Sicko movie review

[SUBMAN1]

Can Micheal Moore move to a Socialistic Communism state like China or Russia? He might be more happy there.

Look at this link - he is inciting rebellion in my country!!!!:
'I Really Want Young People To Rebel'


-S

Jun 29 2007 12:34 PM EDT
'Sicko': Heavily Doctored, By Kurt Loder

Is Michael Moore's prescription worse than the disease?


Michael Moore may see himself as working in the tradition of such crusading muckrakers of the last century as Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell and Upton Sinclair — writers whose dedication to exposing corruption and social injustices played a part in sparking much-needed reforms. In his new movie, "Sicko," Moore focuses on the U.S. health-care industry — a juicy target — and he casts a shocking light on some of the people it's failed.


There's a man who mangled two of his fingers with a power saw and learned that it would cost $12,000 to save one of them, but $60,000 to save the other. He had no health insurance and could only scrape together enough money to salvage the $12,000 finger.


There's a woman whose husband was prescribed new drugs to combat his cancer, but couldn't get their insurance company to pay for them because the drugs were experimental. Her husband died.


Then there's a woman who made an emergency trip to a hospital for treatment and subsequently learned her insurance company wouldn't pay for the ambulance that took her there — because it hadn't been "pre-approved." And there's a middle-aged couple — a man, who suffered three heart attacks, and his wife, who developed cancer — who were bankrupted by the cost of co-payments and other expenses not covered by their insurance, and have now been forced to move into a cramped, dismal room in the home of a resentful son. There's also a 79-year-old man who has to continue working a menial job because Medicare won't cover the cost of all the medications he needs.


Moore does a real service in bringing these stories to light — some of them are horrifying, and then infuriating. One giant health-maintenance organization, Kaiser Permanente, is so persuasively lambasted in the movie that, on the basis of what we're told, we want to burst into the company's executive suites and make a mass citizen's arrest. This is the sort of thing good muckrakers are supposed to do.
Unfortunately, Moore is also a con man of a very brazen sort, and never more so than in this film. His cherry-picked facts, manipulative interviews (with lingering close-ups of distraught people breaking down in tears) and blithe assertions (how does he know 18 million people will die this year because they have no health insurance?) are so stacked that you can feel his whole argument sliding sideways as the picture unspools. The American health-care system is in urgent need of reform, no question. Some 47 million people are uninsured (although many are only temporarily so, being either in-between jobs or young enough not to feel a pressing need to buy health insurance). There are a number of proposals as to what might be done to correct this situation. Moore has no use for any of them, save one.


As a proud socialist, the director appears to feel that there are few problems in life that can't be solved by government regulation (that would be the same government that's already given us the U.S. Postal Service and the Department of Motor Vehicles). In the case of health care, though, Americans have never been keen on socialized medicine. In 1993, when one of Moore's heroes, Hillary Clinton (he actually blurts out the word "sexy!" in describing her in the movie), tried to create a government-controlled health care system, her failed attempt to do so helped deliver the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives into Republican control for the next dozen years. Moore still looks upon Clinton's plan as a grand idea, one that Americans, being not very bright, unwisely rejected. (He may be having second thoughts about Hillary herself, though: In the movie he heavily emphasizes the fact that, among politicians, she accepts the second-largest amount of political money from the health care industry.)


The problem with American health care, Moore argues, is that people are charged money to avail themselves of it. In other countries, like Canada, France and Britain, health systems are far superior — and they're free. He takes us to these countries to see a few clean, efficient hospitals, where treatment is quick and caring; and to meet a few doctors, who are delighted with their government-regulated salaries; and to listen to patients express their beaming happiness with a socialized health system. It sounds great. As one patient in a British hospital run by the country's National Health Service says, "No one pays. It's all on the NHS. It's not America."
That last statement is even truer than you'd know from watching "Sicko." In the case of Canada — which Moore, like many other political activists, holds up as a utopian ideal of benevolent health-care regulation — a very different picture is conveyed by a short 2005 documentary called "Dead Meat," by Stuart Browning and Blaine Greenberg. These two filmmakers talked to a number of Canadians of a kind that Moore's movie would have you believe don't exist:


A 52-year-old woman in Calgary recalls being in severe need of joint-replacement surgery after the cartilage in her knee wore out. She was put on a wait list and wound up waiting 16 months for the surgery. Her pain was so excruciating, she says, that she was prescribed large doses of Oxycontin, and soon became addicted. After finally getting her operation, she was put on another wait list — this time for drug rehab.


A man tells about his mother waiting two years for life-saving cancer surgery — and then twice having her surgical appointments canceled. She was still waiting when she died.


