  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 ‘SiCKO’: Michael Moore’s Prescription for ChangePosted on Jun 19, 2007By Amy Goodman Michael Moore screened his new film, “SiCKO,” on Father’s Day at a special New York event honoring Sept. 11 first responders. Moore spoke of their heroism and recognized their role in the film. “SiCKO” is about the broken U.S. healthcare system. Case in point: the 9/11 rescue workers. Their stories of selfless courage, followed by years of creeping, chronic illnesses, from pulmonary fibrosis to cancer to post-traumatic stress, often exacerbated by poor or no health insurance, drive home Moore’s point, that the medical/pharmaceutical industry is failing Americans—not only the 40-plus million Americans with no health insurance, but the 250 million Americans who do have health insurance. Moore doesn’t like health insurance companies: “They’re the Halliburtons of the health industry. I mean, they really—they get away with murder. They charge whatever they want. There’s no government control. And frankly, we will not really fix our system until we remove these private insurance companies. I mean, they literally have to be eliminated. They cannot be allowed to exist in this country.” Unable to get care in the U.S., Moore transports the ailing 9/11 heroes to boats just offshore from the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay. Moore shows clips of congressmen and generals assuring the public that Guantanamo prisoners receive excellent healthcare. Bullhorn in hand, Moore appeals to the Navy for care for the 9/11 responders on board as well. Denied, they make their way to Havana Hospital, where a team of Cuba’s world-renowned doctors administers much-needed treatment. Reggie Cervantes, coughing throughout her interview, is outraged to learn that an inhaler cartridge that she pays $120 for stateside sets her back only five cents in Cuba, and vows to “take back a suitcase full of them.”
The U.S. Treasury Department is investigating Moore for possible violations of the trade embargo against Cuba (he has sent a copy of his film to Canada for safekeeping).
Moore knows that people who organize can fight back and win. “SiCKO” is more than a movie; it’s a movement. The release of the film is being coordinated with an unprecedented, sophisticated, grass-roots action campaign. Oprah Winfrey will hold a town-hall meeting on healthcare. YouTube is calling for people to post videos of their healthcare horror stories, and the California Nurses Association is leading a campaign to get 1 million nurses in the U.S. to see the film. Healthcare-Now! is organizing leafleting and petitioning at all 3,000 theaters where “SiCKO” is debuting; Moveon.org and Physicians for a National Health Program are mobilizing. And Moore himself is heading to New Hampshire to challenge the Democratic presidential candidates. “SiCKO” shows how Hillary Clinton tried to reform the healthcare system as first lady. “She was destroyed as a result of it. I mean, they put out I think well over $100 million to fight her. But to jump ahead here with Hillary, in last year’s Congress, she was the second-largest recipient of health industry money. She may be No. 1 at this point, for all I know. It’s very sad to see ... they’re into her pocket, and she’s into their pocket.” Moore continued: “By the time of the election, by the primaries, I’m sure all the Democrats are going to be using that word: ‘universal’ coverage. Their plans are going to take our tax dollars and put them into the pockets of these insurance companies. We need to cut out the middleman here. The government can run this program.” This is called a single-payer system. Taking on the multibillion-dollar healthcare industry is all in a day’s work for Michael Moore. After several million people see “SiCKO,” the time just might be right for a prescription for change. Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on 500 stations in North America. © 2007 Amy Goodman; distributed by King Features Syndicate Previous item: Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Immigration and Ignorance Next item: Hamas Holds the High Cards Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
Comment Pages:
1
»
