FlickFilosopher.com

I'm so happy you gave this flick a great review. I work in pharmaceutical billing on behalf of Assisted Living patients with Alzheimer's and a variety of other ailments and every day I beat my head against a brick wall when it comes to trying to make sense of their varying "private" insurance plans and try to get them the coverage for the medications their doctors prescribe and which these most vulnerable among us trust are supposed to be covered.

The prescription drug insurance industry is a farce in the USA. There is little relationship between drug costs to the consumer, reimbursement to the pharmacy, and the actual cost of manufacture.

I have been looking forward to this flick ever since MM said he was going to make it and I'm thrilled that my favorite online reviewers are giving it such high recommendations. People really don't know what's going on. You think single payer will lead to rationing? Catch a clue America--rationing is already happening. It's just not happening in a rational way.

I watched the movie last night and it's great

what's more interesting about it for me is all that is not about health care, that old english man explaining how if you keep the people depressed they won't protest and they will just accept whatever they get and never ask for more, and how the english would revolt to the very idea of not having what they take for granted, and it's utopic in america

and how clear and obvious is that politicians speak against universal health care or socialize medicine not because they have dissenting political or ideological opinions, but because they are being pay for it, it's just sad that people believe them (and that make people responsable for the situation aswell)

and also interesting is how people react to michael moore, of course is easy to criticise him for lots of reason, but who else is doing anything about it? who else is trying to make the least bit of diference?

if you don't like how he says things produce your own movie to make a world a better place

Yes, the English man gave some of the best part of the film. I also was moved by some of the stories that were told. I still don't think the message is getting across well enough though. I think that part of the problem is that, in my opinion, an effective documentary should not seem staged. There are moments in every Moore movie that are obviously staged. Here, some of stuff taking place in France was obviously staged, such as the government woman doing the laundry for the family. Even if it is true, it loses its effect in the film because you know that Moore and his crew were there telling people what to do before they started filming.

And MaryAnn, you mentioned in another post about this film that you did not think it was as Anti-American as I did. Yet, in your first sentence you state that no other film this year would make you ashamed for America as a whole. I have heard responses from people saying that, after seeing clips from this movie, they want to move to Canada or France. Go ahead and do that. You will encounter a whole new set of problems. Utopia does not exist. For this film to have been successful it should have concentrated on the American system and how it can be changed. Instead, Moore spends probably 75% of the film explaining how other countries have it better than we do

Well, I guess disgust and shame are very strong words for me. Is this country fucked up in some ways? Yes. Do I still believe it's the best country in the world? Yes. Just one more question MaryAnn, although I know this will start another firestorm of comments that will go on forever. And I don't want to put anyone down, I am just interested in your response to the following question...

Were you ashamed of this country before January of 2001?

Myself, I can't say I am any more or less concerned now than I was before Bush took office. It's just that many people blame all of the countries problems on the current administration.

It's all robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Look. People do blame all the countries problems on the current administration, but (like this film proves) the problems have been in our government for quite some time now.

Personally, corruption is going to run completely rampant in an age where companies can give money (among other things) to the members of the highest levels of goverment in order to influence their decisions. How is this legal? Why hasn't anybody tried to stop this? This is key, in my opinion.

Recently, Sallie Mae (and other financial aid companies) have come under fire for "paying off" college financial aid counselors, with trips to exotic places and money, all so that they will sell their high interest private loans to students. Now, these companies have lots of lawsuits to deal with as a result of the suffering that they cause to these college students.

Why did I bring this up? Well, if it's not okay for Financial Aid companies to pay off their customers (they pay off members of Congress too, by the way), then why the hell is it okay for ANYONE to pay off members of Congress! These are the people that make our laws! It's a no brainer that things are very fucked up in this country right now.

I just applaud the fact that there are people out there that are trying to stimulate peoples minds and get the message out there like Michael Moore. We need more of this stuff, and it's great that Moore has the reach that he does to be able to release his movies across the Nation. At the very least, it gets people like me and you talking about very important issues.

I'm certainly no bleeding heart, but I'm less concerned about Bush being in office than I am the fact that Bush was VOTED into office the SECOND TIME. After we already knew that he was going to listen to Rummy et al instead of Powell. I guess I should say something about the movie. Shame on people for letting Moore manipulate them, whether healthcare has a problem (it does) or not. That is no excuse for continuing to let this guy keep doing this.

Why a ton more things to be ashamed of MaryAnn? I have to say there was a shitload of stuff that I was displeased with 10 years ago, and about the same amount now. What really got me 10 years ago was the facade that was presented that we were a nation at peace. Now, there's too much concentration on the fact that we are not at peace and little being done to correct things. I think Will explained things better than Moore did in his film.

