Quote :

"Sicko (sometimes rendered as SiCKO) is the title of a film by Michael Moore, scheduled for release on June 29, 2007.[1] It will investigate health care with a focus on large American pharmaceutical companies and of corruption in the Food and Drug Administration. Via his blog, Moore requested "Health Care Horror Stories" from the public in an effort to share his view on the health care industry.[2] When asked about this movie, Michael Moore said, "If people ask, we tell them 'Sicko' is a comedy about 45 million people with no health care in the richest country on Earth." On April 19, 2007, Moore announced on his website that Sicko had been selected for the 2007 Cannes Film Festival where it had its world premiere on May 19, 2007. Moore also announced a June 29, 2007 release date for the U.S. and Canada."

Obviously, this film is not out yet, but I'm curious to see ramifications of this film when it comes out. Farenheit 9/11 galvanized opposition to the war in Iraq and undoubtedly affected the political landscape when it came out. Will Sicko have a similar affect on the health-care debate?

Health care is an easy target. Our system is wasteful and ineffective. However, I don't agree with Moore's conclusion that a non-profit system run by the government would be superior. I am definitely interested in seeing his argument, though.

Any predictions on the effect this movie will have? Will it fuel the movement for a single-payer system? Will it benefit democratic presidential hopefuls running on a platform of health care reform? Or will there be a backlash against the socialistic slant of the movie?

6/14/2007 12:27:57 PM

It must be good if Fox News called it "brilliant and uplifting"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273875,00.html

6/14/2007 12:33:15 PM

hopefully everyone will ignore it because michael moore is nothing more than a morbidly obese ranting lunatic

6/14/2007 12:33:30 PM

Maybe Fox News likes it because it hits Hillary pretty hard.

6/14/2007 12:54:04 PM

come on. We all knew cuba has much better healthcare than the states, we dont need moore to tell us this.

I love where people throw out the 45 million with no healthcare. Its such BS. They might not have health ins., but in need they will receive healthcare.

6/14/2007 12:54:55 PM

I saw it. I think it's his best documentary yet, mostly because he doesn't do any (or as many) editing tricks. The scene with the Cuban firefighters was powerful. I think this movie will cause debate on how our health care system currently works, since it tries to show how Europeans have it better off than we do.

6/14/2007 12:56:42 PM

Yep, they have it alot better.

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/9096

6/14/2007 1:05:46 PM

Sweet Jesus in a chicken basket

Michael Moore has made a movie

that I want to see

and seem to agree with.



I need to go pray for a while.

6/14/2007 1:21:02 PM

I think the premise, that health care needs to be reformed, is something that most people can agree on across party lines and all demographics.

The conclusion, that we would be better off with a government-run universal health care system, is much more polarizing.

6/14/2007 1:36:13 PM

This is opening on June 29th at Galaxy Cinema in Cary, btw.

[Edited on June 14, 2007 at 1:50 PM. Reason : ]

6/14/2007 1:50:33 PM

i dont go there. the manager there is a pompous elitist douche

6/14/2007 2:01:23 PM

good post, I agree prawn

6/14/2007 2:03:01 PM

The conclusion, that we would be better off with a government-run universal health care system, is [wrong.]

6/14/2007 2:08:43 PM

i thought Fahrenheit 9/11 was a piece of crap for the most part, hopefully this will redeem moore a little bit.

6/14/2007 2:10:05 PM

either way i will not be paying to see anything he has made

unless it comes on cable tv or something

6/14/2007 2:26:15 PM

Quote :

"The conclusion, that we would be better off with a government-run universal health care system, is [wrong.]"

Very true.

Since when is privatization a bad thing? We all love going to the post office right?

A couple years ago a nobel prize winning economist gave a lecture at state and tackled just this. I wont do much talking since most people in this section of the website are raving fucking idiots (hence my usual absence) but just compare how the state run system in england is compared to the one we have. At the end of the fiscal year in england there are numerous cases of people being turned away for emergency surgeries because the govt's budget towards that procedure has been already spent. You might have to wait for the emergency room here, but you can get emergency service.