By will s, June 29, 2007 at 2:04 pm # I wish everyone would stop assuming that universal health care is equal to single payer health care. It is not! In Germany, there is a two-and-a-half tier system of health care delivery. There is first the distinction between private health insurance and non-private health insurance. Private health insurance is basically the same as here in the U.S. The insurer is free to charge what he wishes and the purchaser can choose his coverage as he likes. The caveat is that in order to purchase private health insurance, you must have a certain minimum yearly income, the level of which is set by the government. When I was there a few years ago, the minimum was approximately €80,000 per year. If you earn more than that - you may purchase private insurance, if you earn less than that, you may not. Private health insurance in Germany is better than non-private in almost every way: front-of-the-line treatment by doctors, private hospital rooms, better coverage, etc. The downside is once you move into private insurance, you have to stick with it forever - even if your health deteriorates or you get old - either of which will send your premiums skyrocketing of course. As a privately insured individual, you may return to the non-private insurance system only if you are broke. Most Germans don’t earn enough to purchase private insurance, so they are in what I call the “non-private” system. I don’t call it public insurance, because it isn’t. Non-private insurers in Germany operate like credit unions in the U.S. They are medical co-operatives that pool health-related risk. There are many hundreds of these organizations. Any given individual will qualify for several of these medical co-operatives based on their profession, home address, religious affilation, etc., in much the same way that people qualify to join various credit unions here. You pick an insurance provider from among the co-operatives for which you qualify. You can choose based on coverage, rates (which may vary within certain boundaries), perceived “goodness” (usually related to how much they pay doctors - and therefore how much doctors like people covered by that co-operative), etc. Premiums in these medical co-operatives are based on a percentage of your salary, and deducted like payroll taxes - but they are not taxes: the money goes to your provider, not to the government. The higher your salary, the higher percentage you pay as your insurance premium - up until the above mentioned private health insurance minimum. When you earn more than that, the percentage of salary charged as a premium stays constant. This is to encourage people to stay in the non-private system even though they could afford private insurance. Medical services for non-privately insured people are basically “free” at the point of service, but there is a co-pay of €10 to discourage frivolous doctor visits encouraged by completely “free” health care. German health care provides universal coverage by making membership in the local government’s medical co-operative available to people who don’t have jobs, income, etc. Their premiums are paid by the government as a social welfare benefit. By introducing a measure of market economics to their health care system, Germany provides universal care without the typical waiting lists and rationing that are a common feature of all socialist economic systems. In fact, German newspapers often run articles on the horrors of medical care in the British NHS - the awful stories that Michael Moore doesn’t want to talk about, but that are all too common in Britain, but almost completely unknown in Germany. In short, Universal Coverage: YES! Single Payer: NO!
By Janus, June 24, 2007 at 5:42 am # 80758 from Mr.Canning: Thanks for your further advice about this tragic personal injury case.The verdict potential in a grievous case like this one ought not be limited by unrealistic statutory “reforms.” Appellate review is always available in those cases ending with runaway jury verdicts against corporate defendants, but the hard-working lobbyists and their client insurance companies have succeeded in many States in making life and tilted playing fields much better for them in claims and litigation: Premiums and investment income good; payouts bad. Your observation: Agreed. Ralph Nader aptly calls so-called reform statutes capping damages in tort cases “tort deform.”
By Janus, June 23, 2007 at 5:23 am # 80549 by Ernest Canning on 6/22 at 3:17 pm Thanks for your reply. What an incredible case it is beginning as it does with an ordinary hernia case and ending with quadruple amputations. It occurred to me that you probably explored the possibility of a malpractice action against those responsible for his care. It is beyond belief that the medical profession could explain that this result was within the ordinary though rare risks associated with state of the art practice in treating a hernia, including post-operative care. Worse, the early signs of gangrene ---in all four extremeities--- obviously went undetected in his post-operative care. What an outrageous event!