Vergil- It's true that Moore puts out propaganda. Any documentary, or anything with a message, can be described as propaganda. There's nothing wrong with that. That's not Moore's current problem. He should be focusing on bringing out change instead of making these films with little substance. The world would be a lot better if the Michael Moore's and Ann Coulter's of the world actually used their power for something constructive. Moore can make constructive cinema. He has certainly done so in the past. He just needs to step off his high horse now and stop believing that it's his opinion that matters most. It's the countries opinion and well-being that matters most.

MaryAnn, apologies if you thought I was pointing you out for saying all of our problems are because of the current administration. Many others do think that way though. Too many people contribute whats good or bad in this country to the current president, administration. In the 90's, we had a good economy and it was told to us it was solely because of Clinton. BS. Not only do economic policies take years to show signs of progress, Clinton did not do much at all to improve the economy.

One thing I will give Moore credit for with Sicko is that, unlike 9/11, he does not ignore facts so much that he places all of the blame on Bush. He also puts it to the Clinton's here, and Nixon. He could have made a whole film about the mistakes of different administrations. With 9/11, it was almost laughable how he was trying so hard not to include anything that would make the Clinton's look bad.

I work with refugees and see firsthand some very funny (and not the ha-ha kind) dealings going on with the healthcare system. It's time for a change. I hope people know we can make it happen.

Thanks for the review; I can't wait to see it.

Folks, I don't know how to tell you this, but Moore has zero, and I mean ZERO credibility. He was caught in lie after lie, manipulated families in Columbine for his purposes, and was sued by people he lied about. Please understand that you "people" who liked this movie are simply fools. He may have had some good points, but don't you care if he arrived at them honestly? Stop whining and go to Cuba if you hate here so much.

Oh, I'm not the least bit terrified of dissent - didn't mean to confuse you. I was being a bit over the top. As to not knowing what's great about America - it's freedom. Not a communized, socialized society. Your vague reference to to me being unamerican is not effective or constructive.

What is great about America to you? Having the government control every aspect of our lives? Please, elucidate...

Also worth noting is that you didn't address ANY of my points about Moore's credibility. Pretty pathetic.

I have not yet seen this movie, but I agree
with your larger themes. This wealthy and heroic nation's being consumed by a metastatic cancer (fueled by greed and racism?) where caring for others is often sneered at, spit upon and given pejoritive labels...So where do these trends eventually lead? My guess is that in folding into the mix other powerfully destructive global cross-currents the worlds population will be taken down
by more than half as the worlds billionaires and some select others retreat into bubble fortresses while those outside are left to slug-it-out. If there is a revolution, it may be to determine who gets in the bubbles.

Don't bother arguing with Tigger, MaryAnne.
Some parts of American have long since made up their minds about Moore.

His next flick could be about how cute puppies are and conservatives will think he's attacking the U.S.

another thing about michael moore that seems imposible to understand for some people:

a false friend will always tell that you're doing great, that everything's fine and you should keep it up

but a real friend will tell you the things you're doing wrong even if you don't want to hear it, he won't lie to you and he will try to make you change for the better and that't because he CARES

michael moore cares about his country, so goes out of his way to point out what's wrong with it so it can be corrected before it's too late (if it's not too late already)

but I guess that's too complicated and contradictory for some people

I'm not an american but michael moore is the only american I know about that I would call a patriot

Cry havoc, and release the dogs of Freeper war.

You may regret your decision to go to blog format before this thing dies down.

Anyhow, I'll see it this week--thanks again for the intriguing review.

Ok, how do you know that the high infant mortality (not counting abortions, I assume) are due to the lack of socialized medicine and not irresponsible doctors ,parents, hospitals, etc. Where is the causation? Does waking up in the morning cause the sun to rise, or are there other factors at work??

Tigger Nitties writes:

"Ok, how do you know that the high infant mortality (not counting abortions, I assume) are due to the lack of socialized medicine and not irresponsible doctors, parents, hospitals, etc. Where is the causation?"

You may well be right, Tigger: America may well have a truckload of irresponsible doctors and hospitals to account for the high infant mortality rates.

What really bothers me is that - instead of being horrified about these damning statistics in one of the supposedly richest countries in the world - you're acting as if irresponsible doctors and hospitals are none of our concern. Seems that you're fine with any amount of infant mortality, so long as the blame for it is not placed on the current administration.

But maybe I misjudge you. My question is this - if irresponsible doctors, parents and hospitals are responsible for all this infant mortality, do you consider it's society's job to correct them, or do you think society should leave them alone?

