be a shock for the french, but at least they may realize how lucky they are, and stop moanning all the time. The french are so self centred, it is unbelievable, but they have not lost their faith regarding a state that rule in favor of the many rather than the few. Too much cynism in America.
Comment by Stephane from Vannes — June 18, 2007 @ 4:22 am
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
There is no such thing as free healthcare.
The government takes money away from people and then distributes it to doctors, hospitals, politicians, pharmaceutical companies, and consultants as they see fit.
What part of that is “free”?
This type of program is neither cost-free nor does it result in freedom of choice or freedom from government coercion.
“Free” health care is a fiction. It sounds good but it does not exist.
Comment by Aaron Jones from Skopje Macedonia — June 18, 2007 @ 4:26 am
— PopMatters sponsor —
How could the author write about what Moore did to “Chrysler” ??? The eponymous “Roger” of Roger and Me was Roger Smith of GM - General Motors.
This is not a typo… did the author even watch Roger and Me? Makes me question if he’s seen Sicko and if not, his credibility in writing about it yet.
Comment by Dave from Washington, DC — June 18, 2007 @ 5:51 am
“Chrysler”? I thought it was General Motors.
Comment by David R Dick from Nashua, NH — June 18, 2007 @ 6:03 am
I doubt we can ever have universal healthcare in the US. That would mean either decreasing military spending or raising taxes. Any cause, no matter how noble, is going to be defeated if it comes between our Freedom to wage War or our Freedom to make Money. Isn’t that what America is all about?
Comment by C from Louisvlle, Kentucky — June 18, 2007 @ 6:14 am
Instead of spending our tax dollars on wars and high tech police equipment (a very low priority IMO) & trying to steal another nations Oil we need to be spending the bulk of it on health care, education, environmental research & the environment.
Also its long past time we introduce an ethics committee that does not have to answer to the Supreme Court who’s sole purpose is to monitor other ethics committees.
Comment by Mr X — June 18, 2007 @ 6:16 am
While I do agree that the final conclusion to Fahrenheit 9/11 was a bit of a stretch, I did get a chance to watch this film and I know that while I can not verify the stories, that the realities of those stories are true for millions living in the US right now. My mother worked for United Health care for almost 20 years. She saw all of this crap going on. I’ve been to Canada and spoke with the citizens about this subject. I know that socialized medicine works. It’s the right that keeps using shiny catch phrases to put a bad taste in the mouths of their base.
Comment by Aaron Stone from Austin — June 18, 2007 @ 6:23 am
It should be possible to obtain figures from European countries on the overall cost of heathcare by the government versus the number of people treated. Unforunately the US system has so many handoffs, it would be impossible. But at least it could be compared to our government spending.
Of course nothing is “free”. It is a more about the cost and manner of distribution. Which system is more effective and efficient. There will always be trade-offs. One of the purposes of government is to provide services that benefit a large majority of the population. We have an Army to protect the country, don’t we? By minimizing handoffs, eliminating profit at the handoff points, controlling purchases, distribution of supplies and services, it must better.
Comment by Bud from FL — June 18, 2007 @ 6:28 am
— PopMatters sponsor —
“Americans are still a selfish, cruel and vengeful people” Comment by Peter27 from Netherlands
Possibly the most selfish, cruel and vengeful quote I have seen in a long time. Welcome to hate. No matter where you look, its always there.
I assume that you are talking about the same American people that individually give more charity than any country on the planet, and that does not include what the government shells out as charity(also dwarfing any other country).
Comment by Hu Man from Earth — June 18, 2007 @ 6:37 am
I love the American system! All those uninsured and mal-insured are in my waiting room, each holding their take-a-number ticket with numbers only I can read.
Comment by The Grim Reaper from Waco, Texas — June 18, 2007 @ 6:50 am
At last the Gotterdamerung of the
Health (sic) Care industry.
They can take all of their outsourced databases,
their rules and their regulations on who is covered for what and excluded for whatever because they had a cold last week and shove it.
THIS documentary is the start of REAL REFORM in the industry and all the RATIONALIZATIONS, EVASIONS, EXCUSES AND PLEAS, all the cries of raising taxes,
all the protestations that any reform at all won’t work - are going to be IGNORED by the AMERICAN PEOPLE.
WE’RE GOING TO GET BACK OUR COUNTRY AND GET BACK OUR HEALTH CARE and there is NOTHING they can do to stop us.
Citizen Jimserac
Job Outsourced to India in 2004
NO “Health” Care coverage.
Comment by Citizen Jimserac — June 18, 2007 @ 7:12 am
Gee, it was those “selfish, cruel and vengeful” Americans that liberated the Netherlands from the Nazis, wasn’t it?
