Michael Moore's "Sicko"

[andyandy]

Just out of curiosity... is there a reason this persion did not have health insurance? After all, I'd suspect that someone who was a business owner wouldn't exactly be classified as a member of the "working poor". Was her business doing that poorly, or did she just decide to gamble, thinking "I'm healthy so I can spend the money on fun stuff"?

i don't know how health insurance in the US works - what are typical premiums? Surely the problem with health insurance (like all other types) is that they don't really want to pay you - often do their best to find loopholes as to why they don't need to pay, insert conditons into their small print to lessen their liabilities and do their best only to sign up people who will make rather than cost money.....

...and that approach is galling enough when one's dealing with car or home insurance, but verging on the inhumane when dealing with people's health and lives. That's not to say health insurance can't play a part in an integrated two tier system - but that it requires a universal access safety net to catch all the fallers.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

There are two arguments here:

1: Health care service is screwed up and needs to be addressed.
2: Michael Moore believes the world owes people a living.

 

[andyandy]

There are two arguments here:

1: Health care service is screwed up and needs to be addressed.
2: Michael Moore believes the world owes people a living.

Michael Moore is really as much an irrelevance to questions of universal health care provision as Al Gore is to questions of global warming.....i find it hard to believe that he'll raise any significant arguments that haven't been around for the best part of 60 years and that haven't been accepted in just about every other western nation....

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Michael Moore is really as much an irrelevance to questions of universal health care provision as Al Gore is to questions of global warming.....i find it hard to believe that he'll raise any significant arguments that haven't been around for the best part of 60 years and that haven't been accepted in just about every other western nation....

uh-huh.

The man ticks me off so much as he believes he is the champion of the little people. Whenever he drops down from his "ho ho America is so funny" into his "In the small town of -----, Mrs ----- took her son to school" I wish to chuck a brick through the screen.

Guess what Michael, the world is screwed up, but it doesn't owe you a living.

 

[Random]

Actually, there is incentive to pay your claims... its called a legal contract. If the health insurance says "you will pay X if someone gets disease Y", then legally the insurance company HAS to make the payment.

Although I do have to wonder... there may be many cases where insurance companies attempt to avoid claims, just how often do those cases actually occur? If the companies pay out 99% of all claims as expected then the remaining 1% who do run into insurance problems are in a minority.

While I do not have any official statistics on denials in front of me, in the movie, one of the insurance company employees interviewed said that she was told to aim for a 10% denial rate. At the end of the year, whoever had denied the most claims got a cash bonus.

Actually, the government health care system is often the one that's responsible to no one, since government bureaucracy's are often very difficult to change (since managers cannot necessarily get any incentive for improvements).

Yes and no. I work for a government bureaucracy, and it is very hard for us to change because we are really just there to perform the duties assigned to us by the legislature. Our managers simply do not have the authority to enact sweeping changes to our mandate. If the legislature decides to change us however, things happen fairly quickly. That's why whenever a caller is in a situation where they have a legitimate problem and I know we will not be able to help them, I advise them to contact their state legislator. If they give me their address, I will even let them know who their legislator is, and how to contact them.

You're right, they will concentrate on the more 'popular' diseases. But isn't that (by definition) going to end up providing the greatest health benefit to society in general? Should a disease that affects 0.01% of the population get as much attention as a disease that affects 10% of the population?

Actually it dictates that they will spend money going after the most profitable diseases. A fortune was spent on advertising for Viagra, how many people would have died without it?

Ok, problems with your 'system'...
- It depends on the government being able to identify diseases that are eligable for a prize. Simply put, I don't have that much faith in government. It seems like half the time they are catering to special interest groups, the other half of the time the bureaucracy has no incenitive to make the 'best' decision.
- Who decides that a medication is eligible for a prize? If it cures 90% of the people, is it worthy? What if it leads to a 90% improvement in all cases, but no complete cures? Trying to determine what's elidgable for the prize could be a nightmare
- Drug companies (when they develop and sell drugs) base their prices on the fact that they will be selling medication in other countries as well. Are you going to make the prize high enough to compensate companies for revenue they would have earned from foreign sources? If so, you're basically subsidizing foreign health care.
- What happens if a company develops a medication for which there is no prize available? Are you going to say 'no patent protection'? If so, what incentive to companies have to create lifesaving cures that aren't covered by a prize?
- Are you going to FORCE a company to accept a prize? What if you offer a prize of $X to develop some medication, but the company says "We can develop a medication, but it will cost more than that. But we will go ahead anyways, not claim the prize, but try to sell the drugs on the open market"?
- if the prize isn't high enough to be an incentive for companies to produce a drug, who takes the blame for the potential deaths due to a lack of the medication? Drugs can be expensive to produce, and trying to assign a dollar value to their development costs almost seems like fortune telling



The 'patent method' has produced hundreds of cures for hundreds of diseases. Its not perfect, but for all its faults, the end result is a system that has improved the quality of life for millions of patients.

