Michael Moore's "Sicko"

[mousepod]

OK, we just watched the newest Michael Moore movie.

Wow.

This could be the big one. Unlike his last two films, Sicko might really be the one to start a revolution.

[Alex]

Since I don't want the medical system he wants, I hope not.

[Jughead P. Jones]

I have to admit, not having seen any of Moore's previous works (you know, Fahrenheit 9/11 or Bowling for Columbine), I gotta say...this one looks very intriguing. Whether you like him or despise him, I'm curious to see what he has to say on the subject of healthcare.

[mousepod]

Originally Posted by Alex

Since I don't want the medical system he wants, I hope not.

In a way, that might be why the movie is so effective. He actually doesn't propose any specific system, except that it's "free". He shows how the US system fails even the insured, and how the systems in Canada, England, France and Cuba take care of their people.

I went into the movie with my skepticism on high alert, and clearly there are huge holes in the piece, as there are with any propagandist documentary.

What I meant in my original post is that in this movie, as opposed to his previous two, he's not overtly attacking any deeply held beliefs of people who call themselves conservatives. He lifts Hilary up, for example, and then dashes her against the rocks moments later. It's a persuasive piece, and if enough people see it, there are going to be some very interesting debates.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by mousepod

In a way, that might be why the movie is so effective. He actually doesn't propose any specific system, except that it's "free".

Like I said, I don't want the system he does, so I hope not.

[innerSpaceman]

And what system would you suppose that to be, Alex? Have you seen the film? Or listened to Moore speak on the subject?


I have my doubts this will start any sort of "revolution," but it's certainly going to spark some interesting debate and conversation (some of the latter right here, I hope). I do think that, unlike gun control and Iraq, the suckitude of the American health care system is pretty much agreed upon by the vast majority of Americans.

[scaeagles]

I'm sure all here will be surprised to know that I don't plan on seeing it.

It is easy to present a persuasive argument when only one side of the argument is presented. This is fine and I have no problem with that. It is not intended to be a debate, but something tells me the less than ideal parts of socialized medicine are not presented. If I accept the premise that Cuba provides the best health care in the world (which I do not), then I would ask for what? So I can live on rations of beans and rice in a communist dictatorship without freedom and be relatively free from illness in my servitude of the state?

As for the "suckitude" of the American system....someone once said (and it escapes me...Benjamin Franklin, maybe?) that democracy is the worst form of government, except for tall the others. I would suggest something similar could be said of the American health care system.

[Alex]

"Free." Mousepod says Moore has only one requirement and it is a requirement I oppose. First of all, there is no such thing as "free." Just making people who use the system less than average subsidize those who use it more.

I do not think it is the role of government to provide health care and I think, in the long term, handing complete responsibility for that to the government will lead to the eradication of personal freedom of choice in almost every realm of life. Just as the commerce clause simply forces congress to find a way to define every activity in terms of interstate trade so that they can regulate it, once all medical expenses flow through the government any activity that government wants to regulate will be filtered through how it effects "public health." This is already too big an abuse in our current government (see, for example, the arguments for motorcycle helmet laws). When I am responsible for the medical bills of mountain climber Bob who falls and breaks his leg do I not (so will go the argument) have participation in deciding whether he'll be allowed to mountain climb? Or eat fatty foods. Or live in places that increase general medical costs or any of thousands of other things.

I believe that the increasing roll of government in mandating medical care is a large part of its atrononimcal increase in cost and this will only get worse, not better unless the government nationalizes the whole system from research, to equipment manufacture, to institions, to employees.

There are some things that are good about other nations systems for doing things and there are some things that are good about ours. That's why we go to Canada for drugs and Canadians come to America for heart surgery.

No I have not yet seen Sicko. Unless there were previews this weekend I don't think anybody in this country has yet seen it legally though I know it is readily available on the internet now. But based on previous Michael Moore documentaries I expect that he has cherry picked his facts, engaged in guerrilla tactics to catch people off guard and make them look stupid, and generally distorted things to present his point of view. Which is completely his privilege.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by mousepod

He shows how the US system fails even the insured, and how the systems in Canada, England, France and Cuba take care of their people.

Except that the very same list that he points out ranks the US as ranking 37th in the world in quality of health care ranks Cuba at 39th.

Just sayin'.

[scaeagles]

Alex hits it on the head, as is common.

Smoking is the best evidence of what is coming, and it will only be hastened by some form of uniform health care. You smoke? Well, then you don't qualify for these procedures because you are willingly putting yourself at higher risk, and as was evidenced by Hillary's health care plan some 15 years ago now, seeking treatment outside the system (or providing it) would be a crime.

Transfats are being banned even though they cannot possibly affect the health of those around them, as has been the argument regarding second hand smoke. There are already talks of taxes on fast food restaurants because the food is unhealthful.

Put the government in charge of health care and there will be more of the same. Mandatory exercise programs. Overweight or obese? Government diet programs and taxes by the pound. Drunk? Pay the tax. The possibilities for abuse are unlimited.

I don't think I'm being paranoid. With smoking, the beginning was a simple warning on packages. Then bans on airlines, and it has continued to advance, with some municipalities even trying to ban smoking in private residences now.

I don't think so.