Europeans are sheep willing to be led to slaughter—or absurd taxation—because they basically have little will of their own. And Europeans have been able to afford lavish social spending because they didn’t spend much on defense—instead relying on American military might and tax dollars to shield them from the looming Soviet threat for 50 years. But I’m sure this fellow in the Netherlands was plenty willing to trade one evil overlord for the next for the sake of free cough syrup.
It’s an American planet, warts and all. The life-saving modern healthcare techniques and drugs come almost entirely from where? The United States.
Bash the drugmakers, but without them, those drugs don’t exist.
Perfect system? Hell no.
But the author of this piece would have us believe a few lies are ok for the sake of the bigger point. The ends justify the means. If things are so bad, why not simply tell the truth without embellishment? Moore undermines himself and that larger truth by use of distortion that will fuel his critics’ fire. He knows that, or he’s more stupid than he looks. Why damage your own point in your audience’s mind?
Comment by Bill from Michigan — June 18, 2007 @ 7:12 am
Unfortunately in order to get good healthcare in the states, is through a good job.To Peter27 from the Netherlands the same selfish and cruel americans that died to free your country from Nazi Occupation.Yours country’s dirty little secret that the majority of Dutchmen were supportive of the Nazi’s will someday be revealed.
Comment by aj melo from jerusalem — June 18, 2007 @ 7:21 am
I’m the benefits manager for a medium sized company, and I struggle each year at health insurance renewal time with the information I get from the health insurance companies and the insurance brokers regarding options for company provided health insurance- I am told the only solution to premium increases is “consumer based care” and increasing deductibles and co-pays, which my broker readily admits do nothing to offset costs, but instead sends a “message” to the subscriber about costs. Another suggestion to offset costs- put more healthy snacks in our company vending machines. While neither of those ideas is horrible, they do not even begin to address the actual issues driving up the cost of health insurance. When I ask what is being done on the supply side, I get blank stares. When I mention the idea of universal care to them, I get the “months of waiting for an appointment” in Europe myth. Never mind my US doctor is only accepting appointments 9 months out. I have no choice but to work with these idiots- this is how health insurance costs and coverage is determined- a process akin to buying a used car (that is, there is no one representing the buyers’ interests). If Michael Moore can, at a minimum, get the conversation about health care moving out of the hands of the smoke and mirror people who currently control it, he’ll have been successful!
Comment by SuitcaseInHand from Boston, MA — June 18, 2007 @ 7:26 am
— PopMatters sponsor —
As others have pointed out, “free” health care is an absurd way to explain any country’s system. Taxes of some type are paying for these systems.
Moore’s film does present valid points, but one could just as easily spin things the other way…present a documentary about the failures or weak points of systems in other countries (long waits, lower survival rates for cancer patients, more restricted access to specialists, higher taxes) and focus only on the positives of the US system. Such a movie would be as dishonest as SICKO and really wouldn’t be of much value in realistically solving anything.
Changing who pays while leaving the system itself virtually unchanged is a pointless endeavor. We need to make people more personally accountable for what is being spent. Only then will they question why they need $100 antibiotics when $10 ones would suffice, or why their sprained ankle merits a $1500 MRI exam. When someone else is paying, who cares…if the individual paid a portion, questions would be asked and much of the problem in the US would right itself.
Comment by Vito Dunkelman from United States — June 18, 2007 @ 7:26 am
“SuitcaseInHand” - you need to find a new doctor! In my 50 years on the planet, which included many years making appointments for my kids, I have never had to wait more than a couple of weeks for an appointment!
Having a “benefits manager” say “is no one representing the buyers’ interests” is a great example of why we have a problem. The “buyers” aren’t the ones paying, so they aren’t concerned with their “interests” and never will be. A benefit manager should be one of the first to understand this! To use uyour example, if you could buy a used car, and get whatever you wanted, and just had to make some token co-pay, would you be as concerned with making the best deal, or care if the extra cost rustproofing really did anything? Most people would not. Our buffet mentality, where one price buys a little or a lot is something that must be addressed. We can either restrict our own access to care, or have it done for us. The former seems like a better plan to me!
Comment by Vito Dunkelman from United States — June 18, 2007 @ 7:40 am
“SICKO” could apply to the sitting American President, who is squandering Billions and Billions down a RAT Hole in a wasteland and neglecting the American homeland. But, what Republican President hasn’t opted for a bigger armed forces budget and taken away from those who desperately need medical attention!!!!!
Comment by LOU from Michigan — June 18, 2007 @ 7:40 am
‘Chrysler’ ??? I reread the article several times and didn’t find any reference to Chrylser. He mentions General Motors: “Moore is doing to Aetna and Kaiser Permanente what he did to General Motors, except he doesn’t have to confront a bunch of CEOs to do so.”