6/14/2007 2:31:40 PM

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=481930

The system failed this woman.

If she was able to get some preventative mental health care, it may not have gotten to that point.

I don't have a firm opinion on the socialized medicine thing, but I haven't seen anything to indicate it's a blatantly bad system to work with.

By measurements of health, don't countries with socialized medicine fair better than the US?

6/14/2007 2:38:27 PM

Quote :

"At the end of the fiscal year in england there are numerous cases of people being turned away for emergency surgeries because the govt's budget towards that procedure has been already spent."

To play devil's advocate, there are numerous cases in this movie of people denied life-saving procedures because it would hurt the insurance company's bottom line.

Quote :

"just compare how the state run system in england is compared to the one we have."

Unfortunately, our system doesn't stack up very well against most of Europe's health care systems. Wealthy people can get the very best care in the world here, but overall, our system lags behind by most metrics.

That is not to say that privatized care is a bad thing. But reform is needed.

[Edited on June 14, 2007 at 2:43 PM. Reason : 2]

6/14/2007 2:41:23 PM

You know its worked so well with the public school system, we should just turn over the health care system to the government. Then doctors and nurses can get paid like glorified baby sitters.

6/14/2007 2:51:56 PM

^^^

I don't think there's enough information about that event to draw any real conclusions.

6/14/2007 2:52:16 PM

How does it lag behind? What metrics? Any sort of statistics, studies, etc to back up this claim? Basically, how do you quantify quality of care?

The problem with our system is the insurance companies, but indirectly. Stay in a hospital for a day, get your bill. Note the bill isn't itemized, request an itemization. If you are lucky and they do this see the 40 dollar charge for toilet paper.

Or, go into the doctor's office for a checkup. Takes about 15 minutes of the doctor's time, and let's say 15 minutes of a nurse's. You have insurance, you pay 20 dollars, but they charge the insurance company ~250 dollars (if you don't get any lab work done). Now, no doctor would stay in business if he charged his patients this amount directly.

Insurance has drastically driven up the price of health care.

6/14/2007 2:58:57 PM

Metrics such as life expectancy, infant mortality rates, percentage of GDP spent on health care, etc.

Look them up if you want. Independent reviews consistently rank our health care system well below those of most European countries.

6/14/2007 3:02:05 PM

Quote :

"You have insurance, you pay 20 dollars, but they charge the insurance company ~250 dollars (if you don't get any lab work done). Now, no doctor would stay in business if he charged his patients this amount directly. "

If you look at the statement from your insurance company, take a look at how much the insurance company actually reimburses your doctor.

Your Dr. gets more from the co-pay than from the insurance company for a checkup.

6/14/2007 3:02:35 PM

Excessive regulation has forced out smaller insurance companies and consolidated larger ones to the point where there is an oligopoly in the market. There needs to be more options and competition within the managed care industry.

Quote :

"Federal investigators have found that a handful of companies account for a growing share of the health insurance policies sold to small businesses in most states, leaving consumers with fewer options and higher costs. The Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said that the largest insurer had 43 percent of the market for small group coverage in a typical state, up from 33 percent in 2002. In nine states, the largest carrier — a Blue Cross and Blue Shield company — has more than 50 percent. Small businesses and doctors also report a steep decline in competition in health insurance markets, a problem Congress is trying to address. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/us/30insure.html?ex=1181966400&en=d1500b39c4194ca8&ei=5070

[Edited on June 14, 2007 at 3:11 PM. Reason : 2]

6/14/2007 3:09:05 PM

Quote :

"Metrics such as life expectancy, infant mortality rates, percentage of GDP spent on health care, etc. Look them up if you want. Independent reviews consistently rank our health care system well below those of most European countries."