Should they be allowed to carry on making those fatal mistakes, just so that we can boast that this country is free from regulation?

BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE delivered a powerful message, but we've never even bothered closing the gun-show
loophole. Likewise FAHRENHEIT 911 hit hard but the
war goes on...Also AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH, has a critically important message, but unless industry itself writes the legistlation and says "Here Congress, regulate us" it's unikely to result in
a meaningful reversal of greenhouse gas emission.
And now SICKO. Yes if decades ago instead of JFK's death, single-payer universal coverage would be reality today? Another guess is that the CIA
knew DR.STRANGELOVE's release date [Dec.'63] and
took action before that movie could move public
opinions support for military desecalation...And finally, playing the "If you don't love America, leave it" card is itself un-American. This nation was founded on the principle that reason and due process should trump force. For example the military is to be under civilian control...Tradgedy is when temptation's too great, we all fall from grace... Comedy is EVAN ALMIGHTY-See it now!!!

William,

You are correct. It is Un-American to say that "if you don't support America, leave it." It totally ignores what makes this country great. I never said that those that do not love this country should leave it. What I said is that those who keep claiming it is better somewhere else, and threatening to leave, should do so instead of just talking about it. 'Sicko' is mostly a collection of information about how Canada, France, and Cuba are better than America. I have watched a majority of the film and very little concentrates on the US. That was my problem with the film. I expected an insightful look at our own crisis and instead got Moore's Pro France agenda.

Well, I know I should refrain from complete judgment until I have seen the whole film. I was just commenting on the fact that a good majority of the film I saw seemed to not concentrate on this country but elsewhere. If that was the point of the film, Moore succeeded. If the point of the film was to open up debate on our own health care system, I think he could have done a better job. You've seen the film in its entirety though so I trust you know more than I do

I am not an American so please take these comments in this context. Healthwise, the US is looked at as the most dangerous country in the world to visit as a tourist - not because you are any more likely to get sick - but because the slightest injury could bankrupt you without hefty travel insurance.

So, when the Clinton administration came to power with a mandate to reform healthcare we all thought, "Great! The US is finally going to get its health system back in order." We all stood by in amazement then while spurious arguments about socialization and nationalism weren't countered by rational debate and hard figures available from any other western country. It looked like the administration wanted this initiative to fail.

If Moore spends a lot of time talking about foreign healthcare models it is simply to counter the boiling frog syndrome. ie: How do you know it's hot if you don't know what cold is? Moore would be the last person to nominate himself for sainthood. If he has over dramatized sequences in his films it shows a lack of confidence in his own ability to persuade - not a desire to deceive the public.

Sure, nobody should be claiming they have the perfect health system. What you do see from Moore's foreign examples, however, is a very different balance of power between patients and their healthcare system. Here in Australia we have a mix of both public and private healthcare and health insurance. Of course the insurance companies see the US as their Nirvana and lobby the government to move in that direction while patient lobby groups push heavily for the British model. As long as both groups have equal power the scandals each uncovers in their rival's operations server to simply keep everybody honest rather than bring down the system.

This is the heart of the matter when you put aside the figures and the politics and the social theory: who has the power? Any system, whether it's socialized, privatized or just public will work if all the parties involved have enough power to keep the others holding to the bargain. After all, that's why the American system worked so well for so long.

I will not give my opinion on this or any film until I see it. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

Hey Josh, maybe you should wait to give your opinion of this film until you see ALL of it.

If this the last few minutes I have not seen of the film change my opinion, I will let you all know.

Josh Gilchrist said, a few days ago:

Do I still believe it's the best country in the world? Yes.

"If irresponsible doctors, parents and hospitals are responsible for all this infant mortality, do you consider it's society's job to correct them, or do you think society should leave them alone?"

My point was that socialized medicine won't necessarily fix their incompetence. Health care, imo, should be a resource, not a business. Kind of like air, water, radio waves, etc. Health care employees should make money, obviously, but spending should be re-routed to give more care to people who can't pay for themselves.Insurance companies are too powerful as well.

Hi everyone !

I just saw Sicko and wanted to respond to this message :

"Folks, I don't know how to tell you this, but Moore has zero, and I mean ZERO credibility. He was caught in lie after lie, manipulated families in Columbine for his purposes, and was sued by people he lied about."

and this one too :

"Here, some of stuff taking place in France was obviously staged, such as the government woman doing the laundry for the family. Even if it is true, it loses its effect in the film because you know that Moore and his crew were there telling people what to do before they started filming."

