• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Michael Moore's New Movie On Healthcare


  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#31 Futurist1000

  • Guest
  • 438 posts
  • 1
  • Location:U.S.A.

Posted 01 June 2007 - 06:25 PM

I would recomend reading this article about Tennessee's universal health care experiment.

Tennessee TennCare program

Here is an exerpt from the article.

"The state, however, didn't bear the entire brunt of TennCare: hospitals and doctors also bore a large part of the costs associated with Tennessee's universal health care experiment. In the first six years of TennCare, a dozen hospitals had closed around the state - all of them in underserved areas. Physicians were leaving the state in droves. And as the quality of health care continued to decline for all Tennesseans, taxpayers were getting stuck with the bill."

#32 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,058 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 01 June 2007 - 09:05 PM

There is simply no easy ranking especially as the reason for wantng to know will affect the ranking. As for Michael Moore, I would not take a thing he says at face value as he has been shown to directly lie and decieve in his past productions and only ever presents a single viewpoint.


true dat!


From what I have heard, Mr. Moore pimps for Cuba's super duper utterly fantastic national health care system in the movie Sicko. You remember, the one that Castro DID NOT USE when he had his recent medical trouble. Hmmm? I wonder why? The same thing will happen in the U.S. with national health care. Hillary, Obama, politicians, etc... will never wait in line for treatment and they will always get the best doctors for the rest of their lives. They will reap the reward for what the rest of us are paying for.

#33 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 15 June 2007 - 10:12 PM

It seems this issue is heating up!

First, and what I consider to be quite interesting -- is the following story:

News Source: Medical News Today

Posted Image

Studies Link Insurance Coverage To More Advanced Cancers

12 Jun 2007 

Two new studies find the uninsured and people with certain types of public health insurance are more likely to be diagnosed with more advanced cancer compared to those with private insurance.

The studies, published in the July 15, 2007 issue of CANCER, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Cancer Society, find availability and type of health insurance predict disease severity in patients presenting with cancer of the oral cavity and breast in the United States.

More than 46 million Americans lack health insurance. Many more Americans are underinsured so do not have adequate access to health care. Studies have shown that uninsured adults are less likely than the insured to receive preventive care, to seek care in a timely manner, or to receive recommended treatments. The issue of health insurance and its relationship with disease severity is an important topic in the study of cancer because health insurance is a modifiable factor. The link between oropharyngeal cancer, disease severity and health insurance status has rarely if ever been studied. In breast cancer, this relationship has been reported only in local studies that are now dated. Amy Chen, M.D. and Michael Halpern, M.D., Ph.D. of the American Cancer Society analyzed data from a nationwide cancer database to investigate the relationship between insurance status and disease severity in oropharyngeal and breast cancers.

In what may be the first assessment of the association between insurance status and oropharyngeal cancer, Dr. Chen and co-investigators found that the strongest predictors of advanced disease were health insurance status and type. Compared to patients with private insurance, patients with no insurance were the most likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, the largest tumors or invasive disease to regional lymph nodes. Patients with public health insurance, particularly Medicaid for low-income families, were also at higher risk for advanced disease, largest tumors, or lymph node involvement. Other factors were associated with more advanced disease at diagnosis, including gender (men were at higher risk), age (younger patients were at higher risk), and treatment facility type (patients who were treated at teaching or research facilities were at higher risk). However, type of health insurance remained the strongest predictor of stage at diagnosis and tumor size.

In their study of breast cancer and insurance status, Dr. Halpern and co-investigators found that uninsured and Medicaid insured patients were almost two and a half times more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease than those with private insurance. In addition, they found African American and Hispanic patients were significantly more likely than white patients to be diagnosed at a more advanced stage. The authors say several factors probably contribute to the increased risk of disease among the uninsured and Medicaid populations, including fewer sources of regular medical care in general and less use of regular mammography in particular.

