Controversial Michael Moore Flick 'Sicko' Will Compare U.S. Health Care with Cuba's - page 18
... Read More
Jun 23, '07Hi there!!
I did see the movie....and posted a comment in the Break Room about it, but I have lost the thread....
I have to say the Michael Moore has struck a chord with ALOT of Americans as well as citizens of other countries.
To HUSHPUPPY: yes, Cubans do get as good, if not better care...ALL OF THEM....I just heard an interview yesterday by one of the 911 firefighter/emt's who said that she thought that maybe it was "all a show" since it was Michael Moore's movie project, so she decided to go out in the middle of the night, and leave the entourage, and walk into a hospital in Havana, and ask for help....she was pleasantly surprised to find that THEY TREATED HER IMMEDIATELY FOR HER BREATHING PROBLEMS...ORDERED TESTS RIGHT AWAY....AND SHE WAS NOT CHARGED A DIME. So, I have to say, it's a sad state of affairs when our own people who served this country, who faced the terrorists in the face at Ground Zero, cannot walk into ANY HOSPITAL IN THIS COUNTRY AND RECIEVE TREATMENT FOR FREE. Others here have mentioned the birth survival rates in the socialized medicine countries of the world, we are nearly at the bottom.....the reason is obvious, many women and children do not have access to proper pre and post natal healthcare, even under medicaid....because, again, OUR GOVERNMENT AND THE HEALTH CARE INSURANCE COMPANIES DECIDE WHICH DOCTOR YOU SEE AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE. In England, for instance, you can see whom ever you decide to see, and in some instances, DOCTORS STILL MAKE HOUSECALLS!
TO HOSPICE: I thought your statement about "putting down" this country as interesting. I wondered if you would consider ANYTHING about this country as needing improvement, or would you just prefer to believe that "all is well", as nearly 13 Million children go completely without health care access in this country a year! Some of the most patriotic and patriot minded people of this country were the most critical of it....ie Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, all the way up to the VietNam era, where THOUSANDS OF COLLEGE STUDENTS BURNED THEIR DRAFT CARDS IN PROTEST AGAINST AN IMMORAL AND UNJUST WAR. Does this make them people who are putting down the country, simply because they saw what many did not see, and that was a country that had become misguided and misdirected by greed and selfishness.....I think that Michael Moore is showing the other side of the story here. The one that many of us don't want to admit to ourselves. We like to believe that this country is ONLY GOOD....that it would never do anything like this to it's own citizens....that is myopic and naiive thinking. If anything, the 1960's taught us to question authority, to question our government, and to trust no one over thirty!! This might be a good time to re-trace some of that true patriotism.
to DARREN: You seem to be caught up in the idea that the statistics people mention for un-insured citizens of this country are wrong, or a least skewed, and therefore, none of what Michael Moore says or anyone who quotes those stats, can be believed....you state: "I'd like to point out that those stats took place over a two year period" (I am paraphrasing you here).my question to you is: Why should even ONE PERSON in this country go without healthcare? Who cares if it is 20 million or ONE PERSON? the point is that BILLIONS of dollars goes in the pockets of the haves, while the have nots work their butts off in a job that offers no health care benefits, and provides no access for them or their families to survive a health care crisis.
Do you and your family have health care provided? What would you do if that 'benefit' suddenly was taken from you?
It troubles me that the thinking this leads to is the further division between the haves and have-nots.
a country that provides for its citizens is a healthy country....a strong country....just think through what happens to a society where there are no strong support systems in place for mothers, babies, and elderly people.....you might think Darfur.....I THINK INNER CITY CHICAGO. The reality is that Stroger Hospital, (formerly Cook Co. Hosp) in downtown Chi-town is closing whole units right now because there is NO MONEY to run it....this is the ONLY HEALTH CARE FACILITY FOR THE NEEDY IN SOUTH CHICAGO....where do these MILLIONS of people go now?
The Chicago Board President, Todd Stroger, is the son of the man for whom this hospital was named....he recently was diagnosed with prostate cancer....his predecessor had a massive stroke and is living in a health care facility.....but neither of THEM were having to bang on a door to get health care....because the COUNTY provides their care, ie through OUR TAXES...and they just happen to be lucky enough to recieve their medical care for free, via pension plans and former employment....they are the HAVES....but there is a whole population of people who are the HAVE NOTS... what about them???
As a country....as a strong and vigorous country, can we , are we prepared to just IGNORE THOSE PEOPLE?
We can drop tons of food and water on Darfur, but we cannot give a bandaid to our own??? WHAT KIND OF SKEWED THINKING IS THIS??? This is a definite misguided priority, in my book.
to RNFORMERCY: all of what you say is true. You clearly see the picture.