Well, I can only write about the part I know : the one in France : of course, all of the services that are described are true : yes, when you just had a baby, you can have someone to come to your house and help you with the laundry, the baby or whatever (well, not 'whatever' but you know...).
There are some little things not entirely true : you only get 3 days after your wedding in addition of your 5 weeks of paid vacation. And you don't actually get 5 weeks if you've got a part-time job : it depends on how much time you have worked in the past year. 5 weeks of paid vacation is for a 35h/week ; you get more if you work more, less if you work less.

For the rest of it I didn't notice any significant mistake (about the system in France I mean).

And yes we have a lot of taxes but I have to say, when I see what health cost... OMG, I'm glad to pay some taxes (In fact I don't pay so much taxes since I don't earn a lot).

Voilà, just my 2 cents ;)

best for you all ! (and sorry, I don't write in english very well...)

This message board is a perfect illustration of why issues in America, such as healthcare, never seem to get anywhere. Look at how quickly the discussion is distracted by irrelevant comments about things like terrorism or anti-Americanism or bush. Bicker about the flaws of Moore’s film if you will, but don't lose sight about the heart of the matter. The best interests of a profit-driven HMO and the best interests of a patient are fundamentally opposed. It is an atrocity that a system based on providing care to people has evolved into something so inhumane. When it comes to our health & bodies, the power should not be in the hands of a third party. This conflict of interest means we have to seriously restructure our healthcare system; be it socialized or something else. The examples in Sicko of government-run healthcare in other countries to me did not necessarily promote a socialized healthcare system in America but instead pointed out there is no reasonable justification for continuing with a corrupt and insufficient institution when viable alternatives already exist. The lingering stigma created by 20th century propaganda is not an acceptable excuse to ignore the issue and maintain the status quo. Love or hate Michael Moore, agree or disagree with socialized healthcare, the problem transcends politics and our personal fondness or distaste for Moore’s work.

Tigger Nitties writes:

"My point was that socialized medicine won't necessarily fix their incompetence. Health care, imo, should be a resource, not a business. Kind of like air, water, radio waves, etc. Health care employees should make money, obviously, but spending should be re-routed to give more care to people who can't pay for themselves. Insurance companies are too powerful as well."

So it turns out that we ARE singing from the same hymnsheet! That's what I want for America - and that's what Michael Moore wants too!

Here's a story:

I have a 28 year old son who can't afford to live on his own due to health care costs. If you think it's difficult getting physical care with substandard or no health insurance, just get involved in the mental health care arena.

He was diagnosed in his early 20's with a schizophrenic-like disorder and requires anti-psychotic meds to keep him moderately functional. Those meds alone cost him $300 a month. Fortunately, the state we live offers a program for 'uninsurables' for which he only pays $250 with a $2000 deductible.

Last year's reaction to his meds landed him in the ICU and he will continue to pay off his share of the costs for that through 2010. No dental coverage - that's out of pocket; no vision coverage - that's out of pocket. Don't even think about therapy which he needs in conjuction with his meds as well as his every-other-monthly visit to his psychiatrist for med management ($75 co-pay).

And he's one of the lucky ones.

The Chicago Reader's Jonathan Rosenbaum made a key point: Unfortunately, the biggest reason that someone like Moore is so important is that the news itself is so hideously derelict in its job.

Moore is acutely aware of this, and operates as a skilled PR tactician who seeks to lure the spotlight into places where it actually belongs.

The media's treatment of someone like Moore is generally to hang a big condescending sign around his neck saying "politically biased", which they rarely do with an industry representative or government official - these are always treated as
"respectable" sources, and rarely challenged, or even asked to account for their statements.

Why haven't these HMO case studies been given the "scandalous" headlines instead of Paris Hilton and her courtroom antics? Basically Moore is doing the newspeople's job for them. If they had been on this, things would never have reached this stage.

We act "shocked" to hear such stories. The fact is, there are those who have been sounding the alarm for a long time now, but such voices are always pushed to the margins of our public discourse.

If we find ourselves surprised by a film like this, one that briefly manages to break into the center of our attention, then perhaps we should take a hint and seek out those sources that have been covering issues like this consistently and substantively all along, and see what else they have to say.

(Here's a question: How many of our other vital necessities are being managed like these HMOs?)

The center of attention is wherever we choose to make it. God forbid, is it possible that we might even take some of those hours away from the TV and devote them to a little civic participation? The country belongs to us; if we neglect it, how much can we complain when someone else steps into the vacuum to make a fast buck?

We all make time to cultivate our personal relationships. If we expect our society to be accountable to our needs, we have to assume a similar role in relation to it. The way it is functioning now reflects the balance of who is attending to this role and who, for whatever reason, is neglecting it.