OK, answers in order or your asking:

-Contact your Congressman. If you feel that a disease should be covered by a prize bill, contact your Congressman and let him know. If your Congressman blows you off, vote for someone else next election. That is what participatory democracy is all about.
-90% seems like a pretty good number to me, but the specific details can be hashed out by Congress.
-Drug companies can still make and sell drugs, nobody is stopping them. If they want to produce any drug developed by the prize system, nothing is stopping them, and they get to produce the drug without having to worry about paying for the patent or for development costs. If they want to sell the drug overseas, more power to them.
-If a company does not want to accept the prize and feels they could make more money with the patent system, fine. The purpose of the prize bill is to make it financially viable for companies to do nothing but research and develop new drugs that might not be financially viable to research otherwise. Since the government would be paying for a formula, not the research that went into the formula, this would lead to efficient research labs that still get the job done, the epitome of capitalism. If someone still wants to work outside the prize system, they can.
-If the prize is not high enough to attract interested researchers, and drug companies don't feel they could make a profit off of it through the patent system, the drug would most likely not be produced. How this differs from what we have now escapes me. If the prize is not high enough, Congress might raise the prize if they wish.

 

[Checkmite]

It seems to me Michael Moore wants to feel repressed. Apparently, he can't stand the fact that he released all his previous material without any governmental restrictions or attempted governmental restrictions (which contradicts, I'm guessing, his current worldview), so he takes a legitimate concern like bad health care, emotionally charges it by using 9/11 rescuers as his MacGuffin, and goes to Cuba because...well, just because it's illegal. Too sensationalist for my taste.

 

[D'rok]

Just out of curiosity... is there a reason this persion did not have health insurance? After all, I'd suspect that someone who was a business owner wouldn't exactly be classified as a member of the "working poor". Was her business doing that poorly, or did she just decide to gamble, thinking "I'm healthy so I can spend the money on fun stuff"?

Good question. I don't really know. It was a very small salon...more of a barber shop for women than a true salon. Those sorts of businesses are client based. Their only value on paper is the furniture and the building (if owned by the business). It's possible that she was actually relatively poor, but I am only speculating.

 

[D'rok]

There are two arguments here:

1: Health care service is screwed up and needs to be addressed.
2: Michael Moore believes the world owes people a living.

1: That's the main argument of the film, questionable stunts and all.
2: Where did you get that from?

 

[D'rok]

It seems to me Michael Moore wants to feel repressed. Apparently, he can't stand the fact that he released all his previous material without any governmental restrictions or attempted governmental restrictions (which contradicts, I'm guessing, his current worldview), so he takes a legitimate concern like bad health care, emotionally charges it by using 9/11 rescuers as his MacGuffin, and goes to Cuba because...well, just because it's illegal. Too sensationalist for my taste.

That Cuba stunt was well over the top and in bad taste. It was a small part of the movie though. Personally, I think it was worth seeing simply to hear the people he interviewed talk about their experiences. Moore is not in this movie as much as his previous films.

About the Cuba thing: He really did break American laws by going there. He's probably right to be nervous about it. Will there really be no consequences? If so, that is telling commentary on those particular laws.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

2: Where did you get that from?

Moore's entire insufferable attitute is one of 'People are owed a living'. There is simply a poverty of ambition in every single one of Moore's films, regardless of how honourable his aims are. The final consensus is always 'Hey! You government are screwing us! We deserve better! You need to be the ones to sort out our problems. You are the means to an end.'

 

[D'rok]

Moore's entire insufferable attitute is one of 'People are owed a living'. There is simply a poverty of ambition in every single one of Moore's films, regardless of how honourable his aims are. The final consensus is always 'Hey! You government are screwing us! We deserve better! You need to be the ones to sort out our problems. You are the means to an end.'

Quite frankly, I think Moore's films are filled with ambition - his own. He is an opportunist and a populist and has carved himself out a lucrative career using these traits. I also think you are way overreacting. Pointing out serious social problems in your civil society - even in the manner that Moore does - is not the same thing as abandoning all personal responsibility.

But then again, I live in a country where there is still some lingering belief that governments are capable of serving citizens. If the government doesn't do anything for you, it's not much of a social contract and you've sold your liberty rather cheaply.