Not sure what you’re referring to: Dave from Wash, D.C.
Comment by uninsured in Boston from Boston, MA — June 18, 2007 @ 7:49 am
Bud from FL wrote;
“One of the purposes of government is to provide services that benefit a large majority of the population. We have an Army to protect the country, don’t we?”
Yes, Bud, I agree. But you have just made my second point completely. What started out as “National Defense” has become under government stewardship “Imperial Militarism”. Under the government’s direction, our national defense has grown to be the largest, most wasteful department that no longer functions at all as it was originally intended.
And you think we should give our health care over to these guys?
I am glad you admit socialized medicine is not free. One day you may realize that government is not the most efficient allocator of resources. Your example of “the Army” is perhaps the single most blatant example we could examine to look at government efficiency and operational results.
Comment by Aaron Jones from Skopje, Macedonia — June 18, 2007 @ 8:04 am
Thanks to “Suitcase In Hand” for bringing up the invisible elephant in the room here. Supply.
The demand for healthcare services will grow as long as there are developments in medicine. So what about the supply?
Government and private sector regulation controls the types of services that can be provided by licensced practicioners. For example, why can an experienced nurse not prescribe skin cream for somebody with poison ivy? Why do we have to pay $50 to get a prescription for this from a doctor?
If we would focus a little more on freeing up the marketplace for medical services rather than who we can appropriate money from to pay millionaire doctors to pay their malpractice insurance we might be able to start tackling this problem.
Why does a Doctor have to get a university degree before he goes to medical school?
Why can’t someone with say 4-5 years training prescibe common, mostly harmless drugs?
If we can get government and collusive private cartels (AAA) out of our medical system, then we can talk about “free” medicine.
Comment by Aaron jones from Skopje Macedonia — June 18, 2007 @ 8:17 am
— PopMatters sponsor —
I think this movie is overdue.
My husband and I were self-employed,of very modest income, and we were turned down for health insurance coverage for a very trivial reason,twelve years ago. Two weeks later, my husband was diagnosed with a pituitary brain tumor. We did not know he was sick, and his symptoms were only just coming on. We did not know anything was wrong with him, and were not applying to ‘rip off’ the Insurance company, but simply to get coverage. While he is fine now (the most important thing, of course), we were forced into bankruptcy due to astronomical medical bills. It was a humiliating, frustrating experience because the hospital wouldn’t work with us, and even though we tried to work with folks, and tried to get help from several sources, we ended up having no choice but to file, according to two lawyers and others kind enough to help us for free, and refused payment, even though we offered. The hospital just wanted to use us for a tax write-off, as they weren’t interested in a payment plan.
Our story is as common as dirt. We are honest, hard working people who don’t ask for a hand out, and who believed in the American Dream of small busines ownership and living within our means. I would’t take a dime that didn’t belong to me. But we were made into dirt scum by a system that only looks at statistics and numbers. Now, we have health care coverage, if you can call it that. With an astronimical deductable, and premiums that just went up again last month. I still have to choose between gas, groceries and healthcare. If you want the U.S. economy to grow…....make healthcare affordable for small business, and we’ll hire people, grow our businesses, and create a golden economic growth pattern. But we are drowning in a sea of premiums for health coverage that is unaffordable, while Congress quacks and the Insurance companies get fatter wallets and bigger cigars.
I go to my local little grocery store, and they have photgraphs of a little child taped to a mayonnaise jar, begging for money because she needs a transplant. This is America, supposedly one of the greatest nations on this Earth, and our parents are forced to beg for money so their child can get this or that treatment or transplant. This nation should be ashamed of itself for this.
I hope the Michael Moore movie shows a little of this, because it needs to be talked about. Sure, the movie will have flaws, and I do think he should be more careful with his facts, so the right-wingers don’t fillet him for dinner. (I’m neither party, by the way). But his movie will serve a valuable purpose.
I’ve waited for years and years for some sensible health care plan for plain, common working people to obtain adequate coverage. Even those who work for ‘the man’ often do not have adequate coverage, or high deductables that cut into salaries to the breaking point. It is a system in sore need of fixing. No matter the flaws in this movie, it will hopefully make the point that we need to talk about this issue….we need to make changes.
And we need to do it NOW.
signed,
burned by the system
Comment by Olivia Thomas — June 18, 2007 @ 8:18 am
Speaking of US military, here’s some great documentary: “Why We Fight” (2005):
http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436971/
Comment by Harry — June 18, 2007 @ 8:21 am
You know I am an American and I always have been one. I was “this close” to joining the marines instead of taking a college athletic scholarship and if the cause were right Id be the first to serve. But the cause has never been right since WWII. As an American, I’m sick of the politicians using “patriotism or lack thereof” as their metric for any American who disagrees with their entrenched (and almost always self serving) political agenda. Doctors go through a lot to serve the sick in society and they deserve a good living for it but Insurers and HMO’s are the parasites of the medical industry. They make their very lucrative living off of screening out human lives the same way a money manager screens out bad investments. Money Managers and Gamblers and Insurers create nothing. They simply trade money around. Usually other peoples money and in the case of insurers other people’s lives.