A man in critical need of neck surgery plays a voicemail message from a doctor he'd contacted: "As of today," she says, "it's a two-year wait-list to see me for an initial consultation." Later, when the man and his wife both needed hip-replacement surgery and grew exasperated after spending two years on a waiting list, they finally mortgaged their home and flew to Belgium to have the operations done there, with no more waiting.


Rick Baker, the owner of a Toronto company called Timely Medical Alternatives, specializes in transporting Canadians who don't want to wait for medical care to Buffalo, New York, two hours away, where they won't have to. Baker's business is apparently thriving.


And Dr. Brian Day, now the president of the Canadian Medical Association, muses about the bizarre distortions created by a law that prohibits Canadians from paying for even urgently-needed medical treatments, or from obtaining private health insurance. "It's legal to buy health insurance for your pets," Day says, "but illegal to buy health insurance for yourself." (Even more pointedly, Day was quoted in the Wall Street Journal this week as saying, "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years.")
Actually, this aspect of the Canadian health-care system is changing. In 2005, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled in favor of a man who had filed suit in Quebec over being kept on an interminable waiting list for treatment. In striking down the government health care monopoly in that province, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said, "Access to a waiting list is not access to health care." Now a similar suit has been filed in Ontario.


What's the problem with government health systems? Moore's movie doesn't ask that question, although it does unintentionally provide several answers. When governments attempt to regulate the balance between a limited supply of health care and an unlimited demand for it they're inevitably forced to ration treatment. This is certainly the situation in Britain. Writing in the Chicago Tribune this week, Helen Evans, a 20-year veteran of the country's National Health Service and now the director of a London-based group called Nurses for Reform, said that nearly 1 million Britons are currently on waiting lists for medical care — and another 200,000 are waiting to get on waiting lists. Evans also says the NHS cancels about 100,000 operations each year because of shortages of various sorts. Last March, the BBC reported on the results of a Healthcare Commission poll of 128,000 NHS workers: two thirds of them said they "would not be happy" to be patients in their own hospitals. James Christopher, the film critic of the Times of London, thinks he knows why. After marveling at Moore's rosy view of the British health care system in "Sicko," Christopher wrote, "What he hasn't done is lie in a corridor all night at the Royal Free [Hospital] watching his severed toe disintegrate in a plastic cup of melted ice. I have." Last month, the Associated Press reported that Gordon Brown — just installed this week as Britain's new prime minister — had promised to inaugurate "sweeping domestic reforms" to, among other things, "improve health care."


Moore's most ardent enthusiasm is reserved for the French health care system, which he portrays as the crowning glory of a Gallic lifestyle far superior to our own. The French! They work only 35 hours a week, by law. They get at least five weeks' vacation every year. Their health care is free, and they can take an unlimited number of sick days. It is here that Moore shoots himself in the foot. He introduces us to a young man who's reached the end of three months of paid sick leave and is asked by his doctor if he's finally ready to return to work. No, not yet, he says. So the doctor gives him another three months of paid leave — and the young man immediately decamps for the South of France, where we see him lounging on the sunny Riviera, chatting up babes and generally enjoying what would be for most people a very expensive vacation. Moore apparently expects us to witness this dumbfounding spectacle and ask why we can't have such a great health care system, too. I think a more common response would be, how can any country afford such economic insanity?


As it turns out, France can't. In 2004, French Health Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy told a government commission, "Our health system has gone mad. Profound reforms are urgent." Agence France-Presse recently reported that the French health-care system is running a deficit of $2.7 billion. And in the French presidential election in May, voters in surprising numbers rejected the Socialist candidate, Ségolène Royal, who had promised actually to raise some health benefits, and elected instead the center-right politician Nicolas Sarkozy, who, according to Agence France-Presse again, "plans to move fast to overhaul the economy, with the deficit-ridden health care system a primary target." Possibly Sarkozy should first consult with Michael Moore. After all, the tax-stoked French health care system may be expensive, but at least it's "free."