NOW: a little history:
My own son is an authority on this subject. He was one of the people, college students, involved in getting OREGON to adopt a universal health care ammendment a few years ago....He has studied this problem inside and out....believe me, what Mr. Moore tells you in his movie, is only a tip of the iceberg to the problems that people face with the current "system"....the only people who are getting rich are drug companies and insurance companies....it isn't about HEALTH CARE people...it's about making LOTS OF MONEY.
My son's work has led other states to consider doing the same, although Oregon did not pass the bill....Massachusetts is one who is looking at something similar.
The one thing that struck me as wonderful regarding the health care system in England, was what the interviewees had to say about how their system was one in which 'EVERY BODY WAS EQUAL'.... and that it united them as a community, as opposed to division and labeling...
TO ME, THAT SAYS ALOT...about a country that actually values it's people enough to make sure the beggar on the street has just as much coverage as the rich old dog in the castle....
just my opinion. crni
Jun 23, '07[quote=kaitsmama;2264447]I'm sorry, but a single anecdotal case does not prove that universal health care would be of benefit...
Now considering your source was a very liberal newspaper I doubt that they mentioned the fact that the kid's parents probably had the ability to qualify for or apply for some assistance.
I mentioned a single anecdotal case; but the problem isn't a single anecdotal case.... it's thousands, hundreds of thousands perhaps...
I also never said that I know the solution to the problem....
And you would be wrong about the paper's coverage of the story. It was mentioned that the parent's qualified for some type of assistance. However, the assistance was so riddled with obstacles to the point that they were unable to avail themselves of the necessary fundamental preventive care.
You remind me of Newt Gingrich when he lashed out at the Katrina survivors... blaming them for not leaving the city in time.
Right. Blame the victim
Jun 23, '07Here is my question: If our country is so terrible, why are there millions of people each year, including Cubans where they supposedly have great healthcare, trying to get here???
Jun 23, '07No one is saying that this country is so terrible. What I am saying is it could be so much better. We don't take care of our own. Everyone seems so scared of universal healthcare, they start talking about socialism but no one seems to mind that we have the same systems as socialism with our police and fire departments. They are paid out of our taxes for the good of everyone and no one complains.
There are so many people out there who need healthcare, I see it every day, and it is horrible. The richest nation in the world and we have people dying at home because they can't afford healthcare. We should all be ashamed.
Jun 23, '07I just rec'd a promotion in the mail sponsored by the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee asking nurses to host a screening of the movie near them. Michael Moore. Our spokesman. I love it.
Jun 23, '07Quote from sbic56I got the same thing in the mail a couple days ago, and was immediately put off.:angryfire I lived in California many years ago but have never in my life practiced nursing there, so why is their nurses' union sending me this piece of propaganda urging me to promote a movie, just because I have the initials "RN" after my name?I just rec'd a promotion in the mail sponsored by the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee asking nurses to host a screening of the movie near them. Michael Moore. Our spokesman. I love it.
This is the sort of thing that gives nursing unions a bad name........I happen to be a VERY strong supporter of universal health care, but does embracing a far-left agenda and promoting Michael Moore's film have to be part of the package? I'd like to think there's room at the discussion table for nurses with ALL kinds of viewpoints, not just those who worship the quicksand MM walks on.
But, that's just me.
Jun 23, '07Quote from mjlrn97
This is the sort of thing that gives nursing unions a bad name........
Yep, it does.
Jun 23, '07
Jun 23, '07ny times: movie review | 'sicko': open wide and say 'shame'
..."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....
...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.
Jun 23, '07...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.
Instead of greeting the film with hosannas or challenging it head-on, however, the leading Democratic presidential candidates have sidestepped direct comment on Moore's proposals.
Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of South Carolina all have staked out positions sharply at odds with Moore's approach. But none of them is eager to have that fact dragged into the spotlight.
Jun 23, '07I like the John Edwards approach to healthcare. I heard him talking about it on the Tom Hartman radio show the other day. It caters to the free market crowd in that Medicare will be offered to the general public alongside the private health insurance programs that are offered now. The private insurance companies will have a hard time competing with Medicare price-wise as they have greater administrative costs, have to pay the CEO millions of dollars and also satisfy the shareholders. Sounds good to me.Last edit by UKRNinUSA on Jun 23, '07
Jun 23, '07Quote from UKRNinUSAThe private insurance companies will have a hard time competing with Medicare price-wise as they have greater administrative costs, have to pay the CEO millions of dollars and also satisfy the shareholders. Sounds good to me.
Don't forget John Edward's own role in the astronomical cost of health care in this country. I find it a little amusing that he fails to mention tort reform in his plan.