Here Today... Gone To Hell!

(http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/1361/moorehw7.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)


Filmmaker Michael Moore's brilliant and uplifting new documentary, "Sicko," deals with the failings of the U.S. healthcare system, both real and perceived. But this time around, the controversial documentarian seems to be letting the subject matter do the talking, and in the process shows a new maturity.

Unlike many of his previous films ("Roger and Me," "Bowling for Columbine," "Fahrenheit 9-11"), "Sicko" works because in this one there are no confrontations. Moore smartly lets very articulate average Americans tell their personal horror stories at the hands of insurance companies. The film never talks down or baits the audience.

"This film is a call to action," Moore said at a press conference on Saturday. "It's also not a partisan film."

Indeed, in "Sicko," Moore criticizes both Democrats and Republicans for their inaction and in some cases their willingness to be bribed by pharmaceutical companies and insurance carriers.

In a key moment in the film, Moore takes a group of patients by boat to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba because of its outstanding medical care. When they can't get into the U.S. naval base, Moore proceeds onto Havana where the patients are treated well and cheaply.

This has caused a great deal of controversy, with the federal government launching an investigation into the trip, which officials say was in violation of the trade and commerce embargo against the Communist country.

"This administration flaunts the law, flaunts the constitution," Moore said at the press conference, explaining the flap over the trip to Cuba.

Moore now claims the U.S. government says his Cuban footage may be illegal, and Moore said he made a second master copy of "Sicko" and had it shipped it to France immediately just in case of potential government issues.


SiCKO Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BJyyyRYbSk&mode=related&search=)

Mike Moore was denied a visa by the US government to travel to Cuba because his reasons for being there were not considered to be 'humanitarian' enough!!

Pretty cheeky of him though, the trip to Guantameno Bay! I wonder what David Hicks would have to say about the 'outstanding medical care' there.....Good one Mike!

This could actually be good.

i hope this movie is honest.

if not, it will only serve to muddle the discussion and could hinder efforts to improve our system.

As far as this not being old Moore in action I don't know, I saw a trailer for this last night during Conan and Michael Moore is on a boat with a microphone screaming at MP's at Quantanamo Bay about, hey can we get the same heath care as those terrorists.  As much as I really agree with him on this whole health care thing, there's really no way he can prevent himself from being a douchebag in the process. 

I think Michael  Moore  is a great film maker!

Yea, maybe your side could teach us about "honesty".

As far as his film career goes....yeah Canadian Bacon was pretty damn good.  RIP John Candy!

good stuff....i cant wait for this movie to come out....something i actually agree with michael moore on...

my side?

sad you view things that way. you've fallen victim to the political machine. you should try to think for yourself, and try looking at things from outside the box.   

if you think EITHER side is honest you are pretty naive....

You're one to talk.

I've always thought for myself, did my homework and always stuck to my guns. You followed your leader off a cliff and don't have the balls to man up and admit you were chumped out. You leader is a liar who murders people, that is who you support.


 

Sandman is a liar, just like the group of thugs, traitors and goons he supported throughout this war. A person such as himself demanding honesty is like Tom Delay demanding ethics reform in Washington. Don't like me calling it out? Too bad.

exactly.

but some people have been duped into thinking "their side" is honest and genuine while most on the opposite side are evil liars. kinda sad people lose perspective like that.

Assume all you'd like, but I don't want to hear a lecture about "honesty" coming from the group of stooges who brought us the Iraqi fiasco.

I have difficulty separating my dislike of Michael Moore with my desire to assess the merits of his arguments.  I'm sure I'll see this, but I hope that hearing from Moore about problems in our health care system doesn't hurt the argument for myself or (much more importantly) others.  Moore can claim this isn't a partisan piece all he wants, but people won't believe it and, summarily, those who dislike him may become hostile toward the issue.  That would be a shame.  Moore should realize that that best way to push these causes would be to pay for a narrator!

Well, keep in mind the first post in this thread I took from Fox news. To me, that says a lot about this film already.

Indeed it does.  As I said, I'm sure I'll see it.  However, so many documentaries that tend to have more liberal tendencies, whether they claim to be non-partisan or not, come off as too preachy.  In watching "Who Killed the Electric Car?" my wife and I both found the film to be so over the top that it really hurt our abilities to approve of the valuable message.  And Moore has this tendency as well.  That, and I really don't think his films are all too good.  Bowling for Columbine didn't seem to have any true clarity as to its central thesis.  Was it about guns, or violence, or the media, or fear?  I don't know.  It was just a steaming pile of dung that left me with the vague impression that I should visit Canada.

Moore is aware of this and in this film (if I remember him correctly) allows the people to the talking. `

Watch Canadian Bacon and Moore will have you wanting to take over Canada!!

We'll have to liberate them eventually, they have oil in their dirt!

which of the "group of stooges who brought us the iraqi fiasco" was giving a lecture on honesty?

your posts don't make any sense. you constantly try to label people and build up fake arguments so you can then unleash your anger towards them in a post.

it's hilarious actually. i don't know if you actually believe this shit, or if you're just joking. but thanks either way. 

And getting back to the point, yes Michael Moore is a good filmaker. Can you think of any other writer/director who uses the Mike Moore formula for 'telling a story'? cos don't forget that is what a film does -  tells a story.

One of the themes running through 'Bowling for Columbine' was the current climate of fear in the USA. He cleverly presented information - eg: the killer bee invasion - very much in the style of a 1950s 'Duck and Cover' propoganda ad. A very clever idea.

He makes films - he uses artistic licence - to present current issues in a highly entertaing way and thought provoking way.

Would you wanna' admit you bought what Bush was selling? :hihi:

I doubt Sandman wants to acknowledge he was lied to, let alone voted for a liar.

(probably twice.. :hihi:)

Much like rape, being lied to by politicians is a grossly underreported crime, among party loyalists. 

If you must ask....


Actually I am surprised by the amount of people who have stepped up to the plate and admit they have been duped. Some here, some in real life-very surprised. But yea, the ego blast to some of these guys is simply too much. I saw it in their posts years back when they'd ignore all the evidence that shot down their claims of WMD, and it just got worse from there.

all politicains are liars. i vote. so yes, i have voted for liars.

i wanted to invade iraq when clinton was in office, as did many others. i give him credit for using some force against them, but thought more needed to be done. bush took care of that.

if there was proof that bush lied to allow the U.S. to invade a country, i would hope that the democratic led congress would make that clear, and act upon it.

I think thats definately open to interpretation.

What he initiated in Iraq has developed into essentially, a Civil War.

In terms of success, Bush was not successful, hasn't been successful, and wont be successful.

In terms of the real goals he certainly has. More conflict.

It's time to realize that our 'great' leaders with all this intelligence in their back don't fuck up. If something goes 'wrong' it was meant to do so.

I don't think it plays as a partisan movie at all, although there's a hilarious Hilary Clinton photo montage which is bound to inspire some jeering from any Republicans in attendance.

Moore is a little more subtle in his manipulation of the story this time and largely lets the testimonies of his participants speak for themselves. I particularly enjoy the segment in France where American ex-pats talk about the healthcare system and other social services they enjoy the benefits of  - clearly designed to elicit a little envy over here (as well it should).

It's still clearly a Michael Moore movie but displaying a surprisingly light touch in place of the usual ham-fisted sledgehammer tactics he usually prefers. I do enjoy all of his work so far but I found this one to be a Michael Moore movie I could enjoy without having to forgive a multitude of flaws.   

Filmmaker Michael Moore insists he doesn't care his new documentary 'Sicko' has been leaked online - he's just glad people get to watch his movie.

Video-sharing website YouTube.com was forced to pull links to pirated versions of the US healthcare expose last weekend after learning as many as 600 people had seen the film illegally online.

A 124-minute version of Sicko, which is released across America on 29 June, was posted on YouTube by two users on Friday.

Distributor Weinstein Co alerted YouTube bosses after they learned of the leak, and the links to the footage were immediately removed.

But Moore thinks the leak may even help Sicko at the box-office.

He tells MTV: "I'm just happy that people get to see my movies. I'm not a big supporter of the copyright laws in this country. I thought Napster was a good idea.

"I don't understand bands or filmmakers or whatever who oppose sharing, having their work be shared with people, because I think it only increases your fanbase.

"You know, when I was a kid... I remember someone giving me a cassette tape of an album called London Calling by a group called The Clash. Suddenly I became a Clash fan. From that point on, I bought their albums and I went to their concerts. And they ended up making money off me - because somebody gave me a free tape of their music."

You already get most of our oil. Canada is the largest exporter of oil to the US in the world.

"I make movies in the hopes that people will go see them on a 40-foot screen. So, I hope that's what happens," Moore stated.

The Weinstein Co., which is marketing Sicko, has been doing everything it can to make sure people do show up. After a master copy of the film made its way to the Internet last weekend, triggering a torrent of free downloads, the Weinsteins moved the release of Sicko up in New York. And a wave of "sneak previews" took place across the country last night.

Moore, who doesn't support U.S. copyright laws, nonetheless wasn't thrilled when his movie made its way to the Web. He suggests that powers-that-be - he's not saying what kind of powers, or where they might be - were behind the Sicko piracy.

"I guess if I were a cop, I would ask the question, who has a motive to try and destroy the opening weekend of this movie? Because, remember, this is not some kid going to the theater with a video camera. That's not what's out on the Internet. This is a master [copy]. So, clearly it was an inside job.

"So who had the resources to do that? Who had an interest in doing that? These are just the questions I would ask. Who would stand to gain from it? And then I would go from there."

Conspiracy theories, anyone?

I think those questions are legit.

