So who's watched Moore's Sicko yet?

The Coffee Shop
1

Downloaded it last night. It’s pretty powerful.

I did look at Moorewatch, to see what the guy who was the recipient (his wife was ill and that combined with the mortgage and site hosting made it impossible to do all of it together) of Moore’s $12k check had to say. He was busy yakking about how Moore is a liar and that he didn’t need the money because his online beg-a-thon was so successful. However, I’m pretty sure that nobody else wrote him a $12k check, and that it didn’t seem to impel him to give the money back. Kenefick is another one of these douchebags who believes in harsh sink-or-swim individuality until he doesn’t, which is when he begs. Gotta hand it to him, hasn’t seemed to change him any.

Anyway, its a pretty interesting film, and is probably more informative vis-a-vis other countries’ healthcare systems than our own. Only a moron at this point would have difficulty understanding that incorporating a profit motive within our health insurance system is a recipe for a broken system, which we seem to have now.

2

I saw an interview with Mr. Moore the other day and they asked him what he thought about his video being leaked before the premere. He said something to the effect of obviously there are people with a vested interest in seeing his film do poorly at the box office. he then comments something to the effect of I think we all know who they are. I have not seen one of Mr Moore’s mockumentaries before, however, I do believe I will see this one.

Since you downloaded it I guess he was talking about you :wink:

3

I agree that he’s not really a documentarian, rather he’s a provocateur.

This one will probably be seen through less of a partisan lens, but we’ll see. Healthcare is one of those things that’s not clearly partisan, but in today’s environment, anything can be perceived as partisan, I guess.

It’s an interesting movie. He asks a hypothetical question which for some people in the film is unfortunately, not hypothetical - what would you do if after years of being on insurance, you contracted some sort of chronic disease and your HMO said sorry, not paying for that treatment because its either not covered or experimental or some other excuse? What’s your recourse? What if, at the end of the line, all you had was “I’m sorry.” Conservatives argue that its not really true that 40 million people aren’t covered because they can always get emergency care. That may be true, but it doesn’t cover chronic problems like diabetes, cancer, and heart disease/surgery. What do you do then?

He asks the larger question which has been the elephant in the room for some time. What kind of country do we want it to be?

4

Conservatives argue that its not really true that 40 million people aren’t covered because they can always get emergency care

Well, because they can always get emergency care, and because it’s not really true that 40 million people don’t have health insurance. (Which is also, btw, not necessarily the same thing as not having coverage.)

I am not sure how you went so quickly from saying health care isn’t a partisian issue to calling out conservatives, but I know that liberals should stop using statistics dishonestly.

5

My point is that it shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Healthcare policy affects everybody. I think what’s interesting is that it usually affects people when they least expect it and when they are most vulnerable. That’s why I don’t find people who say there’s nothing wrong to be terribly credible. They may find out differently, later.

As for partisanship, it has been used in that way because its about money. When you have this much money at stake, you’re going to see that.

Exactly how is the 40 million number inaccurate?

6

My point is that it shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Healthcare policy affects everybody.

Ah. You were engaging in a bit of self serving sophistry. “I think everyone should agree with me, no matter what they think themselves, because I’m right.” I get it. Nicely done, it was subtle.

That’s why I don’t find people who say there’s nothing wrong to be terribly credible.

Nobody says that, actually. Or nobody worth listening to, anyway. I think you and I agree more than we disagree about health care, and there are a lot of people who disagree with us about exactly what’s wrong with the system or what the solution should be. But hardly anyone says that our healthcare system is just fine the way it is.

Exactly how is the 40 million number inaccurate?

Oh, it’s not exactly inaccurate. You remember Twain’s bit about statistics, I’m sure. The statistic itself is, as far as I know, as accurate as any other. It’s a question of how the statistic is arrived at, and then how it’s used. Unless I’m mistaken, the statistic is arrived at by adding up all the Americans who were, at some point, without health insurance during a particular year. So if you switch jobs, and you take a couple of weeks off before starting the new one, you’re counted as an uninsured American.

