• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Michael Moore's "Sicko"

Random

Illuminator
Joined
Jul 24, 2001
Messages
4,192
I know this is a movie, but it seemed far more suited to the politics forum than the entertainment forum, as I am certain it will turn into a political debate anyway.

OK, went out and saw Sicko with my parents last night. Sold out showing and I unfortunately ended up seated in front of a person who was rather... vocal about his opinions, but I still think it was worth my time.

Not sure about the cold hard facts (that will have to go through the usual fact-checking process for such things), but the movie at times had me seriously wondering if it was ethical to murder health insurance company executives. The stories about people dealing with health insurance ranged from comical (a woman's claim is denied because deep in her medical past she once had a yeast infection) to heartbreaking (little girl dies because the emergency room she is sent to is not in the insurance company's care network), and it would be impossible to defend the American health care system based on what is seen in this film.

A large portion of the film is taken up with his discussion of health insurance in other countries (Canada, France, the UK, and of course, Cuba). A former member of the UK parliment makes for a very compeling speaker as he comes out and tells us about the founding of the national health care system there after world war two. "If we could pull together as a country and kill Germans, then we could pull together as a country and provide medical care to people."

Moore repeatedly uses the same gimmick when visiting hospitals in other countries, talking to the patients and trying to find out how much they are paying for medical care. The expressions on some of their faces are priceless. Pure bafflement. Nevertheless, Moore soldiers on, trying to find out who is paying for all this (leading to a great moment at a UK hospital when he talks to the "Cashier").

The question of who pays for all this is glossed over a bit. He does mention in passing that people in these European countries pay taxes up the ying yang, and then he does show that they are still able to live their lives. It is only discussed for a few minutes. But if you just want to show that the American system is screwed up compared to other countries, this film does a good job of it.

The portion of the film that I wished could have been gone over in more detail was Moore talking to a bunch of American ex-pats who were living in France. They were all talking about how nice everything was there, how great the medical system was, and how convenient the doctor housecall system was. Doctor housecalls? Yup, Moore goes on what can only be described as a "ridealong" with a French doctor who does housecalls in a car complete with flashing lights. He is taking calls throughout and being sent around town like a cab driver, only he gets out and provides medical care when he gets where he is going.

The last sequence of the film is Moore's trip to Cuba. Moore finds out that various 9/11 first responders were not getting adequate medical care due to an inability to pay, but the terrorists residing at Gitmo were getting all of the medical care they needed from the US government. So he takes a bunch of 9/11 first responders, trundles them in a boat, and tries to get them into Gitmo for medical care. After the air raid siren goes off, Moore and friends decide that they are probably not going to get medical care there, so end up wandering the streets of Cuba looking for medical care. They ask for directions and are told that there are hospitals and pharmacies all over the palce. One woman breaks down when she finds out that the medication that eats up a good chunk of her disability check is available in Cuba for pennies.

All in all, it is an interesting film, and a pretty effective critique of the US health care system. A lot of big questions are not discussed in great detail, like the "who pays for all this?", but when you see people just walking into a European hospital and geeting medical care "for free", and an American talks about how he lost the tips of two fingers and the hospital gave him the option of repairing the middle finger for $60,000, or the ring finger for $12,000, you really say to yourself, WTF?

At the end of the film, my father looks over to me and says, "It may be propaganda, but I have to say the Michael Moore is getting better at it".
 
A large portion of the film is taken up with his discussion of health insurance in other countries (Canada, France, the UK, and of course, Cuba).
I have not seen Sicko. Nor do I have any plans to. Life is to short to listen to prophaganda from a hypocrite with an ax to grind. I know that there are problems with the American health care system (I've seen and heard enough already to convince me of this).

Moore tends not to 'lie' in his movies; rather, he tends to distort facts by way of omission. (He did that in his F9/11 movie.) I don't know exactly what he said about Canada's health care system, but if he was holding it up as some sort of model, I hope he also pased on some of the negative aspects of our system. The biggest problem is extensive waiting lists. For example:
- there was recently a case that made it to the supreme court which showed that lengthy delays for hip replacement were a violation of his rights.
- Cancer treatments are often delayed, risking the lives of patiens
- Many Canadians are unable to find a family doctor

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1118315110253_28/?hub=CTVNewsAt11
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061122.wcancerreaction22/BNStory/cancer
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/health/061102/x110212.html

This doesn't necessarily mean that Canada's health care system is WORSE than the U.S. system. But, if Moore talks about the Canadian system he should give both the good points and the bad.

They ask for directions and are told that there are hospitals and pharmacies all over the palce. One woman breaks down when she finds out that the medication that eats up a good chunk of her disability check is available in Cuba for pennies.
The whole issue of medication is rather complex. Not sure why such medicine is avialable in Cuba 'for pennies', but I rather suspect they may be ignoring patent laws in manufacturing the drug. (And, it could be argued that without such patent laws, many drug companies woudl not bother producing new drugs since their chance of profit would be lessened.)
 