It should be bitter sweet for Moore though.  Hes got millions already - i'm sure the money is important to him (as it should be, he did take the time to make the movie) but in the long run people seeing this movie and being inspired to do something about the healthcare problem in this country is what should matter.  whether they see it on the big screen or on their computers shouldn't matter...so long as they are seeing it.

i'd be pissed if i were him though.

truly amazing how CD hasn't leaked yet.

I'm pretty sure on David Letterman he said he did not care, if I remember correctly.



I was kidding.....



You should know all about conspiracy theories, since you pushed Iraq/WMD so hard back when it all started.

If anybody asks a question you throw out "conspiracy theory" as soon as you get the chance. Of course, nobody has ever smeared anybody, or undermined another before, it must be some sort of "conspiracy."  :hihi: :hihi: ::)

I kind of hope that Moore reaked it himserf.  That'd be a pretty barrsy decision.

I don't like Micheal Moore but I can get behind this film cause Healthcare in this country is ridiculous.

That ease quite zee-accent-you-have.

Oh, Herro!   :rofl:  I'm not sure how much ronger I can keep it up...some non-Engrish (as first ranguage) speakers will be getting confused pretty soon.

You should make your avatar Inspector Crouseau (Serrers version, of course) and change your typing accent, too!

holy shit that is funny.  please keep it up for as long as possible. 

You had me at "herro". hahahha  :rofl:

Bereve me when I say I'm raughing a rot, whire doing it!  rolr! 

I'm a ritter worried that someone wirr think I'm stupid, but if they do, I're just say "Quit busting my barrs!  Don't you know how fucking busy I am?  I'm pranning the attack!"

ROTFLMFAO  your post have been the brightest part of my day . Keep it up

^ yeh, you'd be hungover today!

that quote was not mine. it was all from an article i posted.

moore is upset this move leaked. i think that is obvious. he's begging his fans (guilting them really) to see it in the theaters. not that there's anything wrong with that, it is a business.

Hopefully his film will make it to theatres!

honestly, i doubt this will have a huge impact.  most people downloading movies from the net are young and probably wouldn't have gong to see this movie anyways.  what young person cares about the health care in this country?  this is going to appeal to movie goers in their late 20s (maybe) and up.

i doubt it'll really affect him that much.

either way it sucks for him - god damn pirates!  :hihi:

Yea, but you still used it.

Moore said himself he is not upset on Letterman, but don't let facts get in the way or anything.

cause if michael moore says it, it must be fact.  :rofl:

How stupid are you?

You are saying he is "upset" while Moore said he was not on TV last week. I think the man is the best source on how he actually feels about something.

i think he's talking out of both sides of his ass.

similar to the "anonymous" $12K check he sent.....which he then mentions in the movie.  :hihi:

(didn't realize i had to spell that one out for you. sorry to see you're in a bad mood today. again. cheer up, big guy.)

I think you are putting words in his mouth and attacking that-typical loony banter.

Moore is known for taking one side of an argument and exaggerating it to ridiculous proportions through highly selective editing.

Having said that ... the health system in America is truly attrocious from what I understand.

The censors may still find a way to ban this film before it reaches the cinema - so in this context and at this stage the leaks make for an interesting turn of events.......

you're first statement is correct. which is why in the end, moore's docs make him a ton of money, but have virtually no effect on the issue at hand (F-911 for example).

you're second statement is a bit drastic IMO, but "attrocious" is a relative term.  the U.S. healthcare system needs improvement. but so does every other healthcare system in the world. there are many positive aspects of the system in america. and i believe this system is fixable, without a major makeover to mirror the systems in France or Canada (or Cuba  ::)).   

don't worry about France, we're getting to where you are now  ....

Take the profit out.

Problem solved.

Canada's health care system puts ours to shame.

agreed - it might be all semantics, but 40 million Americans without health care is pretty "atrocious" to me.   :(

what do you mean when you say "take the profit out?" canada's system is basically a hybrid - it's not funded 100% by their taxes (which are significantly higher than the U.S.).

i'm not that familiar with their system though. in fact, there's plenty i have to learn about our system. so i'm not gonna make any judgements.

i'm aware of some positives, and plenty of negative aspects in the canadian system, including ridiculously long wait times for medical care, and i believe some families cannot even find a family doctor to take care of their babies.

LB - maybe you can explain the "take the profits out" comment.

also, where did you get the 40 million number? i've heard people say 45 million. BUT, i've also heard that that number is grossly overstated and misleading due to the way the categorize the uninsured.

not to mention many people with access and the ability to pay for insurance, choose not to.

I'd like to see that stat, where did you get that from?

Most Canadians I talk to are pretty happy with their health care system. The "long wait" shtick I hear often from those against socialized medicine, but rarely from those who participate. (I guess you haven't been to an ER any time in the last 10 years either...there are guys in there with musket wounds waiting to be seen.)

unfortunately, i've been to the ER a few times in recent years. always overcrowded, but they do an ok job of prioritizing, and everyone gets brought in within a few hours. in canada, they wait for MONTHS for routine surgery.

i was uninsured for 2 years during my final college years. my cousin works for boeing as a contractor. he makes $55/hour and doesn't purchase health insurance. but he just went in and paid $1,000 for a full body MRI.

one of my best friends is an ER nurse at johns hopkins. traveling nurse gets paid hourly with no benefits - he doesn't purchase health insurance either.

here's an old article. if i find something more recent i'll post....

The Census Bureau recently reported that the number of Americans without health insurance rose in 2002 to around 43.6 million, up from 38.7 million in 2000 but below the record 44.3 million who were uninsured in 1998. With health care costs increasing, many public health advocates are worried that this number might rise further. Why do more than 43 million Americans lack health insurance? Who are they?

A common assumption is that most uninsured Americans simply cannot afford the cost of coverage. However, the evidence points to other factors in many cases. For example, during the last decade, the ranks of the uninsured have increased among affluent households and decreased among low-income households.

- From 1993 to 2002 the number of uninsured people in households with annual incomes above $75,000 increased by 114 percent.
- The number of uninsured in households with annual incomes from $50,000 to $75,000 increased by 57 percent.
- By contrast, the number of uninsured people in households with incomes under $25,000 fell by 17 percent.
- About three-quarters of the rise in the number of uninsured over the past four years has been among households earning more than $50,000 per year, and almost half of that has occurred among households earning more than $75,000 per year. In fact, almost one-third of the uninsured now live in households with annual incomes above $50,000 and one in five live in households earning more than $75,000 annually.
 
Another common assumption is that most uninsured Americans simply have no access to affordable coverage. Yet according to research by the public policy arm of Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, approximately 14 million uninsured adults and children are currently eligible for government coverage, such as Medicaid or the State Children?s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), but have not bothered to enroll. Consider this: Virtually all children from low-income families are eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP. Yet the parents of more than five million eligible children have failed to enroll them. In addition, close to nine million nonelderly adults qualify for Medicaid but are not enrolled.
 
Young adults (18-24) are less likely than other age groups to have health insurance, averaging 70.4 percent in 2002, compared with 82.0 percent of those 25 to 64 and 99.2 percent of those aged 65 and above. Indeed, according to the Census Bureau, 41 percent of the uninsured (17.9 million) are between the ages of 18 and 34. Good health is common in younger people, which may help explain why so many of them don?t obtain health insurance. They consider other uses of their money more valuable.

For example, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics 2001 Consumer Expenditure Survey, households headed by young people between ages 25 and 34 spend more than three times as much of their income on entertainment and dining out as on out-of-pocket health care expenses. For even younger heads of household (18-to-24-year-olds), the annual expenditure on entertainment and dining out is almost five times more than out-of-pocket spending on health care. By contrast, households headed by individuals ages 65 to 74 spend almost 50 percent more on out-of-pocket health care than on entertainment and food away from home. If the young uninsured had unmet health needs, they likely would shift some of this discretionary spending into health care.

Many people assume those without insurance are not covered for years. However, when measured on a monthly basis, spells without health insurance tend to be of short duration. Census Bureau data show that about three-quarters (74.7 percent) of these spells are over within one year, while only 2.5 percent last more than three years. The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association found that of those uninsured households with incomes below $50,000 who didn?t quality for public coverage, nearly half (5.7 million) were uninsured six month or less.


 

i've read 40mm or something similar to that lately.  don't remember the exact source.

You would think the country that is touted as the most powerful economic engine in the history of the world would be able to provide a few guarantees for those who made it so.

I don't think anyone would suggest doing everything we can to copy a system, problems and all.  If anything, because there are other models to look at, we can better gauge any American medical system that is developed. 


CT scans are much more expensive, unfortunately.  And, of course, surgery costs are off the charts.  I think most people could pay a $1000 medical bill, given a couple of months.  It's the other things, such as chronic illnesses and sudden, necessary surgeries that really kill people (economically, that is).


I pretty much agree with that.  I've personally never had any problem with my insurance...but the idea that the company responsible for paying my medical bills can also help their bottom line by refusing to pay and forcing me to take a legal action that would, conceivably, cost more than the medical bills...well, it's a scary prospect, and there's little doubt that insurance companies do this on a daily basis. 

Of course, another implication of my above statement is that money also needs to be taken out of the legal system...completely!  It's hardly justice if some can afford a better quality of justice than others. 

By the way, I've seen a lot of "love it or leave it" rhetoric in other threads, and I want to make it clear that there are more than those who do or do not love America.  Some may love it as it is, and that's fine.  Others love it enough to want to do what they can to try to fix what they see as its flaws.  Desire for change isn't equivalent with a dislike or hatred of America, and I hope this thread doesn't turn into such a shouting match.

i still don't know what anyone means by "take the profits out." whether its the government using tax dollars to pay, or individuals paying, there's still profits being made. do you guys mean take the "INSURERS" out?