American’s are not entitled to anything except what every human should be entitled to: the right for their life to have value above simply being a tool to overthrow a dictatorship, raise a tax revenue, or subsidize and insurance corporation. Governments and businesses exist because of the people and at their pleasure not the other way around. If Michael Moore’s film happens to make the insurance industry look bad by exposing the fact that “profiteering” is the worst form of entitlement of all, he’s not being unpatriotic, he’s being a true american. This country was founded on the notion freedom, even if that freedom is simply freedom from corporate tyranny or political manipulation.
Comment by Matthew Brown from Nashville TN — June 18, 2007 @ 8:35 am
My company pays close to $8,000,000 a year to cover the cost of health insurance for our employers. My company, as the buyer, pays plenty! The health plan choices are limited to those that are presented by the health insurance company, via the broker; the broker makes its commission from the health insurance company. Where’s the incentive to keep the costs down? My company can’t take our business elsewhere, the elsewhere is not providing the insurance to our employees.
Wouldn’t that 8 million that my company spends on health insurance premium, and the energy that goes into generating it, be better spent helping my company make a better product that produces more profit and creates more jobs? The current system of insuring people in the US is draining to employers (just ask Detroit) and it stifles one of the very concepts that has allowed the US to become such a great country- entrepreneurship. Employees are afraid to leave their job and move to start-ups due to lack of portability of health insurance.
Comment by SuitcaseInHand from Boston, MA — June 18, 2007 @ 9:10 am
In response to “SuitcaseInHand”...your company is the financier, but the patient is actually the “buyer”. They are the ones who incur the expenses, but don’t directly feel the pain of paying for them. The patient decides when they will seek care, and other than a small co-pay, has no vested interest in what things cost. To complicate matters (and I am sure this is something you have seen in a company that spends so much on health care) a trip to the doctor is an excuse to miss work. Who cares that this “excuse” costs a lot of money. I could go on and on about how the real buyers of health care are crippling the system with their indifference to costs. When people don’t pay, they don’t care.
I agree with what you say, and how the $$ spent on health care could be better directed, but once again must say that until the buyer, the real buyer, understands the pains of irresponsible and reckless spending, nothing will change.
Comment by Vito Dunkelman from United States — June 18, 2007 @ 9:33 am
these all films are they really becomes the fact. If you want to get low rate american express credit cards check out http://www.credit-card-gallery.com
Comment by hugepeter from usa — June 18, 2007 @ 9:44 am
— PopMatters sponsor —
In Response to Vito Dunkelman:
You are buying into the “solution” that the health insurance companies are cleverly marketing as “consumer driven healthcare”, so that the supply side never gets examined.
The HMO pays for X, but not for Y. Sometimes X is a more expensive drug/treatment than Y, but hey, it’s the deal that’s been cut between the supplier of the drug/medical equipment and the insurer/doctor/hospital. Doctors are the ones who prescribe the $100 antibiotics when $10 ones would suffice, or suggest an MRI for a sprained ankle, not consumers! Expecting a consumer to question the advice of a medical professional (which includes asking about less costly alternatives), is unrealistic, especially if the consumer is facing a potentially life threatening medical issue.
Yes, consumers should know how healthcare dollars get spent. Currently there is no good consistent method of providing cost information to the consumer. (I place the blame on insurers for this as well- why aren’t the costs transparent??) However, people will always get sick, which is why health insurance exists in the first place. I still maintain that it is the supply side that offers much more potential for managing costs- doctors, medical equipment providers, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies- are a bigger piece of the healthcare cost management equation in the US.
Comment by SuitcaseInHand from Boston, MA — June 18, 2007 @ 10:54 am
I well realize that there are problems on both sides of the supply/demand equation, and didn’t mean to over simplify matters implying otherwise. You are right that doctor’s are the ones ordering expensive tests and prescribing costly meds of dubious necessity, but if you ask patients (and I do), most couldn’t care less how much it costs.
You say Expecting a consumer to question the advice of a medical professional (which includes asking about less costly alternatives), is unrealistic, especially if the consumer is facing a potentially life threatening medical issue. but I don’t understand why you feel that way. If you had no insurance would you ask about less costly alternatives? Would you ask if something is essential or elective and base your decision on the reply? I am confident most people would, but now they do not. I cannot tell you how many times during a day of patient care I hear people tell me “what ever my insurance covers’. Writing that kind of blank check is irresponsible and leads to many of the problems we have today.