Having driven his bring-on-government-health care argument into a ditch outside of Paris, Moore next pilots it right off a cliff and into the Caribbean on the final stop on his tour: Cuba. Here it must also be said that the director performs a valuable service. He rounds up a group of 9/11 rescue workers — firefighters and selfless volunteers — who risked their lives and ruined their health in the aftermath of the New York terrorist attacks. These people — there's no other way of putting it — have been screwed, mainly by the politicians who were at such photo-op pains to praise them at the time. (This makes Moore's faith in government medical compassion seem all the more inexplicable.) These people's lives have been devastated — wracked by chronic illnesses, some can no longer hold down jobs and none can afford to buy the various expensive medicines they need. Moore does them an admirable service by bringing their plight before a large audience.
However, there's never a moment when we doubt that he's also using these people as props in his film, and as talking points in his agenda. Renting some boats, he leads them all off to Cuba. Upon arrival they stop briefly outside the American military enclave on Guantanamo Bay so that Moore can have himself filmed begging, through a bullhorn, for some of the free, top-notch medical care that's currently being lavished on the detainees there. Having no luck, he then moves on to Cuba proper.
Fidel Castro's island dictatorship, now in its 40th year of being listed as a human-rights violator by Amnesty International, is here depicted as a balmy paradise not unlike the Iraq of Saddam Hussein that Moore showed us in his earlier film, "Fahrenheit 9/11." He and his charges make their way — their pre-arranged way, if it need be said — to a state-of-the-art hospital where they receive a picturesquely warm welcome. In a voiceover, Moore, shown beaming at his little band of visitors, says he told the Cuban doctors to "give them the same care they'd give Cuban citizens." Then he adds, dramatically: "And they did."


If Moore really believes this, he may be a greater fool than even his most feverish detractors claim him to be. Nevertheless, medical care is provided to the visiting Americans, and it is indeed excellent. Cuba is in fact the site of some world-class medical facilities (surprising in a country that, as Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar noted in the Los Angeles Times last month, "imprisoned a doctor in the late 1990s for speaking out against government failure to respond to an epidemic of a mosquito-borne virus"). What Moore doesn't mention is the flourishing Cuban industry of "health tourism" — a system in which foreigners (including self-admitted multimillionaire film directors and, of course, government bigwigs) who are willing to pay cash for anything from brain-surgery to dental work can purchase a level of treatment that's unavailable to the majority of Cubans with no hard currency at their disposal. The Cuban American National Foundation (admittedly a group with no love for the Castro regime) calls this "medical apartheid." And in a 2004 article in Canada's National Post, writer Isabel Vincent quoted a dissident Cuban neurosurgeon, Hilda Molina, as saying, "Cubans should be treated the same as foreigners. Cubans have less rights in their own country than foreigners who visit here."


As the Caribbean sun sank down on Moore's breathtakingly meretricious movie, I couldn't help recalling that when Fidel Castro became gravely ill last year, he didn't put himself in the hands of a Cuban surgeon. No. Instead, he had a specialist flown in — from Spain.

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/artic...58/story.jhtml

[SUBMAN1]

Another thought, how can this weirdo criticse the Walter Reed medical center for example, and then ask for government run health care in the same movie??? Is he nuts? Walter Reed is a government funded and government run hospital!!! Hahahahaha! What an idiot.

-S

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Another thought, how can this weirdo criticse the Walter Reed medical center for example, and then ask for government run health care in the same movie??? Is he nuts? Walter Reed is a government funded and government run hospital!!! Hahahahaha! What an idiot.

-S

That was my question back in March.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...ht=Walter+Reed

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Another thought, how can this weirdo criticse the Walter Reed medical center for example, and then ask for government run health care in the same movie??? Is he nuts? Walter Reed is a government funded and government run hospital!!! Hahahahaha! What an idiot.

-S

Well the logic behind that isn't as stupid as you make it seem. Like the article you posted above you make the either/or statement.

As a proud socialist, the director appears to feel that there are few problems in life that can't be solved by government regulation (that would be the same government that's already given us the U.S. Postal Service and the Department of Motor Vehicles).

Italics added.

Government run programs aren't evil because they're often poorly run. They're bad because they're... poorly run. The difference however is that private programs that don't work for the average American in health care are actually being run brilliantly... they're only running on a different model than actual benefit to the patient.

And of course theres also the question of the ailing Canadian Health Care system. Well its true that we have problems up here with our system. However these are problems created by poor management of the changing health and age demographic of our population and of course because funding is often not sufficient. The solution that many people are suggesting is a two tiered public/private system where those with the means can skip the line to get better treatment. The problem with this is that private clinics are hiring the same doctors that work in public run hospitals and since private clinics can pay the doctors better the public hospitals suffer. In addition to that theres been plenty of research done to show that privatizing the health care system would only make it less efficient and actually bloat the buraucracy.

So the legitimate questions about the Canadian system don't immediately make the concept of universal health care absurdly flawed.

I think, although I haven't seen the movie, that Mr. Moore's discussion revolves around the US system, not Canada.

[Enigma]

i get such a kick out of the right when it comes to Moore.

i mean, really. who has a problem with a guy who says "our healthcare sucks and we deserve better" or "i really would like to understand and prevent our children from killing each other with handguns".