CT scans are not necessarily more expensive. that is actually what my cousin had done. he paid about $1,100, and it was only that high because he had it read by an actual neurologist to analyze the brain portion. 

I think (and I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth) that we all mean that insurance should be a not-for-profit business, because there's an inherent conflict of interest between a patient's monetary needs and the company's bottom line. 

I have CT scans every year...and NOT a full body scan.  I pay about $1000.  That's after insurance talks the price down to $5000 and pays 80%.  Perhaps it's a different procedure (from mine) that your cousin had...or perhaps he had it done in Guadalajara?  But if someone didn't have insurance, they'd be looking at a bill well in excess of $5000.

A head CT in Australia costs about $400. I only had to pay $20 and the insurance company covered the rest!

Lucky you!  Of course, Sandman's talking about a full body scan.  I've only had three smaller scans (done at the same time), but they're costly.

On another note, I...um..."came across" a copy of Sicko on my local internets (it's a series of tubes!) and will be viewing it soon.

Australia does have a very good health system compared to elsewhere in the world.

I think a big problem is the abuse of insurance in this country.


If u don't have insurance Doctors will treat u and that is that.

If u have insurance or a medical card they wi ll run every single kind of test they can think of whether u need it or not just to milk the insurance or medical card and that is why premiums are so high as well in my opinion.



When I was a kid my mom had medical and dental on us.  I went to the dentist and they found 4 Cavities.

I never got them filled.

I went back a year later without dental insurance and I somehow had 1 cavity......................

Go figure right?

By Tom Charity
Special to CNN

(CNN) -- America's most inspired polemicist -- and most polarizing filmmaker -- Michael Moore returns to the fray with his first movie since "Fahrenheit 9/11" broke box-office records and challenged George W. Bush's White House.

With "Sicko," this time Moore has set his sights on a more amorphous, and possibly an even more powerful target: HMOs and the American health care industry.

A little over a year ago, Moore invited citizens to send in their health-care horror stories. Within the week his Web site was inundated with 25,000 emails. If this is anecdotal evidence, it's on a scale worth talking about.

"Sicko" begins with three cases illustrating the plight of the 46 million Americans without health insurance, but quickly moves on to address wider concerns about the kind of care reserved for the lucky 250 million who do have coverage.

In a nutshell, Moore's argument comes down to this: the insurance companies are making a killing at their customers' expense. And in this industry, that term is all too literal.

Moore adopts a low profile in the film's relatively somber first half, softening his familiar snarky stridency for a hushed sincerity more appropriate to the hospital waiting room. Many of the people here are in desperately dire straits: sick, bereaved, or just plain broke. Other interviewees are whistle-blowers, guilty and angry about their roles in the Machine.

As well they might be. As countless stories have documented, Americans face countless problems with their health care. They may be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions -- or retrospectively denied coverage for pre-existing conditions they never knew about.

HMOs employ teams of investigators to disallow claimants on technical grounds and some offer medical directors financial incentives to deny drugs and treatments that -- by definition -- cut into corporate profits. (This style is a legacy of the Nixon administration, according to a striking scene from "Sicko" that plays a snippet from the White House tapes.)

When Moore does eventually slouch on screen, it's to play the innocent abroad, a wide-eyed chump bowled over by the wonders of socialized medicine as it's practiced in Canada, the UK and France. This will be an eye-opener for many -- including the Canadians, the Brits and the French, probably.

Having "enjoyed" first-hand experience of two of these three health systems -- the British and the Canadian -- I can attest that they're not quite as idyllic as Mr. Moore paints them. Except in comparison with the U.S. system, of course, and that's the point. Moore is a master of overstatement, but his comic shtick hits the target more often than not. It only hurts when we laugh.

If Moore missteps, it's in the one sequence he and the Weinstein Company have made sure everyone has already heard about (with a little help from the U.S. government): the boat lift to Cuba for three ailing 9/11 heroes. It's Stunt Man Mike at his crudest, and not as effective as he intended.

To be sure, it's bitterly ironic that Guantanamo detainees have access to better medical care than the soldiers who guard them, but Moore is easily diverted into a silly commercial for Cuban socialist medicine that plays exactly like the kind of Soviet propaganda films he sends up earlier in the movie.

It's tough to see firefighters who have been let down by their own country receiving proper care in Havana, but what makes it harder is the suspicion that Michael Moore is treating them like hostages in his own propaganda war. You have to wonder how this squares with the results of the World Health Organization report cited in "Sicko," which placed the U.S. at No. 37, one spot above Slovenia -- and, if you look fast enough, two places above Cuba.

But all is fair in love and Moore, and the system is sick, no question. With four times as many health lobbyists as there are congressmen, and with multimillion-dollar campaign donations at stake, the prospect of universal care seems a distant hope. (In that regard, the brief sequence implying that Hilary Clinton has been bought off may be the most significant.)

It's not impossible that this bitterly funny, bitterly sad call to alms could move reform back up the political agenda. For that reason alone, you owe it to yourself to see this movie.

"Sicko" is rated PG-13 and runs 113 minutes.

One thing right up Moore's alley, but which I haven't heard about being in this movie, are television advertisements for prescription medications.  I don't remember being so inundated with them, say, ten years ago, as we are now.  And it's all about fear and appealing to everyone's desire to control their own lives, as if a doctor isn't a much better judge of whether or not your need a medication. 

But I get bombarded, day and night, with ads telling me I may be sick because I farted, and that's a symptom of a very serious medical condition, and I NEED PILLS!  Of course, I'm not talking about the various "male" medications, as I'm guessing that those issues are fairly easy to diagnose.

Lucky you indeed. I put off a $1000 proceedure because I didn't have it(or insurance); It cost me $30,000.

My brother realized this a year or so back during a holiday get together. He had not owned a tv for about 8 years, and was back at our parents on vacation. He could not get over the drug ads, thought it was the weirdest thing he'd seen for sometime.

i agree. except your point about doctor's. i don't trust them - they are in on it as well. the drug companies pay off the doctors (in a variety of ways) to prescribe their drugs.

once the doctors are in their back pocket, all the drug companies have to do next is get the public to go to the doctor's office. and most people trust their doctors, so it's a done deal.

people have mentioned the conflict of interest on behalf of insurance companies, but the conflict here is even more dangerous. the drug companies need us to be sick. prevention and cures put them out of business. and they have alot of power and influence in washington and around the globe.

Not all doctors are in on the scam . I have a family friend that has contemplated retiring early because he despises the direction the medical field has turned. My Mom's doctor rarely allows pharm reps into his office-hates em. Some, not all doctors.

NYTimes review.

It has become a journalistic clich? 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-na?vet?) 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.

I think I did my dissertation in collaboration with him.

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1563758/story.jhtml

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 an answer. 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."

I saw MTV, and I did not even read it. Kind of like the same thing with Yahoo.

Maybe if I get bored with 'Ossey and Harriett' I'll give it a go.

RE: Dead Meat

I haven't seen this film...Hell, I haven't even heard of it.  But I don't think that the idea is to replicate, problems and all, the system of other countries.  Maybe that's Moore's idea (again, haven't yet seen it)...but it certainly isn't mine!  Every system will have problems.  I'm sure the 40+ million uninsured wouldn't mind being on a waiting list, though. 

Also, if I recall (and this IS based on recollection, so someone can please correct me if I'm incorrect) Britain allows for every procedure under its system...including unnecessary cosmetic procedures.  If this is the case, I think it's a problem that could cause some of the logjam, and shouldn't be included in any national health service.

I DO agree that completely free healthcare is going to create a problem of people wanting to get every little thing checked out...thus creating another logjam. 

But it's far too easy to say something isn't perfect, and to ignore that that imperfect system may still be an improvement. 

Sounds to me like there are just too few doctors in some places.         

this movie is getting a ton of press tonight.  can't wait to see it.  i love the nay sayers who are trying to pan this movie.  their reasons (most of them at least) are totally assinine.

one paper accused him of cashing in.  um, yeah, hes allowed to make money from his movies, he is a film maker.  :hihi:

i saw it (online ... aint coming until sept here in France)

it's good.
a little be "too" emotional
Moore often wipes out the "bad side" of our great French system (10 billions hole in social security budget ... but hey, every country has debts ..)

but after all it's a good movie
shocking if you have no clue how the us works ...


when i was living in the states, i broke my nose palying racketballn (hit by a racket when running up front)
i came to the emergency room, bleeding, in pain ... first thing they asked : my credit card

i payed like 3000 dollars for verything ....

my French student exchange program payed for it
then my french gvernment insurance payed for it again

in then end i gained 3000 dollars for broking my nose .... not proud of it ... but i am never sick, never go to doctors, never buy medecines, so i'm a good insuree on a long term :)


another thing, with ournew american president that we have here in france, things are slowly sliding towards what you guys have in your country, and that's sad ....