I have not seen Sicko. Nor do I have any plans to. Life is to short to listen to prophaganda from a hypocrite with an ax to grind. I know that there are problems with the American health care system (I've seen and heard enough already to convince me of this).

Moore tends not to 'lie' in his movies; rather, he tends to distort facts by way of omission. (He did that in his F9/11 movie.) I don't know exactly what he said about Canada's health care system, but if he was holding it up as some sort of model, I hope he also pased on some of the negative aspects of our system. The biggest problem is extensive waiting lists. For example:
- there was recently a case that made it to the supreme court which showed that lengthy delays for hip replacement were a violation of his rights.
- Cancer treatments are often delayed, risking the lives of patiens
- Many Canadians are unable to find a family doctor

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1118315110253_28/?hub=CTVNewsAt11
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061122.wcancerreaction22/BNStory/cancer
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/health/061102/x110212.html

This doesn't necessarily mean that Canada's health care system is WORSE than the U.S. system. But, if Moore talks about the Canadian system he should give both the good points and the bad.
He really just sidesteps the issue. He mentions wait times, then asks people in a Canadian hospital waiting room how long they have been waiting. Not really the point is it? Kinda torn on the whole wait time issue. It is a serious problem in Canada, but Americans in similar economic/medical situations might find they have no access to healthcare at all. Healthcare is free but you have to wait for it vs. healthcare anytime but you can't afford it. Which would you choose?

The whole issue of medication is rather complex. Not sure why such medicine is avialable in Cuba 'for pennies', but I rather suspect they may be ignoring patent laws in manufacturing the drug. (And, it could be argued that without such patent laws, many drug companies woudl not bother producing new drugs since their chance of profit would be lessened.)

Not happy with the entire patent law system for medications. Would much prefer a government-run prize bill system and seperate drug research from manufacture.
 
Mike Moore is the Leni Riefenstahl for the left....he`s been caught in so many lies that it boogles the mind that someone would go see his films ...unless you were a lefty and a "True Believer".
 
I have qualms with the drug companies and our health care system. But Moore is far too much the quintessential cherry picker for me to take seriously.
 
Why are wait times an issue? Which would you rather have?

1) Get on a waiting list for treatment
2) Wait forever because you can’t afford treatment?
 
Why are wait times an issue? Which would you rather have?

1) Get on a waiting list for treatment
2) Wait forever because you can’t afford treatment?

Ask that when you have cancer, or a broken neck...
 
Ask that when you have cancer, or a broken neck...

There are wait times for people with broken necks? How does that compare to the woman at King Drew who died on the emergency room floor as the hospital staff ignored her? Would that qualify as a "wait time"?
 
There are wait times for people with broken necks? How does that compare to the woman at King Drew who died on the emergency room floor as the hospital staff ignored her? Would that qualify as a "wait time"?

Yes, such a common event.

In fact, it's an event that's so common, it doesn't show up on the news, and certainly isn't belabored upon over and over again.

Oh, wait.

Do you have evidence that this is a common occurence?

As far as I understand, the incident was attributed to bad management, and was regarded as a mistake. There was also much outrage, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were lawsuits or an arrest based on it.

So, sorry, don't find your argument very convincing. Try again, neh?

But hey, wait times shouldn't be an issue at all. After all, no one should have the choice to get ready treatment of an extremely debilitating illness or effect, such as a broken neck. Naw, we need people like you to tell us what's good for us.

Sorry, but wait time's an issue, and it always will be. It won't disappear just because you somehow don't see the problem with it.
 
Last edited:
Yes, such a common event.

In fact, it's an event that's so common, it doesn't show up on the news, and certainly isn't belabored upon over and over again.

Oh, wait.

Do you have evidence that this is a common occurence?

Do you have any evidence of a person with a broken neck being told to wait for care in Canada?

ETA: I notice you ETA'd a bunch of strawman about me wanting to tell you how to prepare for your broken neck treatment. Where did I say any such thing?
 
Last edited:
Do you have any evidence of a person with a broken neck being told to wait for care in Canada?

Can't find any links or the like, so I guess I'll have to drop the claim. Nonetheless, the wait list is a significant issue, do you agree?

Or are you willing to shove that under the rug, just like Daylight?

Wait lists -- NO PROBLEM! Even if it might make a disease more severe, no problem!

ETA: I notice you ETA'd a bunch of strawman about me wanting to tell you how to prepare for your broken neck treatment. Where did I say any such thing?

You know what, I'll retract my responses, as they didn't really have much to do with the question I was angry about. Quite frankly, WAITING IS AN ISSUE. I'm sorry, but...