***Do we consider health care a basic human right? America doesn't seem ready to acknowledge that the concept of a decent civil society in the 21st century DOES include health care as a basic right.***

Bullshit. I call bullshit. Human right my ass.

A right is not something that someone else has to provide for you, like health care, food, education, money, etc. A right is something you can do all day or all night that doesn't put on a restriction on anyone else except to get the hell out of your way. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, speech, press, etc. Not any of that other shit.

I want to make it clear that I'm not arguing for or against socialized medicine, just that it's a fallacy to call it a right.

"A right is something you can do all day or all night that doesn't put a restriction on anyone else except to get the hell out of your way. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, speech, press, etc. Not any of that other shit"

I beg your pardon? Do you recall that in order to get these rights, many people fought and died? I suppose that wasn't a restriction on them? Health care ISN'T a right in our country, but most logical people believe that it SHOULD be. Our country can afford to provide a universal health care system for all of its citizens with the taxes they pay. How can we call ourselves truly civilized if someone is denied the treatment they need (AND IS AVAILABLE) because of their financial limitations? Aren't they citizens in this country, too?

Okay, is my post hard to understand or did you just fail to read it? (Oscar's post especially is a complete no lo contedere.) All I'm arguing is semantics here. Not whether universal health care is a good idea or not. Maybe it's a great idea. Maybe it's a fantastic idea.

But what it isn't is something you have a right to. No one owes you a damn thing, least of all health care. Rights don't put restrictions on other people, and universal health care would in fact put restrictions on other people -- someone would have to provide health care for you. That's not a right, that's a service. Just like public education, roads, police, and all that other good shit people like to get from the government.

This doesn't really have anything to do with the movie or the issues it describes, it just pisses me off when say that not having health care is a violation of their rights. That's a lie and it's overselling the argument. (BTW: A right is only "whatever we decide it is" in the sense that toothpaste is whatever we decide it is. I mean, if we all decided rubber cement was toothpaste, by god, that's what it would be. But it doesn't match the current definition.)

As for the offer at hand, I think more resistance from the public to universal health care is not so much fear of socialism as much as people aren't willing to accept the tax hike. In the end of course, they will naturally get from the government what they paid for.

Fuck, that's not the right Latin phrase there. Way to look smart, Kenny.

Moore doesn't deserve the same 'pass' that a, say, Oliver Stone might get for making an entertaining fiction such as the movie JFK. He always gets good reviews from critics because (besides the similar political viewpoint) his movies are indeed entertaining. But Woody Allen's 'Zelig' or 'Take the Money and Run' are at least as entertaining, but would never be considered for a "Best Documentary" Oscar. Should the movie Armageddon be considered a documentary? After all, the threat of impact by a comet or meteor is very real and it probably had more than a little to do with getting a little extra funding to that slice of NASA's pie. "But it's not the same thing at all!" you argue. Just because the people in 'Sicko' are using their real names, doesn't mean they aren't acting. And just because the Hospitals and Homes are shot "on location" doesn't mean they aren't sets. Apparently, a movie which claimed that the war in Iraq was planned and funded by an Alien Menace and used logical fallacies, nice cinematography, and a stirring score would be a great documentary, as long as it got us out of that war. The criteria used to judge a documentary are, of course, highly subjective. But if we base this judgement purely on entertainment value or as a means to an end, then why separate them from any other movie? I personally expect more, and honestly find the praise of such Jerry Springer yellow journalism disturbing.

I'm saying that Moore uses half-truths and illusions to demonstrate a reality which would be better served by simply stating the facts. There are plenty of examples of good documentaries around (even for television. NOVA has been doing it for decades.) to demonstrate that stating the facts doesn't have to be overly embellished to get the point across. Shuttling people across to Cuba to have them treated there demonstrates just what exactly? It is nothing more than a publicity stunt, by Moore AND Castro. Sicko is like the science fiction example in that they are both fiction. The world Moore shows through his lens is not the world we live in. I certainly have issues with the US Healthcare system. But I would like them solved in the real world. Not in the fantasy land that he creates.

I'm sure you don't have the time and resources to give an in-depth, multipage assessment of every documentary you watch. But luckily, Kurt Loder has done one on this movie for us.

Sorry...meant to paste this on the last post http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1563758/story.jhtml

I appreciate the distinction between arguing the meaning of "right" and arguing for a particular policy.

Nevertheless, one pointedly has to do with the other. It's misleading to consider the definition of a right to be just a matter of "semantics". Laws are based on "semantics".

Such "semantics" inform our ability to have a conversation at all.

One thing about the notion of a "right" - once a particular right has been accepted, it seeps into one's physiology, and its denial can provoke a visceral response that you don't see when an issue is framed in less absolute terms.