He's evil!

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by waste gate

I think, although I haven't seen the movie, that Mr. Moore's discussion revolves around the US system, not Canada.

Yes and the article posted by Subman makes a number of references to the state of the Canadian system in reply to Moore's own references to Canada's system.

[fatty]

Originally Posted by Enigma

i get such a kick out of the right when it comes to Moore.

i mean, really. who has a problem with a guy who says "our healthcare sucks and we deserve better" or "i really would like to understand and prevent our children from killing each other with handguns".

He's evil!

I must say we (Moore and I) sometimes disagree, but I concede that he's very good at what he does.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

Yes and the article posted by Subman makes a number of references to the state of the Canadian system in reply to Moore's own references to Canada's system.

Don't question me on the Canadian health system as compared to the American health system. I'm tied between the two (my in-laws are Canadian - and I have an uncle that would tell you a thin or two that needs hip replacement - basically, he is going to have to pay for it out of pocket!). My wife as well as my sister in law had the exact same procedure, and I can tell you that it is night and day between the treatment of the two. I am actually ticked at the Canadian health care system, their paint peeling off the walls, and I can tell you that even though their people are great, they are severly under-funded! My mother-in-law recently died (about a month now) of cancer, and I absolutely love the nurses, and at least one of her non-French doctors. But they do not have even a fraction of the capability that they have over here, or the hand and foot treatment my wife recently got! Her sister got none of this treatment - no funding. Period.

The Canadian system is a joke compared to the US. Do not even get me started.

-S

Originally Posted by Enigma

i get such a kick out of the right when it comes to Moore.

i mean, really. who has a problem with a guy who says "our healthcare sucks and we deserve better" or "i really would like to understand and prevent our children from killing each other with handguns".

He's evil!

I don't have too much of a problem with Mike. His 'documentaries' take a little of this and a little of that, run it through the edit machine and call it truth. I think his efforts open a discussion and that is good, regardless the subterfuge used.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Enigma

i get such a kick out of the right when it comes to Moore.

i mean, really. who has a problem with a guy who says "our healthcare sucks and we deserve better" or "i really would like to understand and prevent our children from killing each other with handguns".

He's evil!

Look at the left when you say that. Our healthcare happens to be the best in the world. Best funded, best techologicaly capable, and purely, the best possible lease on life you have a hope for bar none. So what is the problem exactly?

This is coming from someone who has experience on the other side of the coin. Health care in any other country doesn't compare. It is night and day. Yes, it costs money, but you get treatment and care like no other country on this very planet.

And what of these children exactly? Maybe you can explain to me what the problem is exactly. I am more than willing to get into this conversation, trust me. We do have a problem in the west with messed up children, and maybe it is time to bring out the light.

Oh wise one - please do guide us stupid Ameicans!

-S

This belongs on many of the firearms threads, but..........

Every firearms accident involving a “child” will be reported nationwide, yet the National Safety Council reports that far fewer children are killed or injured in firearms accidents each year than drown in 5-gallon buckets.

Might I suggest this thread.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=109983&highlight=firearms

[fatty]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Look at the left when you say that. Our healthcare happens to be the best in the world. Best funded, best techologicaly capable, and purely, the best possible lease on life you have a hope for bar none. So what is the problem exactly?

This is coming from someone who has experience on the other side of the coin. Health care in any other country doesn't compare. It is night and day. Yes, it costs money, but you get treatment and care like no other country on this very planet.

That's self-evident, like saying you can drive a really nice car - if you've got the cash! "You get what you pay for" best applies here. Pay nothing like we do and get mediocre care. Pay through the ass like many of you do and get pretty good care. Pay the combined salary of everyone posting in this thread and you can have your very own live-in doctor! Yahoo!

Originally Posted by fatty

That's self-evident, like saying you can drive a really nice car - if you've got the cash! "You get what you pay for" best applies here. Pay nothing like we do and get mediocre care. Pay through the ass like many of you do and get pretty good care. Pay the combined salary of everyone posting in this thread and you can have your very own live-in doctor! Yahoo!

Sounds like you dislike your health care system. That is not the fault of the US system. Perhaps Canadians need to look at themselves before engaging in a race to the bottom of health care.

[Onkel Neal]

I feel there are changes that need to be made to the US system, definitely. People can opt out of paying for insurance and they are still given medical attention--they just have to show up at ER. Which is why ERs are clogged with people who have no intention of paying. If it was up to me, there would be an extended Medicare system to cover uninsured. And additional medicare withholding from wages, but if you have insurance, you are exempt from the Medicare tax. That way the "poor" can be given the opportunity to pay for their health care.