PEACE

As a Canadian, it bothers me about the misconception that people have concerning wait times. Every one of the past listed are very, very isolated. If you need surgery or treatment to save your life,then you get it, immediately. Typically the people who have had to wait or a story of someone who died while waiting are just that, stories. These are usually people who put off the appointments in the first place or do not seek treatment till it is already too late. If I were sick and needed to see a doctor, I can tell you in all honesty that it is a phone call away. All I would have to do is call my family doctor and whether they are busy or not, they would get me in immediately or the following day. We also have urgent Crae clinics for people with no family doctor and again, you are seen immediately with no cost to yourself..if all else fails we have Emergency departments at every hospital and although you may have to wait a couple of hours, you can stull see a doctor in that same day...if it is a serious condition, again, you will be seen immediately. What would have broken an American family, even one with insurance, my family has had free of charge. My mother underwent bypass surgery that lasted almost 8 hours,coincidently it turned out to be a quad bypass, 3 months in hospital prior to surgery...she had kidney failure last month and is currently back in hospital again...I broke my leg in Feb, had two surgeries and many many appointments with my family doctor and Orthopedic surgeon...everything I have listed is at NO COST. The only thing we have had to pay for in the past 3 years is a medical transfer from one hospital to the other because it was not ambulance service but an independant medical transfer company with trained professionals that OHIP does not pay for and that was 40$. Pretty good if you ask me. Any further assumptions or questions about our health care system will be gladly clarified by myself if asked.

Thanks for clearing that up Lisa. The other Canadians I know say pretty much the same thing.

I have noticed some Americans are strongly against socialized medicine, and must ask why? Why is the idea so bad?

people take advantage of the system, and become less and less reponsible. As i said, France has a 10 billion hole in the budget, and this "social security" has been and issue for years for all the politicians: ask people to think before getting medecine, do not check with 4 different doctors just because you knocked your feet on the table, use generic drugs ...

i dont know if Canada is clear of that issue ....

i guess american are just afraid of their governments, and they think it's better to be at the mercy of big corporation than of a "bureaucratic" organization (the governement). What they don"t understand, is that,  in the end, it's the same.
And of course, money is the game. You either start with a socialist system or you never get it. I dont see how the big companies will accept to let go all the juicy money now. and as long as they have this money, they can pay off politicians and lobbyist, therefore keep their system intact.

Wouldn't you be ...

why would anyone want to give the organization responsible for FEMA and the iraq war sole responsibility over health care?




 

that made no sense ...

First, HMO's dont seem to be looking for your personal happiness either.
Second, you have zero control over private companies - there are no elections every four years. And they are blatently out there to make money of your back - ok, politicians, at some level, are too ....

I'm just saying that when private corporation start to get big, very big, they act like the very same "evil communist governmental organizations" that freedom-lovers are afraid of.

take France, our social security is obviously looking after us. Proof ? It's losing money.
When HMO's will lose money you will know they take care of citizens.

Coming from one of their biggest defenders over the years, that is one peculiar statement. My buddy who loves Rush and supports Iraq says the exact same thing. You guys make no sense.

i've said numerous times i hate all politicians. i don't blindly support anyone. and i prefer smaller government.

it's not a contradictory statement anyway. i supported the invasion of iraq, but it's been executed poorly, and that should not have been the case.

another interesting comparison i heard recently was our postal system. the U.S. post office is arguably the best run government operation. yet when you need to mail something REALLY important and on-time, most choose Fed Ex. 

What does that even mean? Could the last few administrations have done any less governing? Clinton seemed to do more work on his last day in office than the previous eight years, while the Bushes spent their terms playing in the sand with their toys. God only knows how Reagan occupied his time.

Doesn't "smaller government" refer specifically to the Fed, wouldn't it leave more responsibility of the hands of the individual states? Is that really what neo-cons want? Because it seems like you'd be knee-deep in gay weddings and evolution anywhere north of the Mason-Dixon line.

Or is it more of a call to personal responsibility? Individual citizens left to live their lives as they see fit without being dictated to by archaic institutions, that sort of thing? What's the word for that? Oh yes, anarchy. Conservatives are anarchists now? 9/11 changed everything!

Yes, but you are forgetting that the private sector in this case is failing the American people, leaving them high and dry.

Do we out source our policemen and women to the private sector? How is that working for us right now?

Why do you want to throw in the towel on socialized medicine (health care for ALL AMERICANS) when our system is already morally, and ethically bankrupt?

Hmm...I usually just send it certified or something like that.  USPS is cheap, compared to the others, because it's illegal for them to make a profit. 

You can have both health-care systems
In Norway you get it for free...kinda. You pay for it via high taxes and probably the most expensive country in the world to live in :hihi:

That doesn't mean private clinics are out if buisness here, far from it :peace:

i'm not throwing the towel in on anything. i just need more details. how would it work? how much would it cost? would we be able to avoid the negative aspects plaguing other social systems? will there still be incentive for leading doctors and scientists to come to the U.S. to work? will there be incentive to maintain leading innovation? will services be rationed? who has final say when a "judgement call" regarding treatment is needed?

i can't give an opinion until i see something concrete.

everyone praises Canada's system, yet from what i understand, 30% of total health care dollars is spent on private health care. not to mention significantly higher taxes.
 
 

 ?

i also hate standing in line. and everytime i go to the post office, i have to stand in a long-ass line. hmmm...where else have i heard about problems with long wait times.  :hihi:

i have no statistics to back this up, just experience. but when i order tix for an event on e-bay that's three days away, i always pay extra for FedEx to guarantee they are there.

and as for the police comment everyone likes to quote moore on, i don't think that system is anything i'd brag about. many departments are under-paid, under-staffed, under-trained, filled with corruption, and many neighborhoods remain unsafe.

Hate to state the obvious, but you'd be amazed how much could be funded if the US had a military of reasonable size and a foreign policy that didn't include nation building. 

I was waiting to see if somebody else would say it....

i wouldn't be amazed at all. like you said, you're making an obvious statement.

but funding alone doesn't equal success. so my point is a valid one.

I agree that funding doesn't equal success, but it certainly helps.  Underpaid?  Need funding.  Understaffed?  Probably due to underfunding.  Undertrained?  Possibly helped by funding.  Corruption?  Well, if they're paid more, then corruption won't be as tempting.  There's big time corruption (think "The Departed") and small time corruption (pocketing a little of that drug money that should have gone to evidence).  I think funding will help with the small time corruption.

I also think that you're right, in that Americans do want a smaller government.  I do.  But I don't think that means we want no government.  Government gets it very, very wrong in a lot of cases.  They legislate about these ridiculous issues that the public isn't concerned with, but ignore the enormous issues, with which millions of Americans are struggling. 

I can appreciate an ideology of minimal government.  A lot of people don't want handholding, and certainly don't need it.  And I agree with that position on SOOO many issues.  As the 4th just passed, let's take fireworks, for example.  Talk about unnecessary legislation.  If you're too stupid to avoid blowing your middle finger off, thus prohibiting you from flipping the bird, demonstrating your machismo, and impressing women, eventually leading to your successful insemination of them...well, that's natural selection, to me!  But minimal government arguments against national healthcare, for example, strike me as weak.  It's like a soaking wet person complaining about walking in the rain.  I'd like to see government get rid of so much BS, and focus on the essentials: education, healthcare, infrastructure, a reasonable defense, etc.     

everyone wants a good healthcare system. i just don't see any evidence to support the idea that a government controlled system guarantees that, or is significantly better than what we have.

i think if a couple key improvements are made, our system would be one of the best in the world. and i believe those improvements are attainable. in fact, obama's plan hits them right on the head:

1. get everyone covered
2. reduce admin costs
3. focus more on preventative care

I'd like to believe that, if insurance companies reduced administrative costs, it would translate into cheaper insurance.  But I get this feeling that some of it wouldn't be diverted in that direction. 

moore on CNN

Michael Moore Rips Wolf Blitzer on CNN: "Why Don't You Tell the American People the Truth"

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/56446/

you see, the government is not your enemy. It is just an organization. Just like coca cola, ibm or Humana.

Your plan sounds great. but it fails at step 1 for private companies.
The organisation called "the government" can be forced to do step 1.
Private companies can't, and if you force them with laws, you just make them work for the governement.

Canada is not good enough example 'eh? Canadians posting in this thread saying they get to a doctor without a hassle is not good enough? The fact that they are not turned down for payment of service by greedy HMOs isn't strong enough evidence?

The fact that everybody gets health care, is reason enough to show that system is better than ours.



You are leaving out the biggest problem: THEY DON'T PAY.

HMOs do everything to make sure they won't pay all of your claims and make it as difficult as possible to speak to a person to discuss your "claim" when it's time to pony up the money. "Everybody covered" by a bunch of snakes only means more people covered by a bunch of snakes that do everything in their power not to pay.

HMOs, PPOs and their ilk need to be destroyed, broken up, they are not here to help us, they are here to screw us, and take our money.

those HMOs are regulated by the government. and our government can't even do that right.

and i disagree with your canada comments. NO!! a couple canadians posting in these threads is NOT enough. are you serious??? i could post plenty of NEGATIVE aspects of canada's (and other nation's) systems, such as certain medical treatments getting cancelled due to financial issues. 

and if i'm covered but can't get quality medical treatment on a timely basis, am i really covered?

canada's system was ranked 30th. not significantly better than the U.S. and many of considerations were misleading.

and let me add #4 to my list....ending baseless lawsuits from trial lawyers.

You get nessessesary treatment in time in my homeland, and you can use private sector which has short que's.