I am also unclear how you see supply and demand as such distinct entities. If demand changes, so does supply. If you had food insurance, and could go to the grocery store and fill your cart and just make a small co-pay, would you care how much things cost? Would inefficiencies and waste in the supply chain even register a concern? probably not. You don’t have food insurance, so the retail stores ARE held accountable for costs and the supply side must operate with this accountability in mind.
Comment by Vito Dunkelman from United States — June 18, 2007 @ 11:13 am
Suitcase in Hand,
A long time ago,in a land far, far away…. I used to think Health Insurance existed to help those who were sick. Now I realize that it mainly exists to make a profit for shareholders. Until forced to do so, the companies in my state wouldn’t insure those people who weren’t ‘perfectly’ healthy, with no pre-existing conditions. In my state now, those companies are forced to cover those who aren’t perfect, but now they sock you with a much higher premium, and try to ‘filter out’ those who are ‘less than’ by raising rates…..I know. It happened to me. My insurance company kept raising my premiums to over a thousand per month, with a five thousand deductable. That isn’t insurance. That’s highway robbery. And I didn’t even have a terrible ‘disese’ that sapped their cash. I was simply self-employed and couldn’t buy into a group rate.
I do agree that it would be a huge boon to small business to get this issue of health care ‘straightened out’. I don’t know a single self-employed craftsman or business owner in my area who does not struggle with this every day, and many are teetering on the edge of business closure, when health care is added to the cost of doing business in competition with China. It is out of control.
Vito D.,
My doctor regularly prescribes generic brands as a matter of course, and uses his ‘samples’ from drug companies to help those without health insurance get some medications. He is a good doctor who now doesn’t even do gynecological exams anymore due to the risk of being slapped by a lawsuit. He had to lower his insurance premiums or quit his practice. Many doctors live in fear of malpractice suits, as you know well, I’m sure, and as a patient, I wish to see those awards capped, because it hurts all to go into the healing professions, and ultimately, the patient.
Thank you for reading this. It helps me to simply write down my frustrations with the health care system. One voice among the multitudes.
burned by the system
Comment by Olivia — June 18, 2007 @ 11:38 am
Voltaire once said that if there was no God we should have to invent one. Currently, if we did not have Michael Moore we would have to invent one.
I question everything Michael Moore does and cannot believe in even a tenth of what he says. Shameful as he is, he is a necessary evil. Right or wrong he holds the authorities feet to a very hot flame and they are terrified that sometimes he may be telling at least some of the truth.
Comment by Henry Baugh from Cleveland, Texas — June 18, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
“Americans are still a selfish, cruel and vengeful people” Comment by Peter27 from Netherlands
To which Hu Man from Earth added:
“Possibly the most selfish, cruel and vengeful quote I have seen in a long time. Welcome to hate. No matter where you look, its always there.
I assume that you are talking about the same American people that individually give more charity than any country on the planet, and that does not include what the government shells out as charity(also dwarfing any other country).”
Sadly, Hu Man, it is true, Americans are a selfish, cruel and vengeful people. And guilt ridden… That is why we give to charities. And greedy, which is why we don’t give enough to actually solve any of the issues that the charities are for. It has nothing to do with hate, it is just the American way.
Comment by James Brown from Florida — June 18, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
It is too bad you had to pull the Cuba stunt Mike or I might actually have gone to see this movie and maybe even change my opinion of you. Which is far from favorable I assure you.
Comment by Me in NY from NYC — June 18, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
— PopMatters sponsor —
So let me see if I follow:
Americans are a selfish, cruel and vengeful people. And guilt ridden… That is why we give to charities. And greedy, which is why we don’t give enough to actually solve any of the issues that the charities are for.
I am guessing this is how you justify being selfish and not giving anything to charity.
Comment by Bob from NY — June 18, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
The problem with American healthcare is not that it is expensive or inefficient or even unfair and biased towards the wealthy. The problem is that it places the health and the lives of our people in the hands of other average Americans over whom there is no control or accountability. The traditional answer to these situations, even in America, is to place the control in the hands of government, who at least must face the elctorate periodically.
Comment by John McNellis from Paw Paw, MI — June 18, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
Two years ago, a natural disaster strikes thouosands in New Orleans, and the evil corporate empire Wal-Mart beats the federal government to the punch in providing aid, and it was entirely voluntary to boot. Complaints from liberals ensue.
Yet now they want to entrust that same government to take full responsibility for the health and well-being of 300 million people?!? Give me a break, this is a government that can’t even figure out how to operate a voting booth, and you want them to take over healthcare?