By MAR, June 22, 2007 at 11:54 am # Tim is on the wrong track, I think. He says: “Finally, if Michael Moore is right, why can’t he suggest ANY numbers - ANY - that show an increase in Canadian, French, English or Cuban health-care registrations at the expense of American ones? The exact opposite is true. As of 2004, health procedures of Canadian, French, English and Cuban nationals in the United States have outnumbered expatriate procedures for Americans in those countries.” “Universal health care is a wonderful thing. If you’re gonna get it, you’re gonna be socialistic and take from some to give to others. PERIOD. It’s a tough thing, but many people don’t believe that the best way to deal with a problem is to take from some to give to others. Life is hard, not fair.” Registration of foreign nationals is irrelevant. Canadians cannot carry their coverage to the US at US prices but only what the home plan will cover. (I quoted $40,000 for a radical prostate procedure in the US versus $4000 in Canada. Obviously most line items will be more expensive in the US. If not, why do US residents line up to buy Canadian pharmaceuticals, even over the counter items such as Tylenol with codeine? Data some years old, there are now procedures that make radical operation less desirable.) Canadians in the US must sign up to private plans as they lose their eligibility here after three months, longer in some circumstances. No American is eligible for funding under our system until they are a citizen of Canada or a “landed immigrant” - and there is an increasing number of those. In Canada and most other so-called “socialized” national or provincial (state) systems access is by eligibility. To enter the Canadian system you must be a Canadian citizen resident in the specific province for three months - a lesser time means the province from which one moved is responsible to national standards. I don’t know about other jurisdictions; our national system is socialistic only in your eyes. Your approach is self-interested to the point of selfishness. The main point in establishing the programs was funding and access, not control of professional disciplines or interference between doctor or patient as in Britain. Inevitably, as costs and baby boomers stress the system there must be cost controls and there will be a temptation to shorten up on service or introduce some form of user pay and usage. That will be accommodated in the US by people receiving no care or substandard care if they can’t afford insurance or are i0neligible. But that is counter-productive as it hinders first access to the GP level which is vital. The US approach to medicine is, I fear “I’m all right Jack, who cares about anyone else?” And that applies to both patients and doctors. As to the government taking from one to give to the other, does that mean the US government is “socialistic” in taking money from all to wage stupid and pointess wars in Viet Nam and Iraq II? That certainly funnels vast amounts from the citizenry to other social classes. And for what? Johnson and Bush lies; in the first instance in effectiveness and in the second as to motivation to start it in the first place. Save us from that! Health care should really be treated as a utility of benefit in the sense of human capital to the whole nation, like education. I don’t envy Bill Gates billions but I feel for the millions that are are left out. As long as the system is profit-oriented a great number of patients will suffer, although the wealthy will ride high. Here, where much of their education is at taxpayer’s expense, they desert the ship attracted by high incomes in the US. I say good riddance.
By Janus, June 22, 2007 at 8:58 am # Ernest Canning says this in part this morning, June 22: “As an attorney who represents severely injured workers, I have to deal daily with insurance companies and their utilization review scams. I represent an individual who has lost both arms and both legs. I had to proceed to a full-blown trial just to get the man massage therapy.” This is a little off topic, but I couldn’t resist asking this: What was the nature of the industrial accident that resulted in these extraordinarily horrendous injuries? I hope that your Court was not one of the many with a clogged calendar that unreasonably delays for too long the reaching of a trial, especially a trial involving this magnitude of permanent disability to the plaintiff. Perhaps you were able to advance it under the circumstances.
By Janus, June 22, 2007 at 6:05 am # Says LooneyLeft Wrong: “#80078 by looneyleft wrong on 6/21 at 11:07 am Government healt hcare. If the gov runs our health care look out! They will also tell you what you can eat, drink and about everything else. So much for pro choise. Don’t you libs see that?” ************************************************* So, what name in rejoinder can we attach to the likes of you? Are you a genuine, self-absorbed, indifferent fascistic right-winger who delights in seeing unions destroyed and safety-net statutes shredded and in endorsing bigger and wholly underserved tax cuts for your plutocratic pals? Or are you more likely just another Dupe, perhaps a flag-waving Bible-thumper, who thinks Jesus is running the Country through the Cheney-Bush White House and struggling against “big gummint” programs except welfare programs benefitting both the multi-national corporations and those who are worth at least one million dollars?
