Stupid Sicko
4:31 am 06/18/07
Gasbag Michael Moore’s newest pile of crap is called “Sicko,” and it carries this subtitle: “A comedy about 45 million people with no health care in the richest country on earth.”
Um, actually, it should be subtitled “A comedy about 45 million with no health care insurance in the richest country on earth.”
It’s an important distinction, but of course Moore’s mission is far too lofty and noble to allow him to account for said distinction. /barf
You’re right on target that there is a distinction between no health care and no health care insurance.
What gets me is the typical liberal bias shown by TV “reporters” when they show a father or mother with 2, 3 or 4 children, complaining that they cannot afford health care for their children, and seem to think that it is someone else’s responsibility to pay for the health care their children might need. If they knew that they could not afford health care for their children, then who forced them to have these children. (I know that there are parents who lose a well-paying job after they have children, but these are the exceptions and not the rule when it comes to familles that cannot afford health care for their children.)
I hate insurance. And I really hate Michael Moore.
I hate how many people could actually afford at least some form of health insurance but believe cell phones, cable TV and going to NASCAR races are more important.
Whoa, deep comments you got here, David. Let me just ask a question: have you *seen* the film?
Just hypostulaterating, but it could well be argued that in America, to not have insurance is the same as not having access to health care. Heck, it might even be the case that Moore argues that in his movie.
I would like to thank Walter for positing a view that was all the rage among a certain group of Deutsch-landers a few years back, and remains a staple of the Chinese today. Other’s really should be able to decide what you choose, with no regard to the circumstances that they may have played in your situation. Sakes alive, my share of the war-debt is growing by hunnerts of dollars a month. I can’t expect insurance companies to hep me out with that by insuring those I love when profit is to be had. No siree. I like Andy’s view. How global, how humanely societal.
I mean, heck, if one can’t afford to pay for the health care of their parents, then they shouldn’t have chosen to have the critters, should they? Dag-nabbit!. And this governmental intrusion has got to stop. If I bought a car I can’t afford, I sell it. Why does the government forbid me from selling the elderly and the young I can’t foot the bill for? Bureaucracy, man. That’s all it is.
Wulfgar, I haven’t seen the film - but please note that I am not criticizing the film itself - only the deceptive marketing via tagline (subtitle). I am, however, criticizing Moore - based on my viewing of “Fahrenheit 9/11″ and “Bowling For Columbine.”
I saw Moore on television in the past week (twice) talking about the movie, although I haven’t seen the movie itself. Apparently part of his point has to do with the fact that so many people don’t have insurance. The other part is that even if you DO have insurance, you still may not receive the healthcare you need, because the bottom line drives all.
In the clip that I saw, he presented several people whose insurance companies denied services either because the services were deemed unnecessary, or the insured supposedly weren’t sick. The one that I remember in some detail was a woman who was told by her doctor (an in-system provider) that she did not have a brain tumor. While traveling in Japan, she fell very sick and was taken to a hospital, where an MRI (which her insurer wouldn’t pay for) showed that she did, in fact, have a brain tumor.
There was also a segment showing a doctor testifying before Congress that she had denied claims and told people they were not sick, when in fact she knew that they were, because it kept her in good favor with the insurance company.
And the infamous part that involved going to Cuba was about the fact that many folks who volunteered at Ground Zero are now suffering respiratory problems, but because they aren’t federal employees, the government won’t do anything for them. Meanwhile, the “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo get free medical and dental care. (Note: I have a friend who was such a volunteer for something like eight months. Fortunately, she hasn’t shown any indication of being sick.)
Wulfgar beat me to the point about not having insurance being the same as not having healthcare in many cases. And as for not having kids if you can’t afford the insurance, if you can’t afford insurance for yourself, should you kill yourself?
It’s a pity that someone like Moore is the medium through which that message is being delivered. Considering the movies David mentioned, half the population will refuse to see “Sicko” based on his involvement alone.
I’ll also toss in the possibility that Moore didn’t writer the marketing/promotion pieces for the film, so it’s possible that omitting the word “insurance” in that tagline was the work of a copywriter. Short and snappy, always!
Although I agree with the above: If you don’t have insurance, or the bucks, you effectively don’t have healthcare. I don’t know why the messenger should be shot in this instance.
Sadly, Kate, I think you’re right; though I do wish you’d explain exactly what you mean by “someone like Moore”. A lot of people find him pretty contemptible, and I’ve never really understood why. He’s a showman with a message, much like Speilberg and a few others I can think of. You may not like the message, but you have to admit that he’s pretty good at his craft.
Disclaimer: I didn’t see F 9/11 until just last year. There wasn’t anything about it that I found all that scandalous, because there wasn’t anything he presented that I didn’t already know. And I *really* don’t understand people’s objections to Bowling for Columbine. He makes a point in that movie about America’s gun-culture that needed to made. It’s no different than when Craig points out that Montana has a culture that accepts alcohol, and must deal with the consequences of it.
No one has yet said it better than “Not Yours to Give” by the Honorable Colonel Davy Crockett, Member of Congress:
http://www.fee.org/library/books/notyours.asp
Involuntary charity (income redistribution) causes more problems than it solves (a large part of the high and continued large year-on-year increases in medical costs can be attributed to the kindness of the government in paying for medical care for those who either “can’t” or “won’t” pay for their own medical care).
Trust me, Walter, you’ve made yourself clear. No one should take from you what others have gained for you by supporting defense, or paying cops, or building roads, or offering veteran’s benefits or schooling the future generation who work for you. The poor (as defined by your arbitrary metric) are worthless. Let ‘em die. I’m certain that no one here has a problem with that …
Oh, and by the way, according to Fred Thompson, didn’t you really mean Daniel Boone?
Sigh. New, today:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120903.html
Oh Noes! Micheal Moore wants information released to the public! He wants to see a video of what actually happened to the Pentagon! How awful he must be!!!1!!!one!
Come on, Erica. Even I can do better than that, and I’m obviously a moonbat lefty. There is absolutely *nothing* in calling for more information about an event that shows that Moore thinks that 9/11 was an inside job, or even “implies … that it might have been”. Grow up, would you?
Jesus Christ in a Jumped up sidecar, no wonder this country is at each other’s throats.
Wulfgar, it would appear that you have little faith in private charity (Americans, as a group, gave a higher percent of their income to charity before there was an income tax than they do now. Charitable giving comes from what’s left over AFTER the government takes its cut.).
Apparently, you think it perfectly OK to first tax people to pay for other peoples’ medical care and then, these same people, in addition to paying extra taxes, now also have to pay higher medical costs as increased demand for medical services is “subsidized” by their own tax payments! Wow, what a truly beneficial system.
If you do want to use involuntary charity (income redistribution) to help those who you think need such help, then why not, at least, make the way you help the people you think need help a more rational method?
For example, using Medicare as an example, rather than pay per service for every medical visit with really no limit, what if every covered elderly person was given an annual payment of $15,000, $20,000 or $25,000 and from this sum (whatever it is), they first have to purchase catastrophic medical insurance and place the balance in a medical savings account to be used to pay doctor, pharmaceutical and hospital expenses before the catastrophic policy kicks in expenses during the year. Then whatever, is not spent by the end of the year, that elderly person could withdraw and spend or save in any way they wished.
This would be a more rational way of helping those than how the current program is structured as it would reduce aggregate demand for medical services and thereby slow down, if not decrease, the growth in medical costs.
If course, this would mean a sharp decrease in the government’s Medicare bureaucracy, which might not prove to be am attractive idea to the Democratic Party as this would mean that party workers/supporters might have to seek employment elsewhere.