7

I wasn’t being a sophist, but if you think I have that level of subtle, uh, sophistication, then, I’ll take the compliment. My point was, that there really shouldn’t be a philosophical divide. Rather, I think its simply a matter of differing public relations. The statistics on US infant mortality and life expectancy are not encouraging, especially compared to other Western democracies, all of which have national healthcare. There may be differing views as to what to do, it’s pretty hard to see how giving more power to HMOs and big pharma to exercise unilateral pricing and ex post coverage decisions helps that situation any.

At this point, you have employers now endorsing national healthcare. Who’s left, other than HMOs and big pharma.

As for the 40 million number, let’s say for argument’s sake that it’s 30 million. Does that make it less interesting?

8

My big question is why should anyone listen to Moore? It seems everytime he makes a film holes shot in it with great ease. Facts are wrong, time lines changed, film editing changing reality but his deffenders agree he is a controlling, lying, fact shifting ass but still give him credit.

9

Make movies about things that are highly emotional. Facts can easily be overlooked. When you want something to be true, the standards of verification and validity are drastically reduced.

10

In the clip I heard, he said he was glad people were watching his movie - even if it was via the internet.

Strangely, I still have an open mind on this movie. If I knew anything about the healthcare system I might feel otherwise. Although I’m sure this movie will be informative in a fair and honest way. He’s pretty good about that.

Partisanship? I’ll be surprised if BushCo doesn’t get blamed for something, somehow

11

I guess his motto is “Truth be demand just agree with me!”
.

12

Bush get’s blamed for the Medicare prescription drugs bill, but that seems to have wide bipartisan support, for his blame, that is.

13

My point was, that there really shouldn’t be a philosophical divide.

You should stick with subtle, when you come out and just say it, it sounds stupid. “I don’t think anyone should disagree with me.” OK.

I think its simply a matter of differing public relations.

I don’t even think that means anything, and if it does, it’s now *too *subtle. It isn’t a matter of differing public relations, whatever that means- it’s a matter of differing opinions as to how we can provide the best healthcare. And what constitutes “the best healthcare.” And so on.

Frankly, I think you’ve adopted the typical liberal approach to the issue, which is to demagogue it. “Why, everyone should want a good healthcare system. There shouldn’t be any disagreement over that. Therefore, we should have nationalized healthcare. There shouldn’t be any disagreement over that, either, and if there is, it’s because my conservative opposition doesn’t want a good healthcare system. Those pricks!”

The problem, obviously, is that nationalized healthcare doesn’t necessarily equate to good healthcare, and your opposition on national healthcare has a lot of good points to make about that. The problem is tough, actually, and there aren’t any easy solutions at hand. You don’t want to believe that, though, for some reason.

**At this point, you have employers now endorsing national healthcare. Who’s left, other than HMOs and big pharma. **

And I’m sure employers are endorsing national healthcare out of a deep concern for the health of their workers, and not out of a mercenary concern for their bottom line.

**As for the 40 million number, let’s say for argument’s sake that it’s 30 million. Does that make it less interesting? **

I don’t know, does it? I am more concerned with the idea that it’s more honest, more reflective of reality, myself, and offhand, I can’t say if the number is 35 million, or 30 million, or 20 million, or 10 million. I am reasonably sure, though, that it’s not 40 million. If it makes no difference, and one number is as interesting as another, why do proponents of nationalized healthcare consistently use the wrong number? Why not use a more honest, but equally interesting number? You tell me.

14

Do you think there should be disagreement, especially political, on improving healthcare? Isn’t that what this is about?

If our system is largely privatized, and, assuming that the system needs serious overhaul, wouldn’t a reasonable alternative be nationalization? Is it not fair to compare our system, with its marginal results (in some aspects), to other healthcare in other countries who have achieved better success in comparable areas (i.e. infant mortality and life expectancy)?

I guess I feel like you are attacking the periphery of his argument. Maybe you don’t like the way he is phrasing it, but is that what is important?

I would disagree on the public relations angle, by the way. I’m not saying nationalized health care is the be-all and end-all, but think of how it is demonized by many in this country. A constant refrain is that the US has the best health care in the world and nationalized health care is a disaster. That is not necessarily the case. That, to me, is all about PR. Nationalized health care may not be appropriate for the US, but I don’t think it is being critically examined. It is decried as socialism, without more.