I think one problem we've had in discussing quality of life issues is that our notion of rights is largely framed in negative terms - areas where a government will not interfere.

Sometimes the government is so hands-off in such matters that it fails to interfere even when some other party is obstructing a right.

For example, it seems that when you enter your workplace you check your passport at the door and enter another country. An employer is often free to decide what kind of speech is valid or not. What good is freedom of speech if you cannot use it in the relationships that put food on your table? I think there are lots of passive pressures like this that restrict people's ability to fully use their established rights, let alone call for more rights. One reason we have trouble dealing with this is that our thinking is couched in negatives - the government will NOT interfere with our speech, as opposed to saying the government WILL actively protect our speech from anyone seeking to silence it.

It seems difficult to think of our government as an instrument to be wielded by us, and to measure its performance in terms of the existing results in our lives, rather than some vague notion of original intentions. It seems to me the difference between living in the past or present. Even original intentions can be reevaluated in light of actual outcomes. We are not here to serve our founding fathers - it's the other way around.

(Another example - the notion of equality of opportunity, rather than equality of result. How do you assess the existence of equality without considering results? The cumulative effect is to discourage us from evaluating the performance of our society. Nobody who actually deals with results thinks like this)

If it's so difficult for us to assess the results with respect to an established negative right, like free speech, then how much harder to articulate any sense of entitlement to a positive right - the RIGHT to certain services like healthcare?

(I can hear the argument coming - if you don't like this boat/job/country, you're free to jump overboard and try to swim to another one)

So I agree emphatically with MaryAnn, that a right is whatever we decide it is, and I think that rights can be just as easily positive as negative, and that healthcare constitutes a positive right, and that it is emphatically a "right" in any context that is concerned with the material reality of a society, rather than its existence on a piece of paper.

Even if everyone were to agree the healthcare was a "right", there would still be the matter of degree. The most liberal would say that everyone should have the same care, and the most conservative would say that only the most basic care should be paid for with taxes. So is the "right" to basic healthcare, or full coverage? This difference is not a small one. The more that healthcare is taken out of the private sector and put into the public, the more my right not to have to pay bills for people who choose to smoke or never exercise is infringed upon.

You didn't answer the question. What did it demonstrate? You yourself describe it as an attack on the administration, nothing to do with the healthcare system. Suspected terrorists have what to do with the system? It is typical of Moore (and those that would sway by emotion, rather than reason) to give anecdotes as evidence. But in this case, the anecdote doesn't even have anything to do with the case in question. Why did Cuba treat the workers? Because of their fabulous system? If so, then let's all start rowing over! No, it was simply a publicity stunt. The answer to number 2 is a two parter. Number one, they simply rob peter to pay paul. They give up other things to have it. Number two, they accept a poor definition of "universal care".

[quote]In what way would universal health care put "restrictions" on anyone in any way that's different from the "restrictions" that universal education does?[/quote]

As I thought I made clear, I don't consider education a right either. I found this great quote since I posted last: "There is only one human right, the right to do as you damn well please." The only restriction put on other people by you exercising your rights is that they not stop you from doing it, and vice versa. Universal health care may be a great idea -- hell, the more I hear about it, the more I like it. But it's not something that people are owed just for existing.

Health care is not a right because it requires someone to give it to you. Governments are there to protect your rights, but when the government is not around, that does not mean your rights disappear. If there's two of you on the planet and the other guy is a doctor, that person is essentially your slave forever. You DO NOT have a right to other people's work or other people's shit.

At the same time, I think Vergil's a jerk for saying he has a "right" to not pay for universal health care system. Unless he wants to abolish that universal education for people too stupid to teach their own kids.

I'm not dancing around any issues. They are just not relevant to my point. You are arguing with several people at once. I never said that some governmental regulation wasn't a good thing. Despite what you think, I'm sure we have plenty of common ground. We just disagree on the degree of regulation and socialization. You say we pay more for a "less satisfactory result." Satisfactory according to whom? The WHO? Why must we use the WHO's criteria? Another factiod Moore apparently omits (no, I haven't seen the movie) is the according to the WHO the United States ranks first in "Patient Satisfaction". So, on average, Americans are happier with their healthcare than the French are with Frances.

Again I'll ask, what does Cuba treating a few Americans have to do with either system? It's an anecdote. A cute story. Wonderful for the individuals involved, but taken in context, demonstrates absolutely nothing about the workings of healthcare in either country.

I have nothing against the US Postal system. I'm not saying Kurt is right or wrong. My point in showing his article is that he looks beyond what people take at face value because Michael Moore says so...which was the reason for my post in the first place. If we don't hold documentaries to some bit of reason or reality, then it's only a short step to awarding the next Academy Award to Loosechange.

