Controversial Michael Moore Flick 'Sicko' Will Compare U.S. Health Care with Cuba's

[HM2VikingRN]

Health care advances in Cuba

According to the Associated Press as cited in the Post article, "Cuba has made recent advancements in biotechnology and exports its treatments to 40 countries around the world, raking in an estimated $100 million a year. ... In 2004, the U.S. government granted an exception to its economic embargo against Cuba and allowed a California drug company to test three cancer vaccines developed in Havana."

http://alternet.org/envirohealth/50911/?page=1

[fronkey bean]

My big question is: if he had never made Fahrenheit 911, would some of you be more willing to see Sicko?

I will see the movie (when it comes out on DVD, I'm not spending my scarce entertainment $ to see it in the theater). It's just that his track record of not being completly honest w/ the facts will make me very skeptical of anything he says. That is why I don't think he is the vessel to sail UHC on. Having read the postings here, I'm willing to see a UHC proposal, but I want solid facts that can be referenced and cross checked. Not dramatics and half truths. BTW, thanks to everyone who has posted on this topic. I have a much better understanding of it now. I'm still not quite convinced UHC is the best way, but I do think there will have to be some kind of gov't initiative on health care.

"My big question is: if he had never made Fahrenheit 911, would some of you be more willing to see Sicko?"

What could anyone have against Fahrenheit 911 -check out how the film facts match up to the truth

http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=16

what could anyone have against the truth -unless of course you are a member of the current administration. Why all the secrecy? Why all the claims of executive privilege? Aren't these people supposed to be working for "we the people"

I have nothing against the truth, I have a lot against presenting "facts" in a deceitful way. MM is a partisan who did not mind twisting the truth in Fahrenheit 911.

[marvelous_truth]

I will see the movie (when it comes out on DVD, I'm not spending my scarce entertainment $ to see it in the theater). It's just that his track record of not being completly honest w/ the facts will make me very skeptical of anything he says. That is why I don't think he is the vessel to sail UHC on. Having read the postings here, I'm willing to see a UHC proposal, but I want solid facts that can be referenced and cross checked. Not dramatics and half truths. BTW, thanks to everyone who has posted on this topic. I have a much better understanding of it now. I'm still not quite convinced UHC is the best way, but I do think there will have to be some kind of gov't initiative on health care.

I have nothing against the truth, I have a lot against presenting "facts" in a deceitful way. MM is a partisan who did not mind twisting the truth in Fahrenheit 911.

Yeah,

I havnt seen F911. I am not against watching either if it were available and I had free time, I just choose not to go out of my way or waste any $ for such. Nor would I by into MM non-solutions.

[marvelous_truth]

I will see this film. I will also continue to pay my income tax.

If it is true that he encourages people not to pay their taxes It will be hard for me to take him seriously.

http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-6099842-7.html

it isnt true

[teeituptom, BSN, RN]

welcome to the wonderfull world of MM and UHC

[Miss Chybil RN, BSN, RN]

I have nothing against the truth, I have a lot against presenting "facts" in a deceitful way. MM is a partisan who did not mind twisting the truth in Fahrenheit 911.

Just out of curiosity, what do you feel Michael Moore misrepresented in F-911?

[princenina]

Just some idle musings from across the seas.

Moore's portrait of what he sees as the USA clearly sits uncomfortably with many, I saw "Bowling for Columbine" with a group of young American Uni students in Australia on exchange. As a citizen of a country where owning a gun is a privilege not a right I was fascinated by the after film conversation (steered by a senior Political Science Lecturer who happens to be an American).

As rank outsider I cant help wondering if people's dislike of Moore's style is clouding.... again... the issues he raises.

As far as B4C goes, no nurse I've ever met is going to argue about the damage caused by gun shot wounds ....

By the same token, no nurse who has ever worked in either the public or private health system anywhere in the world for longer than 30 seconds doesn't wonder if things cant be done better.

By better I mean, better for patients, cheaper, and more efficiently for starters.

It would be very unfortunate that we as a broader society waste time arguing about Moore's ?journalistic? style rather than the question he raises...can we deliver better health outcomes to everyone?

[pickledpepperRN]

David Felix: 'Sicko' economics

...Goodman rejects single payer universal coverage health systems, which

Moore favors, because they require bureaucratic rationing of medical

care, and impose longer waiting periods than do private market health

systems. The rationing complaint as such is irrelevant; markets also

ration, mostly by the purse. What they have been unable to do is

provide universal coverage.

The incentive for private health insurance companies is to maximize

profits by insuring low-risk clients and rejecting high risk ones.

That incentive promotes private bureaucratic rationing of services

and intensified screening of applicants. The U.S. public sector and

private charities have thus been pressured to finance treatment of

some sort for the rapidly rising millions of U.S. uninsured and

underinsured. "Sicko" illustrates various aspects of the problem.