Comment by Justin — June 18, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
Socialist healthcare is ok with me. Just offset the taxes needed by reducing expenditures. No more money for the Israel or Palestine. No more money for Africa AIDS. Put entertainers on a salary like doctors would be and limit their ability to increase their income. Then demand they work hard all year round, every year.
Bring home all our troops from everywhere and stop policing any other country, no matter the foul deeds. That would save a lot of money. Charge the UN for the privilege of being in the US. Let abortionists kill as many fetuses as they want and let Kevorkian kill all the old folks. That would save money for socialist health care.
See, we can afford “free” healthcare.
Comment by cdl — June 18, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
Yes, but our govt takes advantage of charity to cut foreign aid to less than most. <a href=“http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs”>Check it out.</a>
As for the insurance/pharma companies, what else do you expect from the industry that supplied heroin and morphine to corner drugstores in cough syrup until the govt forced them to stop? There is no such thing as a corporate soul, and the hunger for profits causes a great deal of unnecessary pain in the world.
Comment by MadSat — June 18, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
“Naturally, that’s bunk. The sky may not be purely blue (in fact, it is made up of many colors refracted and refocused by the moisture in the atmosphere – the tendency toward blue is the result of said reflecting), but calling it so is not a crime…at least, not inherently.”
You sound convincing, but this is all wrong. The sky is blue due to scattering of sunlight by the dipole moments of atmospheric nitrogen molecules ... and the scattering power varies in proportion to the inverse fourth power of the wavelength. Since red light ~700 nm is amost twice the wavelength of blue ~400 nm, blue is scatter 2^4 or sixteen times as much as the red. Thus the entire sky is blue while the sun is high in the sky, and the sun appears yellow (instead of white, which is its color in space).
The world is full of facile explanations ... much better to have the facts and logic on your side.
For more details, complications and exceptions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering
Comment by Peter from Ann Arbor Michigan — June 18, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
— PopMatters sponsor —
I think that it’s great that America spends all its money on the military instead of helping making its citizens lives better. All the first world countries of Europe, as well as Canada, are given a completly free military to protect us (which the US will do unconditionally, as per the NATO agreement). Canada barely has a military, yet if we were invaded the United States would save us in an instant, just to maintain the status quo and not have a potentially hostile neighbour. We are completly protected on the American’s dime.
The US spends so much on the military and so little on social programs that could make a positive difference in its citizens lives (such as universal health coverage, affordable post-secondary education, a livable pention) that its lower middle class are practically living in a third world country. As for the rest of us in Canada and Europe, we need not worry about defending our countries (a job better left to the US), and we can instead focus on making our countries the best in the world to live and raise children in. God Bless the United States of America!
Comment by CanadianKid from Canada — June 18, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
The most common lies about Universal health care are:
A) Universal health care is communism; Americans fail to realize that in all countries with UNiversal Haleth care you can also purchase and use private insurance, doctors and hospitals. The fact that the low income citizens are covered does not mean that there is no freedom of choice. Of course, communists also have universal health care. Eveeryone seems to have it, except us.
B) The general attitude that somehow Military spending is not Goverment spending. They claim the want a smaller goverment, but they somehow do not include the Military, which in this cases sucks up close to 50% of all goverment spending in the U.S.
C) The claim that private insurances or provatization will do a better job at managing halth care and do it for less. Aside form the fact we already know this is not true, I am yet to see or experience any form of privatization that did not impose of the averga user and unfair and unresponsive private bureocracy.
D) Immigrants are to blame for the situations in the country. Of course, they also do not support the idea of a National ID system, failt to mention or understand that most illegals in the US (that is Mexicans) usually prefer to go to private low income doctors and clinics instead of hospitals for fear of immigration raids and that the only reason why the public health systems are overwhelmed is because they have no money to support themselves.
Finally, considering how poorly informed we are here in the U.S., all the opponents have to do is simply push the “emotional” buttons of the US citizens:
For example, if I wanted to swing Americans towards my cause while debuking others all I have to do is come into a forum or blog -much like this one- posing as a supporter of the cause, but then making such outlanding and offensiver remarks so as to get a rise from the “undecided” masses, who then turn their rage against it…
You will never get Universal Health care in the US. People here are so easily manipulated, so easily disctracted that they will never get anywhere. If you get any UHC, it will be a pathetic and sorry patch up job who will be sueless.
Like the great Republican president Theofore Roosvelt said:
“The problem with capitalsim is capitalists”
Comment by The Adjuster — June 18, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
And yes, I suck at typing and I forgot to spell check my prior post.
Oh well, you get the jest of it.
Comment by The Adjuster — June 18, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
Right-wing fear mongering that universal healthcare will be the end of the world is completely unfounded. There is a mountain of empyrical evidence from all over the world that suggests that single-payer healthcare, while it has its problems, is far superior to our current system.