Regarding the nanny doing laundry in France. I think it is true, because we have it in Holland.

During the first two or three weeks, someone will come daily (between 4 - 8 hours) to your house to help the parents out. The parents can ask this person for practical advice regarding their baby (feeding, sleeping patterns, etc.). This person is also doing chores in the house (cooking, cleaning, hoovering, laundrying, ironing, etc.). This help is paid for by the universal health system.

Regarding the americans in paris speaking about the number of holidays (minimum 25 a year), unlimited sick-days, etc. It is all true.

@Vergil:

no, I haven't seen the movie

Hmm.

I'm not saying Kurt is right or wrong.

Prudent, since you aren't in a position to.

Satisfactory according to whom?

Oh, I don't know ... how about according to people who think that it's better for babies to be alive rather than dead? Or better for people to live a longer, healthier life?

Or, since you brought up WHO, we can ask them. They put the United States 37th in the world, in spite of spending more per capita than anyone else -- a lot more (twice as much per capita as #1-ranked France, for example).

according to the WHO the United States ranks first in "Patient Satisfaction". So, on average, Americans are happier with their healthcare than the French are with Frances.

Can you point to more information on this?

Moore, on the other hand, talked to several Americans who were much happier with the French healthcare system than the American one.

Okay, I'll try one last time...
It's not the statements Moore makes that I dispute. I'm not saying that the anecdotes are made up. It is the way that he presents them. It's like the old headline "Senator denies rape charge!" It's all true, yet very misleading. I do accept the WHO's findings. I accept that by certain criteria (of the WHO) we rank 37th, and by other criteria (of the WHO) we rank 1st. The WHO overall ranking skews toward systems which are more socialistic in nature. The "best" healthcare is very subjective. Some people would rather have free antibiotics and wait two years (or never) for a kidney transplant, while others would rather have to pay mucho deniro per month but have an MRI on demand. I do not personally believe that the U.S. system is the best. I might rank it 37th overall myself. My whole point is that Moore seems to rank it just below Theodoric of York, Medieval Barber. Again, I haven't seen the movie, so tell me if I'm wrong (but please tell me why...not just a "hmmm")

Mark, WHO Responsiveness http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper23.pdf
"Responsiveness: The nations with the most responsive health systems are the United States, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Canada, Norway, Netherlands and Sweden." from here http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-44.html

Moore seems to rank it just below Theodoric of York, Medieval Barber. Again, I haven't seen the movie, so tell me if I'm wrong

I'd say you were wrong. Moore's position (and, just to be clear: I have seen the movie) seemed to be, instead, that, given how much money we spend on healthcare, and given how Ameica prides itself in leaning the world as an industrialized democracy, and given that we have so much wealth per capita, the state of American healthcare is apalling and inhuman. We're not like Chad or Somalia, where we couldn't have decent public health if we wanted to. There's no reason in the world for us not to provide free, universal healthcare -- no fees, no copays, no questions asked. That's the shame, and that's what Moore is asking us: why do we accept this?

Mark, fine if that is how you saw it. Others saw it otherwise. But I HAVE seen other Moore movies and he is NEVER objective and he DOES use sensationalized and irrational tactics to prove his point. Some think this is okay as long as the issue is addressed. I don't. An even smaller minority don't believe he does this at all. With these people I will simply agree to disagree and would suggest a class in critical thinking, but if life itself doesn't teach them how to tell the difference then I suppose a class won't either.

MaryAnne, yes documentaries are supposed to frame the facts. Not distort the facts as Moore does. I want to poor to be taken care of as much as Moore. But I want the right answers. Not answered based upon a false reality. The fact is that you are going to find stories like those in the movie in ANY country in the world. Yes we can do much better. But the fact that Cuba is further down on a list which is skewed toward socialist countries than the evil (as portrayed by Moore) US system tells me that the only reason for him to include Cuba in the movie is for emotional impact.

Mark, you can't say "given how much money we spend on healthcare" and "given that we have so much wealth per capita" in referencing the WHO's list because they ARE given. They are incorporated into the ranking. If the US healthcare system were indeed "inhumane" and "appalling" then we should be near the bottom of the list.

Mark, you can't say ... in referencing the WHO's list ...

Debateable, but since I wasn't saying those things in reference to the WHO ranking, irrelevant. I was, when I said those things, given my interpretation of Moore's position.

Maybe I missed something in the WHO documents ... how is per capita spending and wealth factored into the overall rankings?

I want to poor to be taken care of as much as Moore

Sicko isn't about the poor. It's about the middle classes with health insurance and how the for-profit US system can and does actively work against their interests.