Life expectancy across the board is lower, but do most European countries have the vast number of immigrants that we do? Someone born in Mexico, immigrates here at 30, dies here at 60. For half his life his medical care was at Mexican standards... The point is there are many, many variables. It's trying to quantify something that is qualitative.

Check white life expectancy in America vs. Europe...

Also, the way that countries register infant deaths is vastly different. In America we count 2 month premature babies who die, in every European country that I know of they don't. We also expend vast amounts of money on care that Europeans would consider "lost causes."

Find some statistics on cancer or cardiac survival.

Quote :

"If you look at the statement from your insurance company, take a look at how much the insurance company actually reimburses your doctor. Your Dr. gets more from the co-pay than from the insurance company for a checkup."

Maybe that is the case for your doctor... but I doubt it

6/14/2007 3:57:49 PM

govt already accounts for 52% of healthcare in THIS country. Thats the problem. They have thier hands all in it. They wont let competition and insurance companies to compete, sometimes between borders.

WHoever said the doc get 250 bucks from the insurance from a routine visit is just pulling it out thier ass. In general, private insurances often use medicare as the bar, and set their reimbursements around it. So assuming you are a new patient medicare(on of the better) reimburses for a 99004 is $114, and established of 99014 is $87. And most office visits are level three. So he could bill out 1 million, but he is only going to get 114. Doctors will inflate the cost of the exams bc its the only way to counter further cuts. So if everyone billed out 114, next years reimbursement would be 90 and so forth. Its all a BS game played by insurances. It hurts the private pay consumer, which is why they are usually offered a large discount.

6/14/2007 4:06:21 PM

I think VA hospitals are as good a reason as any NOT have government health care

6/14/2007 4:25:13 PM

ask anyone from france, canada, or cuba how they feel about socialized health care.


doesnt work

6/14/2007 5:55:29 PM

You fucked up in using France as an example.

Their health care system is consistently ranked as the best in the world by the World Health Organization.

6/14/2007 6:13:34 PM

and..........his movie was leaked on the net...maybe the treasury department got a hold of it, this is funny

6/15/2007 3:44:05 PM

^^^ of course it doesnt work, because tons of people want to use it.

is that better than abunch of people with no isurance....uh

oh and you know you can pay for your own insurance in Canada.

6/15/2007 5:25:28 PM

There's not a thread about this already on the first page in Entertainment.

6/15/2007 7:35:56 PM

^^ depends on whether or not the people with no insurance are actually TRYING to get insurance or not. if they don't fucking care enough to get insurance, then why the hell should I pay for ANY of their healthcare costs?

obviously that doesn't apply to all uninsured people, but lets be honest, the stats on the uninsured sure as hell are misleading

6/15/2007 8:55:49 PM

^ on that note I'd rather pocket the cash that the university has paid me in health insurance benefit. In the many years I've been in grad school I've never needed to use it. It would have made more sense for me to save those $10,000 + rather than paying for insurance that I don't need.

Insurance is rarely a good investment from what I've seen. Even when you have it they try to cheat you out of paying for stuff. I had a friend who doesn't pay much attention to his money, he inadvertently signed up for a new health insurance plan for his family w/o ending the old one. Both had full coverage for his family. His daughter got sick and ran up a pretty big hospita bill. For the next two years both companies refused to pay because they claimed the other was the primary! Why should I pay money to an industry that is so invested in cheating the consumer ? Sorry, insurance makes mathman

6/16/2007 12:11:27 AM

so if someone cant afford healthcare they should some how make themselves afford it?

they should ask their employer for a raise or else burro will be disapointed in them?

6/16/2007 12:20:39 AM

^ no if he really thinks it is worthwhile to purchase health insurance (not me at this time in my life) then they should budget for it, as an individual who is responsible for his own damn self.

Anyway, I wish we could get away from third party payment. It would be nice if the prices of services were posted so you could see how much different hospitals charged etc... The market would help drive the prices to more reasonable levels. When people spend their own money directly they are much more critical of waste, but when the insurance company ( or the government ) is paying their is not really much direct incentive for the consumer to criticize waste.