In both studies, health insurance strongly predicted disease severity. Authors from both studies recommend increasing access to healthcare and targeting screening programs specifically for the uninsured or underinsured to ameliorate this modifiable prognostic factor in these cancers. "[H]aving a usual primary care clinician, a trusted source of care, also known as a medical home, is a strong predictor of improved preventive care delivery," says an accompanying editorial by Richard C. Wender, M.D., president of the American Cancer Society and chair of the department of family medicine at Thomas Jefferson University. "A primary care medical home plays a vital role in reducing cancer mortality. Individuals who have a regular source of primary care are both more likely to be up to date with cancer screening and more likely to receive timely follow-up and evaluation for abnormal findings on an initial screen." Dr. Wender adds: "Clearly, the issues of adequacy, availability, and affordability of coverage are serious problems that must be addressed collectively as we work to fix what is wrong with our health care system."

###

Articles:

"The Impact of Health Insurance Status on Stage at Diagnosis of Oropharyngeal Cancer," Amy Y. Chen, Nicole M. Schrag, Michael Halpern, Elizabeth M. Ward, CANCER; Published Online: June 11, 2007 (DOI: 10.1002/cncr. 22788); Print Issue Date: July 15, 2007.

"Insurance Status and Stage of Cancer at Diagnosis Among Women With Breast Cancer," Michael T. Halpern, John Bian, Elizabeth M. Ward, Nicole M. Schrag, Amy Y. Chen, CANCER; Published Online: June 11, 2007 (DOI: 10.1002/cncr. 22786); Print Issue Date: July 15, 2007.

Editorial: "The Adequacy of the Access-to-Care Debate: Looking Through the Cancer Lens," Richard C. Wender, CANCER; Published Online: June 11 2007 (DOI: 10.1002/cnc.22787); Print Issue Date: July 15, 2007.

Contact: Amy Molnar
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Article URL: http://www.medicalne...hp?newsid=73834

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Save time! Get the latest medical news headlines for your specialist area, in a weekly newsletter e-mail. See http://www.medicalne...newsletters.php for details.

Send your press releases to pressrelease@medicalnewstoday.com 


Second is the following story:

Allheadlinenews: News Source

Posted Image

Edwards Reveals His Prescription For Health Care

June 14, 2007 6:27 p.m. EST

Derek Kreindler - AHN Derek Kreindler

Detroit, MI (AHN) - Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards announced his plans for health care reform on Thursday. Removing long-term patents on drugs and forcing insurance companies to spend 85 percent of their premiums on patient care are among the key elements in Edwards' plan.

Edwards said that health care has grown to be too costly for many Americans. "Our health care system is entirely too expensive. We put more money into health care than any country in the industrialized world and we get one of the worst products out in the other end."

The North Carolina Senator also cited laws in Florida, Minnesota, New Jersey and New York that require insurance companies to spend 85 percent of the premiums they collect to be spent on patient care. Edwards's wants to implement this nationally, as well as have all Americans signed up for health insurance. He called on insurance companies to make health coverage cheaper for Americans by reducing administrative costs.

Edwards pointed to the Big Three automaker's substantial healthcare costs, some $16 billion per year, as an indicator of the state of health care. "These companies and their unions made a promise to workers," he said. "And that promise was that they'd have health care coverage. And now it's time for the government to meet its share of the responsibility of ensuring that those promises are met."

Edwards has come under fire for his plan, which is estimated to cost between $90 billion to $120 billion. Fellow Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-Illinois) has stated that taxes on the wealthy will have to increase for his own health care plan to succeed, and many observers state that Edwards will have to follow suit.


Copyright © AHN Media Corp - All rights reserved.
Redistribution, republication. syndication, rewriting or broadcast is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of AHN.


And finally, to get right back on topic:

The Sacramento Bee: News Source

Posted Image

Daniel Weintraub: Moore on health insurance: Entertaining but flawed


By Daniel Weintraub -
Published 12:00 am PDT Thursday, June 14, 2007

Michael Moore almost had me going -- until he got to the part about the laundry.

Moore's latest film, "Sicko," careens like a runaway truck through the worst ills of the U.S. health care industry. It then sets those foibles against the best traits of government-run systems in Canada, Great Britain, France and, yes, Cuba.

At turns funny, shocking and just plain sad, the documentary builds a solid indictment of private health insurance. Moore slams one firm for retroactively denying coverage to a woman who failed to disclose a yeast infection on her application. Another issued a fatal order denying treatment for a toddler who had the bad luck to arrive at the wrong emergency room. A third billed a woman for an ambulance ride after an accident because her trip to the hospital had not been preapproved.