The right is terrified of regulating big insurance and big pharma for two reasons:
1. Both industries donate HUGE amounts of money to Republican candidates (www.tray.org). If they take a financial hit, so does the Republican Party.
2. A lot of people have pharma and insurance stock in their portfolios. If the industries are held accountable and can no longer engage in profiteering, a number of very wealthy individuals stand to take a big financial hit.
Comment by Dave from Boston — June 18, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
All courtesy of nationmaster.
Private per capita health care funding
Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 United States: $2,580.00 per capita
#2 Switzerland: $1,429.00 per capita
#3 Netherlands: $729.00 per capita
#4 Canada: $709.00 per capita
#5 Germany: $685.00 per capita
#6 Austria: $655.00 per capita
#7 Belgium: $652.00 per capita
#8 Greece: $622.00 per capita
#9 Australia: $611.00 per capita
#10 France: $564.00 per capita
public
Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 Iceland: $2,202.00 per capita
#2 Germany: $2,063.00 per capita
#3 United States: $2,051.00 per capita
#4 France: $1,986.00 per capita
#5 Norway: $1,877.00 per capita
#6 Canada: $1,826.00 per capita
#7 Switzerland: $1,793.00 per capita
#8 Denmark: $1,785.00 per capita
#9 Belgium: $1,616.00 per capita
#10 Australia: $1,600.00 per capita
total
Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 United States: $4,631.00 per capita
#2 Switzerland: $3,222.00 per capita
#3 Germany: $2,748.00 per capita
#4 Iceland: $2,608.00 per capita
#5 Canada: $2,535.00 per capita
#6 Denmark: $2,420.00 per capita
#7 France: $2,349.00 per capita
#8 Belgium: $2,268.00 per capita
#9 Norway: $2,268.00 per capita
#10 Netherlands: $2,246.00 per capita
Child maltreatment deaths
#1 United States: 2.2 per 100,000 children
#2 Mexico: 2.2 per 100,000 children
#3 New Zealand: 1.2 per 100,000 children
#4 Hungary: 1.2 per 100,000 children
#5 Austria: 0.9 per 100,000 children
#6 Switzerland: 0.8 per 100,000 children
#7 Australia: 0.7 per 100,000 children
#8 Finland: 0.7 per 100,000 children
#9 Canada: 0.7 per 100,000 children
#10 Denmark: 0.7 per 100,000 children
Infant mortality
#179 United States: 6.37 deaths/1,000 live births
#197 Canada: 4.63 deaths/1,000 live births
#214 France: 3.41 deaths/1,000 live births
Life expectancy
#10 France: 80.59 years
#13 Canada: 80.34 years
#44 United States: 78 years
hospital beds
#9 France: 8.4 per 1,000 people
25 Canada: 3.9 per 1,000 people
#27 United States: 3.6 per 1,000 people
Health care cost increase per annum
#8 United States: 3.2%
#17 France: 2.3%
#18 Canada: 1.8%
Acute care beds
#10 France: 4 per 1,000 people
#15 Canada: 3.2 per 1,000 people
#19 United States: 2.9 per 1,000 people
Child injury death” index is defined as the annual number of deaths from injuries (unintentional and intentional) among 1 to 14 year old children per 10,000 children of those ages
#4 United States: 14.1
#9 Canada: 9.7
#14 France: 9.1
Comment by Andrew from US of A — June 18, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
As a Canadian, I know that our system isn’t perfect. There are wait times for many procedures and doctors & nurses are overworked. You’ll hear lots of complaints about medicare. Ask ANY Canadian if they’d swap if for a US-style system, though, and they’ll say NO.
to aj melo from jerusalem:
The Netherlands was freed by Canadians, not Americans. There was some Dutch collaboration but also significant resistance to the Nazis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Netherlands_(1939-1945)
“By the end of the war 205,900 Dutch men and women had died. The Netherlands had the highest per capita death rate of all Nazi-occupied countries in Western Europe, 2.36%.”
Comment by David from Montreal, Canada — June 18, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
— PopMatters sponsor —
no system is perfect, when I think how bad it is here I also realize I’d rather be here than anywhere else…
You idiots NEED a whiner to somehow motivate “someone” to do something about it? Try yourselves morons, its always, them and they who are the evil ones who need “someone” to step up. Act or shut up and that doesn’t mean buying a ticket to see what you already know is there and making that fat self serving slob, who rides corporate jets for free to Cannes to get his unjust accolades, immeasurably rich. yeah, he’s doing this for you…
idiots…
Comment by BigEd from Northeast USA — June 18, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
I truly hope that regardless of what side of the fence you are on, that you go see this film. Even if its just to have more ammo against “the other side”.