The WHO ranking is part of Moore's position.

If you can't find it in the documents, maybe you aren't looking. But why should you? Moore has done all your research for you.
From the WHO:
"In designing the framework for health system performance, WHO broke new methodological ground, employing a technique not previously used for health systems. It compares each country’s system to what the experts estimate to be the upper limit of what can be done with the level of resources available in that country.
I'll let you find the rest for yourself.

Fine, I want the "not rich" to be taken care of as much as Moore. No difference to the point.

What the language says is that the ranking criteria itself compensates for the disparity in how much is spent. For example: if two countries have a population with similar average health (itself a subjective judgement), say a ranking of 10 and 11, but country A spends twice on healthcare as country B, then country A's ranking goes down in an indirect ratio of that relative amount. Suddenly country A is ranked 20th. Now according to most people that would seem fair. But then to come back and say "we should be #1 because we spend the most" is illogical. Country A has been dropped 10 spots exactly because it spends more. Not because the citizens are less healthy. The US probably IS close to number one if you go by absolute health of it's citizens. The main problem isn't the health of the citizens but the cost, which is almost assuredly due to absurd administrative costs inherent in the private healthcare system. Since the US spends WAY more than any other country, and since spending itself lowers your ranking, then of course the US is further down on the list than it should be.

These are things more germane to the discussion as to what the problems are and what should be done. But no, Moore is too busy telling individual stories from hand picked situations, and making absurd requests from Guantanamo personel to bother with details. I submit that the head-in-the-sand joe shmoe who has been woefully ignorant of the problems facing this country's healthcare system is no more dangerous than the reactionary bleeding hearts that accept Moore's black and white simplistic views without bothering to look into the details of a complex reality.

Infant mortality is a misleading number - the U.S. reports certain infant deaths that many other countries do not. Several nations (including, for example, France, Switzerland and Italy) don't consider an infant below a certain birth weight who dies to be a reportable infant death. The U.S., on the other hand, does. Most former "iron curtain" countries don't consider an infant born before 28 weeks, or below a certain weight who dies within 7 days to be a reportable infant death. The U.S. does. Once you account for differences in reporting methodology, the U.S. is equal to, or better than most western industrialized nations when it comes to infant mortality.

Oddly, this affects life expectancy. For most of the 20th century, life expectancy at age 45 did not change much. Life expectancy at birth, on the other hand, radically shifted - because infant mortality everywhere was drastically reduced. By reporting a higher infant mortality rate, the U.S. reduces its life expectancy at birth (and the impact is reasonably significant, and infant who is reported dead as an infant loses 70+ years of expected life, and has a proportionately higher impact on the tables than a person who lives to 45 and then dies).

Accounting for reporting differences doesn't move the U.S. to the top of the list in either category, but it does have an impact that is significant, and makes the U.S. (correctly) stack up better next to other western nations.

First, the Cuba example is the most rediculous I've ever seen. If you give up basically everything you own, heck yeah the country better provide you with health care. Me? I like not having to give everything to the government.

Second, If health care becomes totally free to everyone, it becomes like any other public good. It will become abused because hey it's free. Overcrowding. Lower quality of care.

Another thing is that the European countries are nowhere near the size of the United States. Why I'll agree the US Postal System is great, you can't tell me the public school system is. That is where corporations step in because they can do things better, however, here I agree that capitalism needs help. I agree there needs to be improvements in the system but to look to socialized health care for the solution may not be the best.

Some solutions? Companies provide mandatory health coverage to their workers. That way the companies which enjoy paying low wages to their undocumented workers, the 12 million of which are included in the "50 million uninsured Americans" have to bear more realistic burdens.

The main reason for the expensive health care is malpractice insurance. We live in a sue happy society which means that malpractice insurance on doctors is through the roof. How this would best be fixed I'm not really sure? Maybe having a better method to weed out bad doctors? Maybe a better method to throw out frivolous law suits?

Moore ignores the fact that the US is one of (if not the) the most obese countries in the world. Maybe people in the United States should mix in a salad to cut down on health care costs.

@Bryan:

Companies provide mandatory health coverage to their workers.

Why should access to health care have anything at all to do with your employer -- or even if you have an employer? Why is this a better solution than funding identical, universal coverage through taxes?

Exactly MaryAnne...by what measure? That's what I've been saying. Now I've heard you ask the question, but does Moore ever ask this question? No. He never puts things into context. He is a slick used car salesman that tells you what he thinks will get you to buy what he is selling, instead of giving you the real facts and letting you decide what is best for your situation.

Sometimes corporations doi