Goodman gives it no mention whatsoever....

http://bangordailynews.com/news/t/viewpoints.aspx?articleid=152647&zoneid=35

[fronkey bean]

battpos, just google Micheal Moore and you will come up with a few dozen sites that talk about MM and his work - both positive and negative sites. Spend a few min. looking through a few of each and I think you will see why I believe him to be dishonest in how he presents facts. One that is concise and organized is:

http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubid.2189/pub_detail.asp

By the way, I realize that at times their dislike for MM shows but that does not mean that they have no valid points. When talking about someone you think is lying it is hard to keep a neutral tone as is evidenced by MM's often scathing remarks about GWB.

Just out of curiosity, what do you feel Michael Moore misrepresented in F-911?

A little bit of everything Chybil. See above link.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

A free-market cure for US healthcare system

By Rudolph W. Giuliani

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/08/03/a_free_market_cure_for_us_healthcare_system/

"I believe we can reduce costs and improve the quality of care by increasing competition. We can do it through tax cuts, not tax hikes. We can do it by empowering patients and their doctors, not government bureaucrats. Instead of being more like Europe, we need to be more like America.

America has the best medical care in the world. People come here from around the world to take advantage of our path-breaking medicine and state-of-the-art treatments.

But the healthcare system is being dragged down by decades of government-imposed mandates, wasteful bureaucracy, and massive distortions in the US tax code that punish self-employed and low-income workers."

"The future of America's healthcare system lies in free-market solutions, not socialist models. We can increase individual choice and decrease costs by increasing competition, encouraging innovation while always compassionately caring for people in need. That's the American way to reform healthcare."

Not that I'm supporting Rudy, but at least he makes sense here. The article goes into detail. Simply put, the problem with healthcare is the level of gov't interference NOW. More gov't will create a bigger problem; it's not the solution. The solution is to get the gov't out of way from being in between you and your doctor.

~faith,

Timothy.

[lamazeteacher]

Very good point. http://www.pnhp.org/

There is a movement among physicians here, too. Some of our most vocal advocates for a single payer health care system in my state are physicians.

:balloons:

How fabulous! I went to their website that you gave, but other than seeing that their position supports single payor healthcare, I didn't see that they've accomplished anything.

I was a little alienated by the list of supporters they asked for, with check boxes for "physicians, medical students, researchers, and others".

It seems that ne'er the twain shall meet when it comes to doctors and nurses performing as peers, on the same team..... (an old gripe).

Their position statement was in 2003. Has anything happened since then?

[BBFRN, BSN, PhD]

A free-market cure for US healthcare system

By Rudolph W. Giuliani

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/08/03/a_free_market_cure_for_us_healthcare_system/

"I believe we can reduce costs and improve the quality of care by increasing competition. We can do it through tax cuts, not tax hikes. We can do it by empowering patients and their doctors, not government bureaucrats. Instead of being more like Europe, we need to be more like America.

America has the best medical care in the world. People come here from around the world to take advantage of our path-breaking medicine and state-of-the-art treatments.

But the healthcare system is being dragged down by decades of government-imposed mandates, wasteful bureaucracy, and massive distortions in the US tax code that punish self-employed and low-income workers."

"The future of America's healthcare system lies in free-market solutions, not socialist models. We can increase individual choice and decrease costs by increasing competition, encouraging innovation while always compassionately caring for people in need. That's the American way to reform healthcare."

Not that I'm supporting Rudy, but at least he makes sense here. The article goes into detail. Simply put, the problem with healthcare is the level of gov't interference NOW. More gov't will create a bigger problem; it's not the solution. The solution is to get the gov't out of way from being in between you and your doctor.

~faith,

Timothy.

You know, I have a hard time taking Rudy seriously on this, when he and mayor Bloomberg have failed the 911 workers so miserably.

[BBFRN, BSN, PhD]

:balloons:

How fabulous! I went to their website that you gave, but other than seeing that their position supports single payor healthcare, I didn't see that they've accomplished anything.

I was a little alienated by the list of supporters they asked for, with check boxes for "physicians, medical students, researchers, and others".

It seems that ne'er the twain shall meet when it comes to doctors and nurses performing as peers, on the same team..... (an old gripe).

Their position statement was in 2003. Has anything happened since then?

http://sickocure.org/

Here is one of their companion websites re: attempt to get passage of HR 676, which is what they're lobbying for right now. This is a bipartisan campaign that involves anyone who wants to be involved.

PNHP has state affiliates that don't only include physicians, (although I admit by looking at their national page, I can see why you're turned off). My state has one, and there are as many nurses and other citizens that are just as active as the physicians. Check out your state's affiliate to see how active they are in your area.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.00676:

Here is the Thomas page for HR 676.