It is stuff like this that drives so many Americans crazy about their health care system. And if people conclude that they cannot depend on private insurance to cover them when they need care, it's not a big leap from there to decide that the nation does not need the services of such an industry.

That is exactly Moore's point.

"Take the health insurance companies out of the mix," he said in Sacramento Tuesday after a preview showing of the film that will open across the nation on June 29. He is an unabashed supporter of a single-payer health care system financed with taxes and overseen by the government.

But while his film might be effective as propaganda, it is also flawed.


It is a hodgepodge of anecdotes, hasty conclusions and glaring omissions layered one on top of another until the viewer is almost forced to submit to Moore's thesis. Among the problems:

• Moore begins by insisting that his story will be about people who have insurance, not those who go without. But some of his most vivid examples -- such as a man who loses two fingers in an accident and can only afford to pay for one of them to be reattached -- are about people who do not have any coverage at all.

• He blames all of the industry's bad behavior on the profit motive. But one of his biggest villains -- Kaiser Permanante -- is a nonprofit. And while he does a gut-wrenching segment on Los Angeles hospitals dumping homeless patients back on the street after they are treated, he mentions only in passing that one of the guilty parties is a public hospital owned by the government. Aren't those the same people he wants to put in charge of all of our health care?

• He tells the gripping story of a man who died of cancer after his health plan refused to pay for experimental treatment. But he never asks his audience to consider that no matter what kind of system we have, it will not provide unlimited care, especially experimental care. There will always be a gatekeeper.

Under a single-payer plan, that person would be a government employee -- some might even say a bureaucrat. Would that really be any better?

Moore never gets around to telling us that the underfunded Canadian and British systems have such long waiting lists that the Canadian Supreme Court struck down a ban on private health care, and the British are buying insurance to supplement their government coverage.

The climax of the movie takes us to Cuba, a place Moore lionizes without even a passing reference to Fidel Castro's crimes against his own people. Had Moore been a Cuban and tried to challenge the government the way he does here, he would have been snuffed out or locked up long ago, not given "free" health care.

And then there is France. After getting almost orgasmic over the quality of French health care, Moore goes on to extol the virtues of paid maternity leave, mandatory minimum vacations, 35-hour workweeks, nearly free day care and, finally, a government service that sends a person to your home twice a week to clean your clothes after you have a baby.

Oblivious to France's economic doldrums, its chronic high unemployment or projections showing that the country's cradle-to-grave social benefits are unsustainable, Moore turns the laundry service into his ideal of civilization at its finest.

It never occurs to him that, instead, it might be embarrassing evidence of what happens to people when they expect the government to tend to their every need. Health care can be a life or death matter. But laundry?

Moore is right that we need to fix our health insurance system, and his film at its best forces us to think about whether we all should do more to help each other deal with the cost of illness and injury that strike the population more or less at random.

But when he ends the movie on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, laundry basket in hand, prepared to demand the kind of service he saw in France, his satire turns on itself. That is exactly the kind of ridiculous extension of dependency that opponents of single-payer health care fear will be the inevitable result of the ever-expanding government Moore advocates.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go to: Sacbee / Back to story

This article is protected by copyright and should not be printed or distributed for anything except personal use.
The Sacramento Bee, 2100 Q St., P.O. Box 15779, Sacramento, CA 95852
Phone: (916) 321-1000

Copyright © The Sacramento Bee


Peace and love.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#34 Live Forever

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 16 June 2007 - 01:33 AM

Thanks for the links, adam.

#35 lucid

  • Guest
  • 1,195 posts
  • 65
  • Location:Austin, Tx

Posted 16 June 2007 - 02:37 AM

As for Michael Moore, I would not take a thing he says at face value as he has been shown to directly lie and decieve in his past productions and only ever presents a single viewpoint.

I couldn't agree more. He is such a spin doctor. I do think that he does an OK job though digging some stuff up though simply because he is thick headed, so I will give the film a watch.

#36 Live Forever

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 18 June 2007 - 03:52 PM

For anyone that doesn't want to wait for it to be released next weekend, here is the torrent of the DVD rip of SiCKO:
http://thepiratebay....cko.2007.DVDrip

I have it downloaded, but I haven't watched it yet (although I tested it to make sure it was a good quality video, and it is). I probably will tonight. Just fyi for anyone interested.