By chas, June 21, 2007 at 6:35 pm # Ernest Canning - here are a few of which I am aware. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/6/8/1003 06.shtml http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/12/26/122609.s html?s=tn http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/10/20/82 810.shtml http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/6/8/9112 5.shtml
By chas, June 21, 2007 at 5:44 pm # If the Democrats want to reach out and touch me and even get my vote this is what they need to do. I’m a conservative at every level, who’s not going to just get over being a social conservative; I’m part of the redneck religious right that stopped voting for Democrats. Okay, I’ll show my willingness to come to the negotiating table. I will even vote for their free socialized medicine for everyone and free prescription drugs for everyone in the US, if Democrats can meet the following conditions: 1) They must admit as a direct result of their progressive policies, especially in the parts of the country they politically dominate, they have stripped every reference to God, traditional religion, traditional; family, and patriotism out of the education system and the rest of our public life, has stripped everyone of everything that gave meaning and order to lives. This progress is a total failure, that has made our country Godless and drifting into despair and anarchy. 2) They must admit rednecks are right about not wanting to go down the road of progress, and they must stop dragging the rest of the country down to the level of the freedom enjoyed by Los Angeles, Detroit, and New Orleans, etc. 3) They must agree to forever end their big lie that nothing of God can be imposed, but everything of Satan can be imposed, and stop imposing their apostasy on the rest of us. 4) They must admit their policies have resulted in a nightmare epidemic of diseases, mental health problems, addictions and chemical dependencies, feminization of men, honoring victims and cowards rather than heroes, honoring perverts rather than holy men, social anarchy, and despair at every level of society. 5) They must admit this has resulted in the desperate need for the government to accept their responsibility for the damage their policies have done to everyone. 6) They must ban all psychologists and admit their only function is get rich, helping people adjust to living in a Godless society, normalizing every behavior that that spread disease. They must ban all abortion providers. They must ban all ACLU members. 7) They must provide free health care and prescription drugs for everyone in lieu of being sued for damages by all the people. Democrats must admit they are guilty of being on a lifelong crusade to change the world. They have to fix what they messed up, providing treatment to everyone because they have harmed everyone. 8) They must reverse the cause of all these problems by restoring God, traditional religion and family, and patriotism, to every level of the education system and every other part of our society, the way they were imposed for the first 150 years of US history. 9) They must stop their anti-Christ life long crusade to change the world and must restore our God given right to free exercise of religion. 10) They must apologize to me because my entire lifetime they have taxed me heavily to pay for their big government salaries they received imposing atheism on everyone, destroying my country. One way or another I will be forced to pay for their mess to be cleaned up either by higher health insurance or by higher taxes. I won’t defend Doctor’s constitutional rights because they ignored Christians being stripped of their constitutional rights. Socialized medicine, with these qualifications has a chance to stop the progress and show compassion to those damaged by it. Maybe I’ll go out and start campaigning for them with this message. It’s really the humane thing to do considering our future; everyone will need so much medical treatment, like anti-psychotic drugs, addiction recovery, and emergency room treatment, especially the children. Who could possibly oppose saving the children?
By looneyleft wrong, June 21, 2007 at 11:07 am # Government healt hcare. If the gov runs our health care look out! They will also tell you what you can eat, drink and about everything else. So much for pro choise. Don’t you libs see that?
By Dale Headley, June 21, 2007 at 10:10 am # A great American hero!!!
By Tim, June 21, 2007 at 6:31 am # Canada has 12 MRIs nation-wide, 3 or 4 available for ongoing patient care as of 2004, America has over 1000. “We need to cut out the middleman here. The government can run this program.” Anyone who seriously believes the government has run ANYTHING well needs to stand inline at a Motor Vehicle Department, file an OSHA request, or read a CAFE standard or their taxes. Although I personally hate insurance companies, they are the sine-qua-non of supply and demand: they provide a service judging risk versus reward and allow people to VOLUNTARILY participate, except in certain states where a legislature bolsters them by fiat. Michael Moore has admitted that his “documentaries” are politically motivated and engineered (a polite way of saying “faked”.) Why do you still quote this guy? Universal health care is a wonderful thing. If you’re gonna get it, you’re gonna be socialistic and take from some to give to others. PERIOD. It’s a tough thing, but many people don’t believe that the best way to deal with a problem is to take from some to give to others. Life is hard, not fair. I have a friend who is a nurse and she really believes changes can be made to health care. I agree. But Michael Moore and Hillary, who will screech and showboat, are little pieces of puss on the body-politic. They complain and rail without due consideration of the money, technology, economics and real human values inherent in the dialogue. I smoke. I don’t have health care. And I’m not gonna ask you to pay my medical bill. I *will* show up at the emergency ward if I break my wrist or have a heart attack. Then, I’ll pay my bill. Ok? If that bill is too high, let’s examine why that is, not immediately assume government or a politician can make it better. Personally, I am convinced that government has made health care costs higher. Finally, if Michael Moore is right, why can’t he suggest ANY numbers - ANY - that show an increase in Canadian, French, English or Cuban health-care registrations at the expense of American ones? The exact opposite is true. As of 2004, health procedures of Canadian, French, English and Cuban nationals in the United States have outnumbered expatriate procedures for Americans in those countries.