There was a study done on that last year (I believe by Tom Baker, A UConn professor) that showed that the impact of supposedly frivolous lawsuits is grossly exaggerated.  Apparently, the cost of all medical malpractice lawsuits (including legal fees, insurance costs, and payouts) is less than one-half of 1 percent of all health-care spending.

by private health care you must mean the frivilous plastic surgery industry? but even alot of that is paid for if you are referred by your doctor. I had breast reduction surgery done a few years ago because I told my doctor they were uncomfortable/back pain etc...it cost me nothing. I have to laugh everytime I see a comment referring to our health care system by someone who isn't Canadian. Although not perfect, you still know not of what you speak, it is easy to quote things you read but to know how it works, you have to LIVE here, you have to be a citizen of this fair country. As far as I am concerned, we are taxed accordingly and by our individual income. No one pays more for better care. Walk aa mile in the average Canadians' shoes before posting about our health care system. Myself, nor my family nor anyone I have ever come in contact with my entire life, has ever paid a cent for health care and have never been denied or had to wait for any kind of service. In fact, I booked an ultrasound today and she wanted me to come tomorrow but because of work commitments I couldn't do it, she asked what was good for me and told her next Wed would work great and my appointment is for 1pm on Wed as I specified. Small wait times occur with the demand of certain services and depending on the severity of the problem, you are booked accordingly.
If you haven't lived here and experienced how fucking good we actually have it then SHUT IT.
k, done ranting.

^You go girl.

Studies tend to indicate that overall dollars spent on healthcare would reduce if everyone was covered.

Great post!  I think it's so easy to look at something and to use its exceptions, rather than its norms, to criticize it.  That seems to me to be what so many want to do with socialized medicine, in general, or the Canadian system, specifically.  It's similarly easy to look at something and focus on the problems, ignoring the whole while that it is, in fact, better than what you have, even WITH its flaws.  Improvement is improvement.  And this is a case where US federalism can really pay off.  The government could take the tax money, distribute it to states on a per capita basis, and really let them handle their own healthcare systems.  While 50 different systems may seem chaotic, it is also a great way to see what works best, and to hammer out a lot of flaws before settling on a national system (or, more likely, before states see what works better and make their own changes). 

I'll take yours over mine.

The time to see a primary doctor under and HMO is usually a month or more, I have found this to be pretty common. I remember asking if I could get in to see my primary within two weeks on my last call, and I literally got laughter on the other end.

I remember my lovely HMO in Utah. They refused 90 percent of the claims that came across their desk. I had to call them, sit on hold, get transferred around, always have to start my story over again, and finally after 45 minutes on the phone I could get it resolved. The next time maybe it wouldn't be that easy, maybe it would not be so difficult, but you could be rest assured there would be a next time. My HMO in Florida prior to that one, did the exact same thing.

I also remember my insurance out west refused to pay my multiple surgeries after I was already approved. When I fought them and won, they went back through my file and found medical info they claimed I withheld from them (which was not true.) The end result? They retroactively canceled my insurance back to day one, meaning I never had it, the result was that I would now be responsible for every doctor visit/surgery I had had over the entire year. The found a way not to pay for those surgeries. No lawyer would take my case, because they said it was a loser. Didn't matter if I was right, the insurance had too much money. I was told that they'd make me bleed money until I gave up. Then I'd have thousands in lawyer bills and thousands in medical. Nobody would/could help me. I was also told by a lawyer who specialized in fighting HMOs that he had seen this done to parents where the child had a serious condition such as cancer.

In the end, thousands upon thousands of dollars poured in which I was now responsible to pay. For the final kick in the balls the insurance refused to refund me my year of premiums. Their claim was that they used that money to pay down my bills from the doctors. To make it worse, when the bills came back to me, they were higher, because I was now uninsured. I had to either pay, or be ruined as far as my credit score went. So I paid the money. This was a normal day of business to these people, they didn't give a shit about me. I could easily see why the number one cause of bankruptcy in this country is from medical bills. People pay their insurance, and then their insurance fucks them.

The other thing I noticed, which pissed me off was that the insurance was in cahoots with big pharma. I was given a prescription by my doctor in Utah at the time. The insurance company wrote me a letter that said "We will not pay for that medicine, but we do pay for this medicine." I took it to my doctor and he said "It's not even the same thing, it has nothing to do with what I'm treating you for." Obviously the insurance co wanted me to take the drug that they were getting kickbacks from, regardless if it actually treated what ailed me. Tell me that is not insanity? When making profit and kickbacks trump health care something is wrong.

Now back in Florida. I have another PPO and it's the same thing. Every time I go to the doctor I get another note from the insurance company saying they don't pay for such and such. There is always money being billed to me after the visit and after I pay my co-pay (and my monthly payment to my insurance.) The latest one that came in cracked me up. While I'm covered for eye care, they are claiming the simple eye test (where you read the letters on the wall) was not covered under my plan. So I should expect a bill for 70 dollars for this in the next month. They won't pay for that? Are they kidding? The point is not if they will or will not. The point is that they refuse payment, and then make you fight to get it paid. I could call them and they'd say "Oh that was our fault, we'll reverse the charges." But the point is, that I have to get on the phone, explain what happened, and get worked, all over again. I have yet to see an HMO that did not have this MO.

Everybody I know has stories like these, and I was thrilled when Moore did this film. If Fox news gave it a great review, then you know these stories ring a bell with everybody no matter what side of the aisle you are on.

I'm very glad I'm not with an HMO.  As a grad student, I'm on university student insurance (which is still not great, compared to the faculty insurance, which we SHOULD get since we teach half the fuckin' classes...), and since it's contracted out for a large group, rather than on a person by person basis, no one person is a high or low risk.  With 35,000 students, X number will break a leg, Y number will get pneumonia, Z will be in a car wreck.  So, I'm lucky in that respect, because I was under student insurance when I got cancer, just over three years ago.  They CAN'T drop me...thank God!  And my premium hasn't risen, because it's a set price for all members of the group.  Presumably, somewhere in that cold calculation, they counted on someone like me, and it's part of the cost, spread around to the entire group. 

I've had NO trouble with my insurance, doctors, or hospital.  None whatsoever. 

So, here's the problem.  I feel LUCKY!  I had cancer before the age of 30...yet I feel fuckin' lucky!  Why?  Because I DIDN'T get fucked over!  Because I beat the system, by a roll of the dice.  Now, granted, I've still had thousands of dollars in medical bills.  They pay 80, I pay 20.  But it's tens of thousands less than I would have paid, uninsured or with a company that dropped me (at worst) or raised my premiums (at best).  And it shouldn't feel that way.  My illness wasn't due to lifestyle or any choice I've made...it was just shitty luck.  And that kind of stuff happens to millions of people, who have a history of, say, heart disease...not because they're at McDonald's every day, but because it runs in the family.  It costs them thousands, destroys their chances of owning a home, sending their kids to college, and any number of other things.  And that's shitty.  Right now, greed is what America is about.  But I get the feeling that the tide is turning, for most people, away from a belief that you have complete control over your own existence to one where they realize that hard work is, sometimes, still not enough to get by, especially when you face a completely unexpected financial crisis.     

I don't know if I could agree with that. America is an easy country to distract. Show 'em something shiny, Paris Hilton, and the missing white girl du jour and the marching in the streets will end as quickly as it began.

Very easy to distract!  But I recall the revulsion with which the idea of socialized medicine was met under President Clinton.  These days there's some form of it as a campaign promise of every contender from one of the major parties.  We change slowly on these issues, but I do think the tide is shifting.  It might not come out of election 2008.  It may be 2016 or 2020...but I'd put money on SOMETHING within the foreseeable future.

?While the health care system in Canada covers basic services, including primary care physicians and hospitals, there are many services that are not covered. These include things like dental services, optometrists, and prescription medications.? http://www.canadian-healthcare.org/page4.html

"Public-sector spending on health care is expected to reach $104 billion this year (2006), while private-sector expenditures will reach an estimated $44 billion." (source: CIHI)


"The shortage of doctors and nurses in Canada: Some feel that Canada's health care system does not adequately compensate health care providers. This has led to a "brain drain" of Canadian doctors and nurses, which have left Canada to pursue careers in the United States. Attracting and keeping skilled medical workers is a priority if Canada is to be able to provide proper medical services."


the federal government in canada has established a $4.5 billion Wait Time Reduction Fund. i wonder why??? but at least there's been some improvements...

"Although provinces and territories report wait times in different ways, information shows median wait times for non-emergency care have clearly declined for some services. For example:

- In British Columbia, the wait time for cataract surgery has been reduced to 7.6 weeks from 9.9 weeks;
- In Ontario, the wait time for radiation for cancer care has been reduced to 4.4 weeks from 6.4 weeks;
- In Alberta, the wait time for hip replacement has been reduced to 12 weeks from 16 weeks and for knee replacement has dropped to 17 weeks from 22 weeks."


? ?

Wow this is absolutely horrible. People having to wait a little bit for free health care with no worry of financial ruin. Of course in America, waits for cataract, cancer, hip, and other various surgeries all happen the next day, there is no wait and the insurance always pays those claims.

I always thought Canadian meds were covered under their program (maybe somebody up north can confirm or deny this.) But even with insurance my meds are expensive. After my premiums I still pay 100 bucks a month for three simple meds. American meds are some of the most overpriced in the world, and I'm sure if the Canadians did have to pay out of pocket for theirs it would be cheaper than ours with insurance. How many Merikans crossing the border for their cheap prescription drug prices, hmmm?

I'd also like to see more direct links to those quotes so I can break them down more.

Pretty much every union here in Canada provides dental services...

Hell, if you stack cans down at Loblaws, you get your dental services covered right there, plus lots of other goodies :)

As far as prescriptions go, Canada has drug plans on both the federal, and provincial level.

Most of my Grandparents are on the "Trillium" plan, which Im fairly certain is federal.

That's what I thought.

So then what is this stuff Sandman is referencing?

Canada does have doctor shortages and wait time issues in certain areas, but no one said our system was flawless.