#37 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 22 June 2007 - 04:51 AM

Here's a review of SIKCO by one of my all time favorite movie reviewers: A.O. Scott. I have a tendency to bold parts of articles that I really like, but in this case the whole article would be bold; so I won't do that here.

The New York Times: News Source

Posted Image

June 22, 2007
MOVIE REVIEW | 'SICKO'
Open Wide and Say ‘Shame’

Posted Image
Michael Moore heads to Paris to explore universal health care in the documentary "Sicko."

By A. O. SCOTT

It has become a journalistic cliché and therefore an inevitable part of the prerelease discussion of “Sicko” to refer to Michael Moore as a controversial, polarizing figure. While that description is not necessarily wrong, it strikes me as self-fulfilling (since the controversy usually originates in media reports on how controversial Mr. Moore is) and trivial. Any filmmaker, politically outspoken or not, whose work is worth discussing will be argued about. But in Mr. Moore’s case the arguments are more often about him than about the subjects of his movies.

Some of this is undoubtedly his fault, or at least a byproduct of his style. His regular-guy, happy-warrior personality plays a large part in the movies and in their publicity campaigns, and he has no use for neutrality, balance or objectivity. More than that, his polemical, left-populist manner seems calculated to drive guardians of conventional wisdom bananas. That is because conventional wisdom seems to hold, against much available evidence, that liberalism is an elite ideology, and that the authentic vox populi always comes from the right. Mr. Moore, therefore, must be an oxymoron or a hypocrite of some kind.

So the table has been set for a big brouhaha over “Sicko,” which contends that the American system of private medical insurance is a disaster, and that a state-run system, such as exists nearly everywhere else in the industrialized world, would be better. This argument is illustrated with anecdotes and statistics — terrible stories about Americans denied medical care or forced into bankruptcy to pay for it; grim actuarial data about life expectancy and infant mortality; damning tallies of dollars donated to political campaigns — but it is grounded in a basic philosophical assumption about the proper relationship between a government and its citizens.

Mr. Moore has hardly been shy about sharing his political beliefs, but he has never before made a film that stated his bedrock ideological principles so clearly and accessibly. His earlier films have been morality tales, populated by victims and villains, with himself as the dogged go-between, nodding in sympathy with the downtrodden and then marching off to beard the bad guys in their dens of power and privilege. This method can pay off in prankish comedy or emotional intensity — like any showman, Mr. Moore wants you to laugh and cry — but it can also feel manipulative and simplistic.

In “Sicko,” however, he refrains from hunting down the C.E.O.’s of insurance companies, or from hinting at dark conspiracies against the sick. Concentrating on Americans who have insurance (after a witty, troubling acknowledgment of the millions who don’t), Mr. Moore talks to people who have been ensnared, sometimes fatally, in a for-profit bureaucracy and also to people who have made their livings within the system. The testimony is poignant and also infuriating, and none of it is likely to be surprising to anyone, Republican or Democrat, who has tried to see an out-of-plan specialist or dispute a payment.

If you listen to what the leaders of both political parties are saying, it seems unlikely that the diagnosis offered by “Sicko” will be contested. I haven’t heard many speeches lately boasting about how well our health care system works. In this sense “Sicko” is the least controversial and most broadly appealing of Mr. Moore’s movies. (It is also, perhaps improbably, the funniest and the most tightly edited.) The argument it inspires will mainly be about the nature of the cure, and it is here that Mr. Moore’s contribution will be most provocative and also, therefore, most useful.

“Sicko” is not a fine-grained analysis of policy alternatives. (You can find some of those in a recently published book called “Sick,” by Jonathan Cohn, and also in the wonkier precincts of the political blogosphere.) This film presents, instead, a simple compare-and-contrast exercise. Here is our way, and here is another way, variously applied in Canada, France, Britain and yes, Cuba. The salient difference is that, in those countries, where much of the second half of “Sicko” takes place, the state provides free medical care.

With evident glee (and a bit of theatrical faux-naïveté) Mr. Moore sets out to challenge some widely held American notions about socialized medicine. He finds that British doctors are happy and well paid, that Canadians don’t have to wait very long in emergency rooms, and that the French are not taxed into penury. “What’s your biggest expense after the house and the car?” he asks an upper-middle-class French couple. “Ze feesh,” replies the wife. “Also vegetables.”