By MAR, June 20, 2007 at 1:14 pm # Final added comments. In my opinion the U.S. system is the result of greed of doctors and the insurance company shareholders, made possible by the US constitutional and political realities and system and the power of lobbies. Left to their own, Canadian doctors in a private hospital system would be not much different. The difference is that Canadian governments bit the bullet thirty to forty years ago. I would hate to be uninsured in the US. Once procedure of mine would have cost $40,000 in the state of Washington. In my jurisdiction the doctor billed the plan for the approved schedule fee of $4000. Of course, there were other visit charges in both cases. The hospital bill for thirty days (due to complications) in the US would have been astronomical. I paid only for TY and bedside phone. But I emphasize that medicine in Canada is not “socialized” in the sense it is in Britain and Europe. It is a carefully crafted system of public ownership, public funding and public care standards. The medical associations and hospital associations have the same high standards of accreditation separate from government intervention. It masquerades as a normal system, in that patient dignity is preserved by relations with the system being at arm’s length, e.g. a welfare patient is not known as such and receives the same trip as the wealthiest. Eventually the system will have to come to grips with the expensive care for the growing elderly population . Society may have to deal with cost-effectiveness compared to treating economic earners of society as well as youth who have a future. They do the same in the US by just letting the elderly, the uninsured and the poor suffer and die unless they qualify for “Medicare” in which case they are treated as second-class citizens. Not so in Canada so far. The other side of the coin, doctors hospitals and labs which once used to writeoff 15% to 20% of bills as bad debts, now get paid for everything on the fee schedule. There may be some pro bono on uncovered items. As well as the care by provincial plans, some people have supplementary private “extended” plans that pay for uncovered items such as first cost of pharmaceuticals, vision aids, hearing tests and aids crutches and other equipment. My plan will even buy and maintain an oxygen generator when medically required rather than rent one. It pays for hearing aids and spectacles up to certain limits. And so on. The major point is that all Canadians are insured in the public plan against the most expensive costs. As the system is further stressed by the baby boomers, it may be necessary to introduce some measure of self pay, but with complete coverage for financially catastrophic cases. Whatever,it will still be much better than the US. For example in my jurisdiction it costs me $64 monthly for medical insurance premiums (doctor and outpatient lab and xray) half of which is paid as a retirement benefit by my former employer. After the deductible for pharmaceuticals (in my case $1000) all but 10% is covered by the provincial plan. My extended health plan cuts in at a $25 deductible - a retirement benefit. The motto for Americans should be “stay healthy” but what I read of self-induced obesity and lousy eating and exercise habits at all ages shows that there is no such thing as common sense.
By MAR, June 20, 2007 at 11:43 am # I should add a few key comments to my previous post. Hospitals in Canada are predominantly publicly owned by the provinces by virtue of increasing equity due to new buildings, upgrades, etc. There are in some jurisdictions private “hospitals” which are really long-term care (nursing homes, in fact) but where daily rates for public services are tightly controlled by government. A few have remaining equities for land due religious organizations. Fifty percent of the original health funding (capital and operating) was borne by the Federal tax bag on a dollar per dollar basis but that changed several years to a bulk cost share which is declining all the time. Consequently the federal influence is declining as well, leaving provinces to try more individualistic solutions such as regional health authorities - but at the bottom their funds are controlled by the Ministry of Health and subject to public opinion. Second, in the US, insurance companies control their costs by denying service wherever possible, In Canada, fee schedules for professionals are negotiated between the Medical Associations and the government or health authority (according |
UN Envoy Heads to Burma with Urgent Relief Message
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article