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2112

The average Canadian waits 17.9 weeks between the time a patient makes an appointment to see a general practitioner and when he then sees a specialist.

That's a pretty long time.

That's a long enough time for a mild disease to grow fierce.

But, let's get off the reality, and talk hypothetically about how mild waiting times are.

You would agree then, that a man with a broken neck, would want immediate or near immediate treatment, right?

Then the question you have to ask yourself is:

What does waiting matter? Why is it even an issue? Here, let me quote the person I was responding to again:

Daylight said:
Why are wait times an issue?

If you answered that you would want immediate treatment with a broken neck, then... THERE is your issue. Thank you. Goodnight. I'm through.
 
Last edited:
What are the costings for a US universal health care (free at point of delivery) model?

I believe the NHS costs about £100billion p/a - about $200billion for 60 million people which puts it in the £1600 per capita per year bracket.....

The NHS also accounts for 1.3million employees - about 3% of all national employment - it is a bit of a behemoth :D

but absolutely worth it imo.....

ah - here are the figures;

Following the 2002 Budget, when the government announced a five-year programme of investment, the UK NHS budget will reach £87.2bn by 2005-06 and £105.6bn by 2007-08. This means that from 2003-04, when the programme begins, spending will rise by an average 7.5% annually, making it the largest ever sustained increase in NHS funding. This is more than twice the annual average increase during the 30-year period from 1971 to 2001. The Treasury-commissioned Wanless inquiry into UK healthcare funding requirements published at the time of the Budget in April 2002 predicts that the annual NHS budget may have to rise to between £154bn and £184bn at current prices by 2022-23 to ensure comprehensive, high quality services.

How does this compare with health spending elsewhere?
The government has a manifesto commitment to match the European average on health spending, which is around 8% of national wealth or gross domestic product. Following the Budget spending projections in 2000, UK health spending- an aggregate of NHS and private health spending - was set to rise to around 7.6% of GDP by 2003-04, just short of the target level. The 2002 Budget increases will allow the NHS to meet the 8% target in 2003-04. However, even by 2007-08 the proportion of national income spent on healthcare by the UK will still fall short of France (currently 9.6%), Germany (10.7%) and way behind the US (13.9%).
http://society.guardian.co.uk/nhsfinance/story/0,,689438,00.html

So when private expense is factored into the GDP figures, it's still significantly cheaper than the US model....
 
Last edited:
What are the costings for a US universal health care (free at point of delivery) model?

I believe the NHS costs about £100billion p/a - about $200billion for 60 million people which puts it in the £1600 per capita per year bracket.....

The NHS also accounts for about 3% of all national employment - it is a bit of a behemoth :D

but absolutely worth it.....

Why 60 million people, out of curiosity?
 
Why 60 million people, out of curiosity?

why 60 million people live in the UK? I've no idea....:D

my post could have been clearer....how about this...

I believe the NHS (in the UK) costs about £100billion p/a (about $200billion) for 60 million people which puts it in the £1600 per capita per year bracket.....
 
Last edited:
Can't find any links or the like, so I guess I'll have to drop the claim. Nonetheless, the wait list is a significant issue, do you agree?

Or are you willing to shove that under the rug, just like Daylight?

No, not at all. I think wait times are likely to kill people. I am anti-wait time. That being said, there are wait times in the American system as well, due to the HMO's refusing care or drugs being too expensive, etc. There are also things worse than wait times, such as not getting care at all and dying because of it, which happens to people here. The King Drew incident is an extreme example of that. In SiCKO there's a little girl who died when the family's HMO refused care.

So the solution is to make sure wait-times are shorter, and that takes money to hire more doctors and build more facilities. Surely the US can afford that, can't we? We certainly can afford loads of things that just waste our tax dollars, and this would be worth it, no?
 
No, not at all. I think wait times are likely to kill people. I am anti-wait time. That being said, there are wait times in the American system as well, due to the HMO's refusing care or drugs being too expensive, etc. There are also things worse than wait times, such as not getting care at all and dying because of it, which happens to people here. The King Drew incident is an extreme example of that. In SiCKO there's a little girl who died when the family's HMO refused care.

So the solution is to make sure wait-times are shorter, and that takes money to hire more doctors and build more facilities. Surely the US can afford that, can't we? We certainly can afford loads of things that just waste our tax dollars, and this would be worth it, no?

Sure. There are ways to change our system.

Though I'd say that one could argue that attacking poverty and enhancing education and economy might do just as well for allowing people to afford better health care. Personally, I don't make any argument as far as this is concerned.

Regardless, my point (the entire reason I posted in the first place) stands: Wait times == bad. Wait times mean something. That's who I was posting to -- not you. I'm not sure why you flew in to Daylight's defense, if you disagreed with him, though.
 

Back
Top Bottom