15

What’s your recourse? What if, at the end of the line, all you had was “I’m sorry.”

That will be when you wish you still had a gun so you could take hostages.

16

And I’m sure employers are endorsing national healthcare out of a deep concern for the health of their workers, and not out of a mercenary concern for their bottom line.

The bottom line is clearly the issue (if we’re going with the assumption that employers are among those in favor of nationalized healthcare), but that doesn’t make it any less benevolent. Let’s say a small business owner wants to keep valued employees - and continue to provide them with means for providing for their families - but can no longer afford to pay for health insurance coverage because of skyrocketing costs. The employees may have no other choice than to find alternative employment. If they choose to stay, you can sacrifice their healthcare benefits, or you can reduce their take-home pay to compensate. Either way, it’s bad business, and avoiding those options are better for everyone involved.

17

**Do you think there should be disagreement, especially political, on improving healthcare? Isn’t that what this is about? **

No, wasn’t my bit about demagoguing the issue clear? Everyone agrees that healthcare should be improved. The disagreement is over how it should be improved.

If our system is largely privatized, and, assuming that the system needs serious overhaul, wouldn’t a reasonable alternative be nationalization?

Are those really my only two choices? A privatized system, meaning a system exactly as it is now, or a nationalized system, meaning one along the lines of Canada or Great Britain?

Is it not fair to compare our system, with its marginal results (in some aspects), to other healthcare in other countries who have achieved better success in comparable areas (i.e. infant mortality and life expectancy)?

Of course it’s fair. You have to be fair and look at the question in all its aspects, though. Opponents of a nationalized healthcare system have good points, and there are areas in which our current system excels, and areas in which Canada’s system performs poorly. Is it unfair to consider those?

And seriously, doesn’t it bother you that somehow, the issue has been framed such that these are the two options available to us to argue over?

Nationalized health care may not be appropriate for the US, but I don’t think it is being critically examined.

Unless I’m mistaken, it’s being proposed by all the leading Democratic candidates for president, and even many large employers are advocating it. I am not going to shed many tears at the thought that nationalized healthcare “just isn’t getting the consideration it deserves, boo-hoo.”

18

Sphere: Nationalized healthcare may or may not benefit everyone in the end. That’s a matter of legitimate debate. I’m just saying that the employers’ vote in favor of it is not compelling in the least to me. They favor of it because they’re tired of paying for their employees’ health insurance, and they want someone else to foot the bill, that’s all.

19

If I recall correctly, they made a movie about that.

I think the PR issue is as you (mclamb) put it. You have entrenched interests whose primary interest clashes with the larger good, assuming you believe in such a thing. So they have two forms of recourse - the PR angle, calling everything a steppingstone to socialism/communism, and aggressive lobbying. Now, it’s not clear that national healthcare is some kind of nirvana, but the question is, on balance is it better than what we’ve got?

I think there is something of a clash of philosophies, but the argument is controversial, nobody wants to put it out there clearly. To me, it’s this: do you want to consider healthcare a scarce good, defined in economic terms as something that not everybody can have at low/zero cost, and therefore apportioned out based on price and ability to pay said price, or is it something we consider a basic right of a wealthy democracy? Pretty much every other westernized democracy has chosen the latter, with generally better results than us, who have chosen the former.

There are broader philosophical implications, but I’ll isolate it to healthcare at this point. The point is, if we are going to continue to choose the former, then we can’t bitch about people being uncovered, dying for lack of coverage, or being financially ruined by health issues. We have to be comfortable with a society which views these things as necessary collateral damage of a system we still regard as the best. And I’m not certain we believe that.

20

You’re misstating the problem.

It’s not that they’re sick of paying for healthcare - it’s that they’re sick of skyrocketing premiums, especially for smaller companies. The largest companies don’t even deal with this problem because they typically self-insure, and companies in between are large enough that their claims behavior can be actuarially predictable. So the problem is that the rates go up dramatically, and part of that problem is that employers/employees are paying both the freight on a significant sized administrative layer whose primary purpose is to provide the minimum of care legally required, and a return on capital.

It doesn’t take an accountant to see that perhaps a system with those layers removed might ultimately be cheaper for everybody involved.