 

[Upchurch]

But then again, I live in a country where there is still some lingering belief that governments are capable of serving citizens. If the government doesn't do anything for you, it's not much of a social contract and you've sold your liberty rather cheaply.

Be sure to let the police, firemen, and nearest military person you see know that you think they are incapable of serving the public. I'm sure they will be glad to know they are wasting their time.

 

[D'rok]

Be sure to let the police, firemen, and nearest military person you see know that you think they are incapable of serving the public. I'm sure they will be glad to know they are wasting their time.

Um...I think you need to reread my post with your comprehension sensors switched on. I am arguing that governments are capable of serving the public, and in fact do serve the public and that mine does. Even more, I am saying that they should serve the public because that is the nature of the social contract. I am arguing against UW's stance that Moore is wrong to suggest that his government should provide services, in that UW seems to think that Moore's polemics imply complete subservience to a nanny state.

 

[Upchurch]

Um...I think you need to reread my post with your comprehension sensors switched on.

My apologies. I misread your tone as sarcasm and didn't read your location at all.





Us damn ego-centric US'ians.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Quite frankly, I think Moore's films are filled with ambition - his own. He is an opportunist and a populist and has carved himself out a lucrative career using these traits. I also think you are way overreacting. Pointing out serious social problems in your civil society - even in the manner that Moore does - is not the same thing as abandoning all personal responsibility.

But then again, I live in a country where there is still some lingering belief that governments are capable of serving citizens. If the government doesn't do anything for you, it's not much of a social contract and you've sold your liberty rather cheaply.

The problem is that he always has a signifigant aura of blame. The social problems of each film always, without question, have to be pinned on someone.

I enjoyed BFC, showing the mania that existed in America, and the mundane lives of the youth, until he went did that ridiculous montage with the Armstrong song, which served absolutely no purpose apart from going 'Boo! Hiss! Foriegn policy'. Ending with 'Bin Laden uses his expert CIA training to kill 3000 people' was simply thick. No, Bin Laden killed 3000 people, not the CIA. Then trying to blame Kosovo on the shootings, then the missile factory (Which transported the weapons at night btw) was just asinine, and hijacking the shooting to blame the US government, not the US society.
Then it ended with Heston's home and he showed him the picture of the girl. I mean, Heston didn't kill the girl. He was simply an insensitive twat, who, for all we know, actually didn't know that the girl was shot in that town, and felt terrible after the fact. It was simply a 'Ha! Take that you rich sucker!'. And Heston has guns in his home? So what? As much as I dont wish to sympathise with Heston, he was an old and sick man, and he invited Moore into his home, and Moore just treated him like ◊◊◊◊.

F9/11... well, again, he blames the US for killing this woman's son. And Moore simply, clearly abuses her grief for his own political gains. Why? Because I can assure you that for every woman who weeps at the loss of her son in Iraq, and blames the government, there is another proud mother whos child died, who champions the war and supports Bush. If Todd Beamer's father wasn't the raging supporter of the war he was, do you think Moore would abuse Beamer's hypothetical anti-war stance? You know he would. But because Mr Beamer is a republican supporter, Moore wouldn't touch him with a bargepole.

Problem is D'rok, that Moore always has the government, foriegn policy or a beverly hills pad to blame, and ends with the little people always being oppressed by the former. I mean, how patronising is that? What about the duties and responsibilities in our society? Why should the government do all the work for us?

That, is why I say his films represent a poverty of ambition.

They aren't documentaries, they are propaganda, plain and simple. It's like a 30Million dollar 'Loose Change' film.

 

[D'rok]

The problem is that he always has a signifigant aura of blame. The social problems of each film always, without question, have to be pinned on someone.

I enjoyed BFC, showing the mania that existed in America, and the mundane lives of the youth, until he went did that ridiculous montage with the Armstrong song, which served absolutely no purpose apart from going 'Boo! Hiss! Foriegn policy'. Ending with 'Bin Laden uses his expert CIA training to kill 3000 people' was simply thick. No, Bin Laden killed 3000 people, not the CIA. Then trying to blame Kosovo on the shootings, then the missile factory (Which transported the weapons at night btw) was just asinine, and hijacking the shooting to blame the US government, not the US society.
Then it ended with Heston's home and he showed him the picture of the girl. I mean, Heston didn't kill the girl. He was simply an insensitive twat, who, for all we know, actually didn't know that the girl was shot in that town, and felt terrible after the fact. It was simply a 'Ha! Take that you rich sucker!'. And Heston has guns in his home? So what? As much as I dont wish to sympathise with Heston, he was an old and sick man, and he invited Moore into his home, and Moore just treated him like ◊◊◊◊.