And if you do find that you are moved by this film, or feel that even though some of it is muck-raking propaganda, that if you walk away feeling that even parts of our current system could improve, that you will keep talking about it, writing about it, thinking about it. This is an election year. The sycophants out there only care once every 4 years what we want. Don’t let this opportunity go by. Make yourself heard! Because in the end, we cannot blame the government or the insurance companies if we are too busy reading about Paris Hilton to care about ourselves and our own futures!
Comment by c from Louisvlle, Kentucky — June 18, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
“I assume that you are talking about the same American people that individually give more charity than any country on the planet, and that does not include what the government shells out as charity(also dwarfing any other country).”
This is absolutely untrue. Americans give less than .3% of their net income to charity, whereas the European average is just under 1%.
Welcome to reality.
/ashamed to be an American
Comment by Kevin Althorp from Miami, FL — June 19, 2007 @ 5:03 am
Hopefully, one outcome of “Sicko” will be to create a forum for discussion of solutions to the US healthcare crisis, as opposed to the usual partisan polemic, finger-pointing, etc.
As author of “Patients Beyond Borders,” I recently attended the 4th Annual World Health Congress in D.C. and was appalled that not one of our nation’s leading healthcare executives offered a meaningful solution to the crisis. Nor do our current political candidates, who will have to do better than offering false promises of universal healthcare to a largely gullible American constituency.
For many US patients, particularly the millions of un- and under-insured aging into expensive and financially compromising treatments, travel abroad for treatment (at US-accredited hospitals offering equal or better care—at 30-80% discounts) present a real alternative for a wide array of procedures. While Cuba may not have been the best example, the rising trend of medical travel offers hope for many, including the 150,000 Americans who boarded planes and headed abroad for medical treatment last year.
Comment by Josef Woodman from Chapel Hill, NC — June 19, 2007 @ 7:04 am
i wonder if there’s pie at the screenings? mmm i like pie.
Comment by pie in the sky — June 19, 2007 @ 11:48 am
Me in NY says:
<cite>It is too bad you had to pull the Cuba stunt Mike or I might actually have gone to see this movie and maybe even change my opinion of you. Which is far from favorable I assure you.</cite>
Haha, but the joke is on us ‘Me’. Yes the Cuban doctors part looks like propaganda (I actually _have_ seen it), but can anyone please explain why we’re still boycotting Cuba?
Why are we afraid of the fight? Let’s give our ‘superior’ capitalist system a chance to vanquish the Cuban welfare state (like it supposedly did in Eastern Germany?).
Comment by Me Too from NYC — June 19, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
— PopMatters sponsor —
I recently finished watching Michael Moore’s Sicko (it’s a great documentary that everyone should see). It’s not about the 47 million Americans who don’t have health insurance, it’s about some of the 250 million who have/had health insurance and in spite of this their lives were ruined. It dispels a lot of the myths espoused by some in America such as long waiting lines, higher taxes and the doctors being paid close to nothing. It explains why HMOs were established and how their primary purpose is to deny claims. Advancement in these companies is based upon how many claims an employee denies and any claims that are actually paid out are seen as failures. He goes to countries like Canada, England, France and Cuba and talks to citizens of these countries to get their take on their country’s health-care system. He also goes to hospitals and emergency rooms in these countries to get the take of the people there and when he ask “How much do you pay?”, they all laugh at him. Moore sums up the premise of film when he says the rest of the western world practices “We” health-care while Americans practice “Me” health-care.
Comment by online prescription pharmacy — January 10, 2008 @ 10:21 am
In my opinion, Sicko traces the birth of the privatized health system to Richard Nixon, who in 1971, on one of the White House tapes, noted that the scheme would work for insurance companies “because the less care they give ‘em, the more money they make.” Hardly anyone would deny that since then, the HMOs and pharmaceutical companies have made billions while Americans have health care below the standard of other industrialized countries, and pay more for it. (Even the flacks for HMOs acknowledge that the system needs reform.) Or that patients are routinely denied procedures they should be entitled to. “You’re not slipping through the cracks,” a claims adjuster, since reformed, tells Moore. “They made the crack and are sweeping you toward it.”
Comment by no medical term life Insurance — February 8, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
I need to say something about the film and the cruel reality: the health care system is being destroyed day by day, piece by piece because ober populating the planet is a big problem that needs to be solved. Why do you think that more and more countried that once had a marvellous health care system are starting to complain about the downfall of their health services? That is for real and yes, this a kinf of eugenia practiced at a global scale.
Comment by Virtual Office from Romania — March 12, 2008 @ 9:55 am
This article simply ROCKS ! That was a great read for me. I simple agree on every word written, keep it up with all the good work.. You have got my Thumbs UP !!!
Thank you,
Comment by Health Insurance from New York — September 22, 2008 @ 5:36 am