If I make an appointment to see the doctor at 1:30, I know I'll probably end up twiddling my thumbs in the waiting room for a solid 20 minutes...its just the way it goes :hihi:

I'm fairly certain that's not solely a Canadian problem.   :hihi:

please note....non emergency services=wait times....and they are giving a very big range there. Please also note that YOU DO NOT LIVE HERE, therefore, as I stated earlier, you don't know how it works and it is easy to post stats but I can assure you that they are very broad and quite incorrect.
Medications we do pay for but it is not alot of money and most people work somewhere that has a drug plan to have these meds covered. Those who do not or cannot afford them get them for free from the government if they are on social assistance or low/fixed income. Typically, who cannot afford 12-16$ for antibiotics? please,cost of prescritions is not an issue here, especially in Ontario. Seniors are assisted with cost or receive them free, same goes for students as well.
Again, Dental is usually  included in most jobs but again, if your job does not offer a dental plan and you cannot afford it, the government will pay for it all or you pay what you can afford and they will pay the rest. There is alot of shared care programs for people of low/fixed income.
What you are missing the point on is regular heath care, access to doctors etc is FREE for EVERYONE..meaning a young family with a couple kids doesn't have to go into debt to have theirs kids innoculated, or get treatment for an ear infection...and we are NOT LIMITED as to how many times we feel the need to seek medical attention. You can post all the shit you find, all the stats that YOU think are fact but you will never actually know.
As for the shortage of family doctors, it is a problem in some areas, but no one suffers because of it. WE have walk-in care centres, urgent care centre and always the hospital emergency room if need be to seek medical help...at a big fat zero dollars.
FREE BASIC HEALTH CARE is what is needed in the US...people who live in poverty, most times die in poverty because they can't afford to go to hospital or a doctor. WAKE THE FUCK UP AMERICA!

That was great stuff thank you!!!!!

Twenty minutes!!!???

I've waited well over an hour to see a doctor before even getting back into the exam room, where I continued to wait.

I'd say average wait here is 20 minutes no problem.



Yea, Moore at his finest. I like it when people get some fire under their ass and get down with the get down.

On his website he continues to set them straight:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/news/article.php?id=10017

By Andrea Hopkins Thu Jul 12, 5:06 PM ET

CINCINNATI (Reuters) - Fresh from the hospital and still hurting from a $757 prescription drug bill, moviegoer Ron Jackson emerged from a screening of Michael Moore's documentary on the U.S. health system feeling outraged and exuberant.

"It's a great movie," said Jackson, 63. "I have insurance, and I still paid over $700 for one prescription -- just 30 days' worth. They've let Wall Street control the whole thing, it's as plain as the nose on my face."

Weeks into the staggered release of Moore's "SiCKO" across the United States, moviegoing Americans have revived the debate over national health care -- a staple in most of the developed world, but long resisted in the United States.

Health-care reform is a hot topic in the 2008 presidential campaign, and a slew of candidates have promised changes to bring better care to both insured Americans and the nation's 45 million uninsured.

Atia Huff, 64, said she was heartened by the applause that broke out at the end of the movie but worried only those who already agreed with Moore's outlook would bother to attend.

"I think it's preaching to the choir," Huff said.

Moore won an Academy Award for 2002's anti-gun documentary "Bowling for Columbine." He made more enemies -- and drew the label "enemy of America" from the right -- with a critical look at President George W. Bush's war on terrorism in his 2004 documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11."

"SiCKO" tells the stories of Americans who say they were denied life-saving treatment by insurers. The film has received mixed reviews, with some criticizing it for a lack of substantive comparison of the U.S. health-care system with that of countries that offer universal health care.

'IT'LL NEVER BE FIXED'

"It should be compulsory viewing for everybody, but some people don't want to hear," said Huff, a retired interpreter. She said she's already seen the movie twice -- the first time with a school teacher who said she'd worked too hard for her health-care benefits to pay for those who hadn't.

"I'm very pessimistic it will ever change," Huff said.

Many Americans remain firmly opposed to universal care.

"We are not a socialist country .... If our system is so poor, how is it we have one of the highest standards of living in the world?" asked Cincinnati electrician and businessman Mike Cavanaugh, who offers health insurance to his workers.

"Anyone, and I mean almost anyone, who is willing to go to work 40 or 50 hours a week and pretty much just do the minimum can have a decent life here," he said. "Tell Michael Moore to find a new home if he cannot appreciate the blessings this great country has bestowed upon him."

But in downtown Washington, Tom and Sue Stevens left a "SiCKO" screening more convinced than ever that the United States should adopt universal health care.

"We are ready, but the politicians and the businessmen are not. The health-care industry certainly is going to oppose this for all they're worth," said Tom, a college professor.

Sue, a retired medical technician, said she'd seen hospital administrators fight to contain costs for needed care.

"Everything now is based on cost -- how much money they can save. And a lot of people that work in hospitals themselves can't afford the insurance that hospitals offer because their pay is so low," she said.

In New York City, 75-year-old Philip Peppis said he was ready to vote for change in November 2008.

"How did this country get so completely selfish?" he asked after leaving a "SiCKO" matinee. "It's really embarrassing, the way this country treats people."

But in Columbus, Ohio, small business owner Sherry Pymer said she had no intention of seeing the movie and would never support universal health care.

"I'd be very, very afraid of that. You hear the stories about how bad health care is in Canada," said Pymer, 55. "Michael Moore is nothing to me. He's just somebody looking to get a big rise out of somebody."

i could turn your statement around on you and say "you do not live here so you do not know how it is." but i won't because that would be simple-minded. throughout this thread i have admitted i am not sure what system would be better, and that i am not completely aware of all the issues of the U.S. system, not to mention foreign ones.

many in this thread have also been sharing information. your attitude is a small example of the major problem...no one talks about change. people get defensive and are more concerned with being "right" than actually effecting anything. if people better understand social systems and begin to feel confident that the pitfalls can be avoided, maybe more pressure will be put on washington.

and by the way, 5 weeks wait time for radiation for cancer is life threatening.

we could all post horror stories all day.

http://www.thestar.com/article/216280 - A year wait for skull surgery in Canada.

Corporate Amerika loves guys like Sandman.  :yes:

Perhaps the logic escapes me, but if the testimonials of board Canadians aren't evidence of a good system, then why are stories of poor care (which is tied to a specific problem in ONE province, by the way) evidence that it's a bad system?  I don't think anyone has argued that it's a perfect system.  I don't think anyone has argued that it should be replicated 100%, flaws and all.  We can learn a great deal from the problems others have had with national healthcare, and adjust any system we create accordingly. 

As long as there are 47 million uninsured people in the US, we have a  healthcare problem.  Canada has a population of 32 million, and we have 47 million uninsured.  We have MORE uninsured people than they have people!  Yeah...and THEIR system is the one with problems.  ::)     

A friend of mine just left his job to start his own business, so he loses the health coverage from that job, unless he pays the COBRA premium - $1,250 a month for family coverage.  And COBRA expires after 18 months, so it will be even higher than that when he has to enroll in an individual, non-employer plan. 

i agree. and i haven't argued what you accuse me of.

but you're trying to simplify a very complicated issue.

Do you mean that you haven't argued that it's a bad system?  Perhaps you haven't said it as such, but as you keep offering up evidence of its failures, I did draw that conclusion.  You're a confounding person, sandman (take that as a compliment).  You offer up moderately conservative views, yet claim to be leaning toward Hillary (I THINK that was you  ???).  You give evidence of Canadian healthcare failures, but don't think it's bad.         

But I don't mean to oversimplify!  I'm no healthcare expert, by any stretch, but I certainly realize that this is an enormous problem which may require a complex solution.  But I do think it's simple to look at the state of American healthcare and to say that there is a problem. 

I never really understood COBRA, why is it so friggin expensive?

I'm no expert, but if you're covered under an employer plan, you and the employer split the premium (usually around 25%/75%).  Once you quit or get fired, the COBRA rules require the employer to give you the option of staying in that plan for up to 18 months, except you're now on the hook for 100% of the premium.

That sounds about right to me.

Ra ra, ra RA ra ra..........

Touch?.

(http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/4797/lilcheneyyk5.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)


Oh little Cheney (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Av_73s4lQZM), you got so much love, little Cheney
And you take it where it strikes and give it to the likes of me
Oh little Cheney, he got so much love, little Cheney
So I see you when I can, you make me all a man can be

And I want you to be my acrobat, I want you to be my lover
Oh there were others who would treat you cruel
And oh little Cheney, you were always someone's fool

Little Cheney, you got so much time, little Cheney
Though you've grown beyond your years, you still retain the fears of youth
Oh little Cheney, you got so much time, little Cheney
But you're burning it up so fast, searching for some lasting truth

And I want you to be my acrobat, I want you to be my lover
Oh there were others who would treat you cruel
But oh Cheney, I will always be your fool

And I want you to be my acrobat, I want you to be my lover
Oh there were others, and I've known quite a few
But oh oh Cheney, I'm still in love with you

Stepped into my life from a bad dream
Making the life that I had seem suddenly shiny and new
Oh Cheney I'm so in love with you
Stepped into my life from a bad dream

Michael Moore is a prime example of what is wrong with our health care rigth now. Just look at him and how overweight he is. And here he is running is mouth about giving control of health care over to the government. I mean come own?? Why in the hell would I ever want to turn my health care over to the government. I mean, they done such a great job with social security and other programs haven't they?  ::)

And now the government wants to be in charge of what doctor I see and when I see the doctor? No fucking way!!!! :rant: :rant:

I don't see high marks about this health care program in Canada. All I hear is bad thing after bad thing after bad thing.

At least the people can make the government accountable for a poor health system.

Big business is accountable to nobody.

You mean like the government has been held accountable for the awful shape that our Social Security is in? That accountability has not done any good at all. :no:

Social Security has been pissed away!