[Edited on June 16, 2007 at 12:38 AM. Reason : .]

6/16/2007 12:36:45 AM

Quote :

"Malice: Since when is privatization a bad thing?"

AHAHA

I love it when people frame things like their "side" is at risk, like there are billions of people out there shouting down privatization.

We're already largely privatized. Malice, you're winning, okay?

Perhaps you should get involved and purposefully undermine government programs until they fail. That's the first step to creating your dreamy privatized world.

6/16/2007 12:53:11 AM

better than a dreamy over-legislated and red-taped world.



the government should stay out of my business. Historically, governments fuck everything up. I don't want to take that gamble, especially in the world of health-care.

6/16/2007 3:02:56 AM

^And you'll never have to send your kids to school with black kids again!

WOO HOO! LET'S HAVE A PARTY! RACISM IS DEAD! BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO SEE NIGGERS AT ALL!

6/16/2007 3:06:06 AM

excuse me, but i believe it was Government who separated us to begin with.

or was Jim Crow a person and not a law...

6/16/2007 3:08:58 AM

Quote :

"it was Government who separated us to begin with"

pwnt

6/16/2007 3:14:04 AM

government ALWAYS separates us

we have states and not an unified voting nation

you want federalism?

[Edited on June 16, 2007 at 3:19 AM. Reason : pwnt?]

6/16/2007 3:16:33 AM

I'm talking about the privatization of education.

It's the direct aim of NCLB. It's so fucking obvious and in our face, and we're eating it up, like horny dumbasses who crave Adam Smith's touch...

6/16/2007 3:21:45 AM

privatization of education is bad

unless you want you children praying to apple or hefty

then privatization of education is good

6/16/2007 3:24:18 AM

Well, the folks who blabber on and on about privatization want the schools bad.

"Vouchers" are so easy to stomach.

6/16/2007 3:34:54 AM

I imagine it will be like most of Moore's films. Raise some good questions without really answering anything.

Take Roger and Me. Did anyone walk away from that thinking they better understood the causes behind America's declining manufacturing position or how/whether it might be improved?

Or Bowling for Columbine is an even better example. What exactly did Moore say was the cause of gun violence in the US? Was it racial fears fueled by a sensationalist media? If so, why the stunt with asking Charlton Heston to appologize to a gun-victim's family at the end? How did that fit in?

With his messages so muddled it makes you wonder how he stirs up so much controversey. F-9/11 was probably the most on target: Bush sucks. But it was probably also his weakest film.

Meh. I will probably still go see this movie because I actually do enjoy Moore's movies, but I am not expecting this to be anything earth shattering. I wont know anything on the way out that I didn't know on the way in.

6/16/2007 3:43:00 AM

privatization means you want you kids reared a certain way

you want them funneled through a religious sponsor or a corporate one

home-schooled is even more risky

unless

you want you children risked to sex, drugs and rock n hop

doesn't really matter

--

parents should be in charge of their kids

so even though i feel privateering is socially dangerous

i'm not gonna negate a parent's ability to practice it

6/16/2007 3:44:58 AM

I'm fine with private schools and whatnot.

But I support public schools with everything I have in my political being, particularly those in the WCPSS, "fucked up" but still a model for the rest of the country.

6/16/2007 4:03:03 AM

Wow. Privatization means your kids will either be getting a McEducation or a Diploma in Prayer? Someone better call Harvard and give them the news.

Unless, of course, we have reason to believe that private schools would work differently for primary and secondary education than it does for college education.

6/16/2007 4:06:54 AM

i do

major error in my unfocused, big fat don't care forgot why i don't even bother, buried under the stink of my opposite responding fat typing who won't do shit but grumble and respond constituents

i was referring to primary education

my bad

[Edited on June 16, 2007 at 4:13 AM. Reason : BIG GIANT CRY FACE]

6/16/2007 4:09:21 AM