I gotta say, I am incredibly excited about seeing this film.
Moore's rumoured to be making the same offer that he made with Fahreneheit 9/11; if you can prove one fact wrong, he'll give you $10,000 - talk about putting your money where your mouth is.
Either way, I think this film is going to be huge, and is set to cause controversy. Alot of critics have been saying its his most mature film yet, and he lets the situations do the talking. I can't wait to see it.
And whilst I post this, what do you Americans think of your healthcare system? Is Moore right to make this film? Do you think it'll be good? Have you had bad experiences?
occrider
quote:
Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_
And whilst I post this, what do you Americans think of your healthcare system? Is Moore right to make this film? Do you think it'll be good? Have you had bad experiences?
My experience with it has been fantastic. But then again, I'm not poor. If I had to use an HMO I might consider it sucky.
Interestingly enough my friend moved to London recently and can't stand the British public health care system. So much so that he's buying private insurance.
_Ocean_Drive_
quote:
Originally posted by occrider
My experience with it has been fantastic. But then again, I'm not poor. If I had to use an HMO I might consider it sucky.
Interestingly enough my friend moved to London recently and can't stand the British public health care system. So much so that he's buying private insurance.
I think they NHS is largely fantastic, but so under-funded. I had to go private for my retinal screening this year, but I was lucky on that I could afford to. And goodness knows what I'd do if I had to pay for insulin.
Incidently, whilst your here; what happened to the Iraqi Information Minister?!
NeoPhono
I think our health care system does have major issues, and if that's all this film will be pointing out, then it'll be nothing new. It'll simply be a momentary pause for people to say "gosh, that's just horrible." Then things will continue on as they are because the health care system is no longer in control of heath care practitioners but in control of law makers.
Now, if he somehow is able to point out a way in which the quality and accessibility of health care in the US can be maintained and become universal while not doubling or tripling taxes, that will be something to talk about. It's easy to point out where things are wrong or broken, as Moore has made a career of, it's another thing entirely to be able to provide constructive criticism.
There is no perfect health care system. Limited resources assure that no matter what route you go, universal or private. As occ said, if you can afford it the US health care system is second to none. Even if you can't afford it, you'll still get health care, but without the bells and whistles that Americans have come to expect. As I've said before, I think the only thing that can be done is to make it more affordable, not make it universal. Putting the health of every American in the hands of the government would be both a medical and economic disaster.
Krypton
I think we should have a mixed system of insurance. Those who can afford private insurance should continue to buy it. Those who can't should be covered by universal coverage.
NeoPhono
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
I think we should have a mixed system of insurance. Those who can afford private insurance should continue to buy it. Those who can't should be covered by universal coverage.
That's pretty much where we're headed. Basically those that can afford it will continue to get the quality of care they get now. Those who can't will get the kind of care you see at VA hospitals.
occrider
quote:
Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_
I think they NHS is largely fantastic, but so under-funded. I had to go private for my retinal screening this year, but I was lucky on that I could afford to. And goodness knows what I'd do if I had to pay for insulin.
Incidently, whilst your here; what happened to the Iraqi Information Minister?!
Personally I think it's a good system because my friend who doesn't want to deal with the hassles of the NHS, and can afford health insurance, just goes out and buys it. I think the quality of the US health insurance system is too good to make it universal and therefore it should be a tierred approach like Britain.
djy2g33
Actually it's a pretty ty system. It's not run on ideas of medicine but rather ideas of economy. Every patient is in essence not a person but rather a number, who given certain factors, will have certain medicines given and certain treatments put into place regardless of the specifics of this patient/number. Result is text-book finance and not medicine based treatment that is often wrong, and that is worst of all, blindly accepted by people who are not knowledgeable about medicine. I am not a doctor, but have several doctors in the family, as well as family friends. One of these attempted to run a system at a psychological ward where the basis for treatment was not based on finances and was very quickly told that this kind of a thing could not work. Sadly this is commonplace, and only really good doctors who work really hard and step outside of a text-book finance type of ideology actually treat people well. Of course the source is how expensive things got and how it became very profitable, but this is the result... This is more to answer the question about how the system is rather than what is the source of the problem. Worst of all is that many people can't even afford to end up with 'text-book financial formula' type of treatment.
Just my 5 cents on the matter. I'm for once curious to see a Michael Moore film since I think this is relevant and not radical just for the sake of being radical like some of his other films (imo) were.
_Ocean_Drive_
quote:
Originally posted by occrider
Personally I think it's a good system because my friend who doesn't want to deal with the hassles of the NHS, and can afford health insurance, just goes out and buys it. I think the quality of the US health insurance system is too good to make it universal and therefore it should be a tierred approach like Britain.
You didn't answer my question about the Iraqi information minister!
MisterOpus1
Some good reviews on the film so far. This one from (*gasp*) Faux News:
quote:
Sicko' Shows Michael Moore's Maturity as a Filmmaker
Sunday , May 20, 2007
By Roger Friedman
Filmmaker Michael Moore's brilliant and uplifting new documentary, "Sicko," deals with the failings of the U.S. healthcare system, both real and perceived. But this time around, the controversial documentarian seems to be letting the subject matter do the talking, and in the process shows a new maturity.
Unlike many of his previous films ("Roger and Me," "Bowling for Columbine," "Fahrenheit 9-11"), "Sicko" works because in this one there are no confrontations. Moore smartly lets very articulate average Americans tell their personal horror stories at the hands of insurance companies. The film never talks down or baits the audience.
"This film is a call to action," Moore said at a press conference on Saturday. "It's also not a partisan film."
Indeed, in "Sicko," Moore criticizes both Democrats and Republicans for their inaction and in some cases their willingness to be bribed by pharmaceutical companies and insurance carriers.
In a key moment in the film, Moore takes a group of patients by boat to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba because of its outstanding medical care. When they can't get into the U.S. naval base, Moore proceeds onto Havana where the patients are treated well and cheaply.
This has caused a great deal of controversy, with the federal government launching an investigation into the trip, which officials say was in violation of the trade and commerce embargo against the Communist country.
"This administration flaunts the law, flaunts the constitution," Moore said at the press conference, explaining the flap over the trip to Cuba.
Moore now claims the U.S. government says his Cuban footage may be illegal, and Moore said he made a second master copy of "Sicko" and had it shipped it to France immediately just in case of potential government issues.
Gotta agree with the take on going after both sides of the aisle and being paid off by health and pharmaceutical lobbyists. That just doesn't sit well with me. Of course this is but one of many issues to which the lobbyists pull the strings.
NeoPhono
I know my position is obvious, but if he's going after insurance company and political corruption, I'm all for it. If he's going after doctors and health care providers, I'll be a bit upset. Trust me, I hear everyday how "doctors must be making a killing with these hospital bills." Trust me, they're not. In fact the income of physicians has not risen (in relation to inflation), but has decreased over the last 25 years. Physicians have their method of care dictated by and their income reduced via the afore mentioned insurance companies and politicians, yet because they are the "face" of medicine get the blame for high costs. In 20 years when we're in the midst of a physician shortage of epidemic proportions, it'll be interesting to see how people view doctors when they won't even be able to see one.
metalgearsolid
^And whose fault will that be? The med schools that reject more than half of all the applicants, but still allow the children of doctors to attend med-school even if they are not qualified?