Well then the onus is on a better government to learn from those mistakes and come up with a sustainable solution.

Democracy is a work in progress.

There are other countries with way worse of heathcare systems in place, if any at all.....

And that's why I don't think a government controlled health care is anything good to have. It would be screwed to crap just like Welfare and Social Security and all the other givernment controlled programs.

In Australia, I have found that many of our public assests (eg. telephone co) that have been sold off by the current government are not run as efficiently. Things are even run off shore........lots of corners are cut.....profit is the only aim.

Social security is fine. The fact that it is "ending" is another Bush lie.

You guys crack me up. On one hand we should never question our government and back them when they occupy countries and slaughter hundreds of thousands of it's citizens. On the other you blast them for their inability to run things and scream "Do you trust these people here?" Which one is it?

Why are you all so afraid of health care for all in this country? Why do you ignore our enormous health problem we have now? Michael Moore is the problem? LOL, ok buddy!

I don't believe I will ever see a penny of my Social Security. It's not just Bush saying it's going to dry up either.

And I have never said anything about not questioning the government. It's not that I trust everything about the government either. I believe that can do good in some places and not in others. I do not want them to have control of my health care. It would be a disaster.

Michael Moore is a prime example of what's wrong with our health care system now. Look at him, he's obese as he could be. It's over weight people, people who smoke, people who don't work that make health care so high for everyone else. That's why rates are so high because the people who do work and  have medical insurace are not only paying for themselves but paying for high rates for people like the Michael Moore's of this country.

I do not want the goverment in control of what doctor I want to see and when I can see them.

You also believed in WMD, and you also bought Bush's medicare bill that ripped off our seniors while making a fortune for big pharma.

Bush is saying it, conservative think tanks are saying it, while Wall Street and corporate media are fucking loving it, but it's not true. Don't continue to be a sucker.

All you have to do is read the Social Security trustees' report and see he is lying.




What do you think our health care system does now?

It's not controlling what doctor I see. I can see the doctor I want to, and see them when I want to as well. I do not have to be put on any kind of waiting list. If I want to schedule a surgery I can have the surgery done in a pretty short time and not have to wait some crazy time period like a year or so. Int this case, I can determine when I want to have a operation done. When the time is good for me not the governments.

i can't predict the future so I cannot say for sure regarding the Social Security. But I don't have a good feeling that I'll ever see a penny.

Of course it does. In an HMO you have to see the doctor in their network. If you go "out of network" you pay for it!

You wait to see a primary doc at least a month and a specialist can be even more. A surgery is usually scheduled a month or so out, but as our Canadian posters said so are theirs. You do not determine when your surgery is performed here in America. They tell you and then you come to an agreement with the days they provide you. Of course there is no promise that an HMO will pay your claim, and in the end while laying in bed the bills may come flowing in.

True economic data shows us that social security will be fine-it has nothing to do with "predicting the future" on a whim. But of course you welcome to believe Bush instead, as he has a sterling record of honesty and leadership.

The network is a much better list of doctors though. Wouldn't you agree? I wouldn't want the government to tell me where I can go and when I could have surgery. I want it to be at my own convenience. I do not want the government to assign me to a doctor.

How would you know? What is the difference? I have a list of doctors either way.

I can only have surgery in my network, which is a group of doctors that a private company motivated by profit have chosen for me. Why is that any better than a government "telling" me where to go? My HMO already "tells" me where to go to have surgery now. I pay to have limited choice of a group of doctors, if I don't like them, I can go out of network but it will cost me tons of money out of pocket to do so.

I don't really see your argument.

Did you read any of the posts from the Canadian posters here?

Waiting, choosing doctors etc, are not my concerns here. My concern is that all Americans get health care (which I see as a basic human right) and not worry about financial ruin because of it. Would you not agree with that?

There not your concern but they are my concern. I just don't want the government to take control and let it be abused like welfare is abused by so many.

It's not my concern because based on what our Canadians forum members say, their waits are no more or less than our waits here.

People will abuse any system, be it private sector or government. Should the small instances of abuse be a reason to deny all Americans for health care?

You are aware that most of the "welfare" that gets abused is corporate welfare? The billion dollar companies who wiggle their way out of paying their fair share of taxes. They steal more from us then any "welfare momma" ever could dream of.

I've read some articles directly from Canada media saying a little different about the problems and wait time with their universal health care program.

Abuses can't be just thrown to the wayside and saying well it happens everywhere. It needs to be stopped. If somehow we could be sure that it would be stopped and that you could chose any doctor you wanted to and no one has to sit around for a year for surgery or atleast an initial visit, than maybe just maybe I could see the benefit in letting the government manage my health care. But I don't have faith in the government managing my health at all.

You're clearly oblivious to the fact that even with universal healthcare provided by the government you always have the option to choose your own doctor and you always have the option to skip waiting lines by getting healthcare insurance yourself and seeking your own treatment ("going private") just as you do now. Even in a government-run system you'd be able to keep your current insurer and their coverage whilst also receiving free government healthcare.

But by your own logic we should not implement a social program because it may be abused. Should we then get rid of emergency call centers? Firefighters? Policemen? Social Security? Welfare for the poor? And so on, because it will be abused?

Abuse does happen, but we are not talking about how to cure abuse. I am replying to your statement which claims social medicine will not work because of the supposed abuse that will take place.

You do however have faith that the private sector has your health care in it's best interest huh? Answer me that one at least.

No. I think the emergency call centers, policemen, firefighters do a great job an are not prone to abuse as easily as others. I don't mind helping the ones who are really in need of welfare but the ones that are just lazy and abuse the system just sicken me. If you keep coming up with more and more programs to help people, this country is going to always rely on the government to help them or fix their problems. When I talk about abuse, I focus more on the individual who is the deadbeat and too lazy and will take every free penny he can from the government. i don't mind assistance to the ones that are deserving and really need the help.


Probably not. But I do not want the government in control of my health care. I'd rather have the government oversee the corporations who abuse the system.

thanks for the compliment. and i agree 100% with your last statement. i'm just not convinced canada's system is the answer. it's gonna take a little more than a couple people posting on a gnr message board to convince me a socialist system for health care is better. i post the negative stories to make it clear that other systems have problems too.

i think our system offers benefits that other do not, and our problems are fixable. but as i've said before, i have an open mind.

but remember, our government has the responsibility of regulating all insurance companies. and how's that process working out? not good. in fact, it's a joke. practically a scam.

An Open Letter to CNN from Michael Moore

Dear CNN,

Well, the week is over -- and still no apology, no retraction, no correction of your glaring mistakes.

I bet you thought my dust-up with Wolf Blitzer was just a cool ratings coup, that you really wouldn't have to correct the false statements you made about "Sicko." I bet you thought I was just going to go quietly away.

Think again. I'm about to become your worst nightmare. 'Cause I ain't ever going away. Not until you set the record straight, and apologize to your viewers. "The Most Trusted Name in News?" I think it's safe to say you can retire that slogan.

You have an occasional segment called "Keeping Them Honest." But who keeps you honest? After what the public saw with your report on "Sicko," and how many inaccuracies that report contained, how can anyone believe anything you say on your network? In the old days, before the Internet, you could get away with it. Your victims had no way to set the record straight, to show the viewers how you had misrepresented the truth. But now, we can post the truth -- and back it up with evidence and facts -- on the web, for all to see. And boy, judging from the mail both you and I have been receiving, the evidence I have posted on my site about your "Sicko" piece has led millions now to question your honesty.

I won't waste your time rehashing your errors. You know what they are. What I want to do is help you come clean. Admit you were wrong. What is the shame in that? We all make mistakes. I know it's hard to admit it when you've screwed up, but it's also liberating and cathartic. It not only makes you a better person, it helps prevent you from screwing up again. Imagine how many people will be drawn to a network that says, "We made a mistake. We're human. We're sorry. We will make mistakes in the future -- but we will always correct them so that you know you can trust us." Now, how hard would that really be?

As you know, I hold no personal animosity against you or any of your staff. You and your parent company have been very good to me over the years. You distributed my first film, "Roger & Me" and you published "Dude, Where's My Country?" Larry King has had me on twice in the last two weeks. I couldn't ask for better treatment.

That's why I was so stunned when you let a doctor who knows a lot about brain surgery -- but apparently very little about public policy -- do a "fact check" story, not on the medical issues in "Sicko," but rather on the economic and political information in the film. Is this why there has been a delay in your apology, because you are trying to get a DOCTOR to say he was wrong? Please tell him not to worry, no one is filing a malpractice claim against him. Dr. Gupta does excellent and compassionate stories on CNN about people's health and how we can take better care of ourselves. But when it came time to discuss universal health care, he rushed together a bunch of sloppy -- and old -- research. When his producer called us about his report the day before it aired, we sent to her, in an email, all the evidence so that he wouldn't make any mistakes on air. He chose to ignore ALL the evidence, and ran with all his falsehoods -- even though he had been given the facts a full day before! How could that happen? And now, for 5 days, I have posted on my website, for all to see, every mistake and error he made.

You, on the other hand, in the face of this overwhelming evidence and a huge public backlash, have chosen to remain silent, probably praying and hoping this will all go away.

Well it isn't. We are now going to start looking into the veracity of other reports you have aired on other topics. Nothing you say now can be believed. In 2002, the New York Times busted you for bringing celebrities on your shows and not telling your viewers they were paid spokespeople for the pharmaceutical companies. You promised never to do it again. But there you were, in 2005, talking to Joe Theismann, on air, as he pushed some drug company-sponsored website on prostate health. You said nothing about about his affiliation with GlaxoSmithKline.