F9/11... well, again, he blames the US for killing this woman's son. And Moore simply, clearly abuses her grief for his own political gains. Why? Because I can assure you that for every woman who weeps at the loss of her son in Iraq, and blames the government, there is another proud mother whos child died, who champions the war and supports Bush. If Todd Beamer's father wasn't the raging supporter of the war he was, do you think Moore would abuse Beamer's hypothetical anti-war stance? You know he would. But because Mr Beamer is a republican supporter, Moore wouldn't touch him with a bargepole.

Problem is D'rok, that Moore always has the government, foriegn policy or a beverly hills pad to blame, and ends with the little people always being oppressed by the former. I mean, how patronising is that? What about the duties and responsibilities in our society? Why should the government do all the work for us?

That, is why I say his films represent a poverty of ambition.

They aren't documentaries, they are propaganda, plain and simple. It's like a 30Million dollar 'Loose Change' film.

I completely agree with you about Moore's methods and stunts. His tactics leave a really bad taste in my mouth. But I still don't see how you're supporting this statement:

"Michael Moore believes the world owes people a living."

Putting aside his obvious polemicism (is that a word?) for personal political and financial gain and taking his message at face value, I think he is saying that governments have specific and compulsory duties to justly serve their citizens. Abrogation of these duties is tantamount to a destruction of the social contract. This is a valid message IMO, but I think Moore's dishonest tactics obscure it.

 

[Unabogie]

They aren't documentaries, they are propaganda, plain and simple. It's like a 30Million dollar 'Loose Change' film.

What documentary doesn't present a point of view? I could just as easily ask why Ken Burns didn't fill his series with people who think "baseball is boring", and it would be just as relevant as your complaint that Moore doesn't include enough Republicans.

I suspect you just disagree with Moore on the issues, but since he's so successful and his movies are so popular, the easiest route is to try and discredit him personally.

 

[Lonewulf]

What documentary doesn't present a point of view? I could just as easily ask why Ken Burns didn't fill his series with people who think "baseball is boring", and it would be just as relevant as your complaint that Moore doesn't include enough Republicans.

Ken Burns made a documentary made by distorting and leaving out facts, if not outright lying?

Huh. I'll avoid his docs, then.

 

[Unabogie]

Ken Burns made a documentary made by distorting and leaving out facts, if not outright lying?

Huh. I'll avoid his docs, then.

Yes. Burns included no people who think sports are unimportant and detrimental to society. He did not discuss steroids. He did not include the European POV that soccer is the best sport. He only allowed people who agreed with him that baseball is a great game to appear.

Propaganda at its worst.

 

[Ranillon]

Moore's entire insufferable attitute is one of 'People are owed a living'.

What exactly do you mean?

If you mean "people should have everything they want just handed to them without effort" then I agree that is a bad thing, but they are extremely few people who would actually fit such criteria -- the idea that there are legions of lazy do-nothings on the federal dole is a myth.

But, if by "owed a living" you mean that that society doesn't owe it to people to even make sure they can have a job or have their basic needs met then I can't agree. After all, what is the purpose of civilization if not to give its members some basic level of comfort and ability for success? While no one should be immune to the cost of failure, there should be a minimal level of subsistance that a society will not allow its members to drop below. That requires therefore that to some level people are "owed a living". We just have to make sure things don't get out of hand.

It's one thing to tell people they have to work harder to have that new car or ipod, quite another to say they must work harder (in the vast majority of cases they will already be working hard or else have a good reason -- such as a serious medical condition -- they are not) to not starve or live on the street.

There is simply a poverty of ambition in every single one of Moore's films, regardless of how honourable his aims are.

So, are you arguing that the only people who fail are those without sufficient ambition? Isn't that something of a self-fulfilling belief -- e.g. if someone fails then by definition they didn't work hard enough and if they do succeed then by definition they did? That is, isn't that just Post Hoc rationalization of a particular ideological viewpoint?

Or, are you saying that Moore just needs to be personally more ambitious in his movies?

The final consensus is always 'Hey! You government are screwing us! We deserve better! You need to be the ones to sort out our problems. You are the means to an end.'

Actually, Moore's films usually present -- for lack of the better term -- the "capitalist elite" as the bad guys, not per se the government. The government is at worst just a willing conspirator or, perhaps more accurately in his view, is being badly manipulatied by said "elites".