Clearly, no one is keeping you honest, so I guess I'm going to have to do that job, too. $1.5 billion is spent each year by the drug companies on ads on CNN and the other four networks. I'm sure that has nothing to do with any of this. After all, if someone gave me $1.5 billion, I have to admit, I might say a kind word or two about them. Who wouldn't?!

I expect CNN to put this matter to rest. Say you're sorry and correct your story -- like any good journalist would.

Then we can get back to more important things. Like a REAL discussion about our broken health care system. Everything else is a distraction from what really matters.

Yours,
Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
www.michaelmoore.com

P.S. If you also want to apologize for not doing your job at the start of the Iraq War, I'm sure most Americans would be very happy to accept your apology. You and the other networks were willing partners with Bush, flying flags all over the TV screens and never asking the hard questions that you should have asked. You might have prevented a war. You might have saved the lives of those 3,610 soldiers who are no longer with us. Instead, you blew air kisses at a commander in chief who clearly was making it all up. Millions of us knew that -- why didn't you? I think you did. And, in my opinion, that makes you responsible for this war. Instead of doing the job the founding fathers wanted you to do -- keeping those in power honest (that's why they made it the FIRST amendment) -- you and much of the media went on the attack against the few public figures like myself who dared to question the nightmare we were about to enter. You've never thanked me or the Dixie Chicks or Al Gore for doing your job for you. That's OK. Just tell the truth from this point on.

There is still triumph left in this world, and Michael Moore delivers a documentary about the healthcare industry that leaves the mind reeling and stinging

By Tim King / Salem-News

SALEM, Ore. - As Americans die in increasing numbers through the greed of hospitals, healthcare organizations and insurance companies, it adds insult to injury to learn that our lifespan in the states is less than many third world countries.

As our nation struggles in a desperate search for answers, those at the root of the problem do nothing to help. They should be more than embarrassed, and we should be more than angry.

Billions of dollars are flowing into the pockets of the richest CEO's and shareholders pockets as Americans die needless and avoidable deaths. All because our national priorities are exclusively money driven.

As our country descends the ladder of health, enter Michael Moore and "Sicko."

When I watched this documentary for the first time, I was forced to think about my own recent situation in Afghanistan, where I covered the war for two months last winter with a hernia belt holding me together.

I just read a passage about a Las Vegas Vietnam Vet named Mike; "a man with a razor blade scar and a sharp sense of humor," who was found dead in a ditch along the railroad tracks, dead from a gastrointestinal hemorrhage.

Author Matthew O?Brien of "Beneath the Neon" concludes that paragraph with, "I guess he never had hernia surgery. No insurance, no hospital bed."

That is how America treats its vets. They die in agony on the roadside because they don't have health insurance.

So there I was last November, on the verge of shipping overseas to cover my first war. I had to receive a thousand dollars worth of shots, and I had a severe hernia in what one nurse called ?the lower 40.?

I understand lower hernias are fairly dangerous. If it goes, the owner usually goes with it, unless a hospital is very close by. Of course it would also have to be a hospital that accepted a patient without insurance, and those seem to be disappearing in this country.

I tried to work out a plan with my local hospital in Salem; they said they would be happy to arrange the surgery, as long as I could pay the bill on the spot for it. Everyone packs a few thousand bucks around, right? It isn?t like the economy is sagging or anything like that.

Besides, it is hard and expensive to own and operate your own groundbreaking media business, the only independent Internet news site in America, and some expenses like the $1,000+ a month insurance premium are just not on the radar right now. Certainly some will fault me, we are all supposed to be able to pay our own way, but the costs for a hernia surgery are out of line in this country.

I think that attitude about money and health care that I found at Salem, Oregon's hospital, is exactly what Moore is talking about in Sicko. We have dropped to a point where healthcare is only a business in this country; the heart was removed from it long ago.

That is not to say that there aren?t dedicated professionals because there are, but far more seem to be in it for the pay and the golfing.

I went to the war carrying about 120 pounds of gear. The kidney belt worked remarkably well, and I was able to always tighten it just a little more when necessary to put my hernia back inside the old lower stomach wall.

So at the end of my story about hernias and war, a $15 kidney belt from Ebay was the saving grace. I had far better things to say about that Internet commerce group at the time than my local hospital, that?s for sure.

At the time, I was the only staff reporter from any Oregon media organization who was covering, or willing to cover the troops. A reporter affiliated with KGW was in another part of Afghanistan at the time covering Canadian military operations. It seemed important to at least 900 Oregon families.

I admit that when I approached the hospital I naively thought they would be easy to work with, since I was heading out to cover the 900 Oregon combat troops in Afghanistan.

I figured I would get the surgery and make payments, it seemed reasonable at the time. But that is not the reality of people without insurance in the U.S.A. Instead, I was simply told ?no.? Even though I was heading to a combat zone, Salem Hospital could not even consider letting me get the surgery and deal with payment later.

I thought about this hospital one day when I tried to jump aboard an Army CH-47 helicopter at Gardez, Afghanistan, loaded with Afghan combat soldiers on a mission. I didn?t have the strength or stamina to make that last step up the load ramp with all my gear. Two soldiers saw what was going on and they quickly helped me get my stuff aboard. I think I did very well overall, covering a war with a bulging hernia in my abdomen.

I tried to figure out why Moore?s disputed new movie made me so emotional, almost distraught, and then I connected the things I am writing about right now. My own misery at war with a hernia, the denial of the surgery, and the general fear of dying in combat, it all takes a toll; but the story about the Vietnam vet dying because he couldn?t have a routine surgery for a hernia was the true catalyst.

It is noteworthy that Sicko is not a George W. Bush bash-a-thon. It is a movie that grabs your heart and does things that you would never imagine.

The health management organizations like Kaiser Permanente are Moore?s enemies, and the pharmaceutical groups that are raping America in terms of costs, especially our senior citizens. Moore has the courage to call it what it is.

I take it his detractors on this one are all in favor of HMO?s and the pharmaceutical companies.

There is still triumph left in this world, and Michael Moore delivers a documentary about the healthcare industry that leaves the mind reeling and stinging.

In the end, Moore writes a $12,000.00 check to the man who maintains the largest anti-Michael Moore Website in America. It seems the man?s wife is gravely ill, and he had to choose between her health and his anti-Moore Website. He chose his wife.

Michael Moore said that didn?t seem fair or right, and then anonymously gave him the funds to get that anti-Michael Moore Website back on the air.

Top that.

This, I think, leads to THE major problem, which is the influence of lobbyists and money on our policies.  I agree that it's not working.  Why?  The insurance lobby is powerful!  Very powerful! 

But lobbyists do not have the power to overcome the most potent lobbyist, which is public opinion.  Tobacco is rich and powerful, but eventually something was done against them.  Detroit and the medical industry seem to be on the losing side (note: they haven't LOST, but public opinion is shifting) with turning toward more progressive and societally conscious policies.  Both can count on the fact that, the next time a Dem is elected President, and especially so if they control the Congress, there will be some major moves to fix problems with those industries.  Hell, even the GOP is doing lip-service to these issues (esp. the environment). 


He shouldn't have put this in.  It cheapens the whole thing, and alienates people who don't like MM because of his other films. 

did this really happen? how is it anonymous if this writer knows about it?

that's part of the problem, but its deeper than that. the insurance industry is very heavily regulated. the laws are in place. and each state has an Insurance Department to audit, monitor, and oversee the actions of insurance companies. but as is usually the case, once politics are involved, things get kinda shady. these departments are poorly run, with little accountability. as a result, oversight is limited and the tax-paying public suffers as a result.

What the writer doesn't mention is that (I've heard) this is actually IN the movie!  SO...it was an anonymous donation...until the movie came out. 

it IS in the movie

You know, I read that, but in a completely different way.  Instead of "in the end" as in "at the end of the film" I read it as more of a transition...like "at the end of the day," this is what MM is doing. 

Brainfart. 

i read it the same way. didn't seem like he meant "in the end of the movie." but what really threw me off was his "anonymous" comment in the next line. how is it "anonymous" if it's in a movie. i think it's blatently obvious that it's a publicity stunt.

Certainly a publicity stunt, though I'm sure the guy who can pay his medical bills isn't complaining too much. 

I'm still waiting for my publicity stunt to arrive in the mail.  :no:

Sandman, you going to see the movie?

yes, i'm gonna check it out. not in the theater though. i rarely get out to the movies - 4 times this year, but before that i had gone about 4 years without going. i put it in my online queue to be sent when released on dvd.

friend of mine at work saw it, movie sounds amazing.  was going to wait for DVD but not sure if i will now.

it's funny, the work i'm involved with right now is so relevant to this discussion. i provide consulting services for the state insurance departments, and am currently doing a claim review at a health insurer. i am seeing first hand evidence of a health insurer denying valid claims. as claims came in, they would review policyholders medical history to find conditions that existed before the policy began, but were not listed on the application. then they would deny them.

based on the results of my team's review, they will have to pay a fine and reimburse a large number of claims they previously denied. inexplainably, the laws prohibiting this practice are sketchy at best. the system does not penalize insurers severely enough to fully prevent it.   

I have a feeling that even if they did, they would simply consider it the cost of doing business, and make the money up somewhere else.

Gough Whitlam was the Australian Prime Minister responsible for creating the best Health Care System in the world.

It is only in the last decade that the current government has been able to diminish its impact. The laws regarding the health system were really well considered and written.

Uncle Gough was dismissed under controversial circumstances in 1975. Read about it below.

http://www.pictureaustralia.org/trails_politicsgovt.html

Here's some of the shoots that didn't make the movie, a part about Norway. Yes it's very glamored :hihi:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ0B2xDzSgg