Yes, the utopian picture of France in “Sicko” may be overstated, but show me the filmmaker — especially a two-time Cannes prizewinner — who isn’t a Francophile of one kind or another. Mr. Moore’s funny valentine to a country where the government will send someone to a new mother’s house to do laundry and make carrot soup turns out to be as central to his purpose as his chat with Tony Benn, an old lion of Old Labor in Britain. Mr. Benn reads from a pamphlet announcing the creation of the British National Health Service in 1948, and explains it not as an instance of state paternalism but as a triumph of democracy.

More precisely, of social democracy, a phrase that has long seemed foreign to the American political lexicon. Why this has been so is the subject of much scholarship and speculation, but Mr. Moore is less interested in tracing the history of American exceptionalism than in opposing it. He wants us to be more like everybody else. When he plaintively asks, “Who are we?,” he is not really wondering why our traditions of neighborliness and generosity have not found political expression in an expansive system of social welfare. He is insisting that such a system should exist, and also, rather ingeniously, daring his critics to explain why it shouldn’t.

SICKO

Opens today in Manhattan.

Written and directed by Michael Moore; edited by Christopher Seward, Dan Sweitlik and Geoffrey Richman; produced by Mr. Moore and Meghan O’Hara; released by Lionsgate and the Weinstein Company. At the Lincoln Square, 1998 Broadway, at 68th Street. Running time: 123 minutes.


Click here to view video on NYtimes site

#38 Live Forever

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 22 June 2007 - 05:11 AM

I ended up watching the copy that I downloaded (that I said above). It really is a good movie (quite heartbreaking at parts). I am sure that Moore embellishes some parts, but I would encourage everyone to watch it, no matter your feelings about Moore or your political persuasions. I found it quite enlightening.

#39 quicksilver

  • Guest
  • 98 posts
  • -1

Posted 25 June 2007 - 09:05 AM


To start, I feel I can say one thing for sure; and that's the following: if the amount of US resources and energy was spent trying to solve health care problems


Who needs lots of money to improve the health of the population? Close all the McDonalds, ban cigarettes, etc.

As is true in other areas of life, when considering the population as a whole, the vast majority do not not wish to take responsibility for their own actions i.e. in this case health. Hell even a large percentage of cancer patients (who one would think would be highly motivated) rather than being willing to do whatever it takes to get well, want to have someone else "fix them".

The health care system i.e. the gov't can't create physical wellness any more than the gov't can create social wellness.


The gov should have no right to ban any type of food business (Mcdonald's) or ban cigarettes. If people want something they should have the right to access it and be informed of any risks involved.

#40 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,058 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 25 June 2007 - 05:27 PM

The gov should have no right to ban any type of food business (Mcdonald's) or ban cigarettes


That is also the way I feel. However....big however...if I am forced to pay for other citizen's health care then I am going to start voting for bans on a lot of things. Ban cigarettes, binge drinking, driving, refined sugar, HFCS, trans-fat, bad McDonald's food, chainsaw juggling....etc. I would vote for calorie limits on restaurant meals and urine tests for anyone receiving free medical care. If they are using drugs that damage their health then off to jail they go where they will be forced to live healthy. I am not going to willingly support everyone's bad health habits.

#41 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,058 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 25 June 2007 - 05:48 PM

SICKO points out many drawbacks, foibles, errors, etc... of the current health care system.

Before everyone starts jumping on the universal healthcare bandwagon, first take a rational look at the situation. The only way anyone should support a universal healthcare plan is if you are QUITE certain that it will be better than what currently exists, warts and all. Could it be worse? Knowing the U.S. government...that is a rhetorical question. Of course it will be worse. My feeling is that if universal healthcare comes to pass in the U.S., a lot of the initial supporters will be saying "I didn't think it would be THAT bad". (aside: maybe advancing tech will help out by reducing the cost of healthcare, arriving just in time to prevent a total collapse of the healthcare system)

Take education for example. U.S. students used to lead the world....40 years ago. After decades of federal government running (ruining) the education system U.S. students are a laughing stock, nearly dead last among industrialized nations. This is despite the fact that education spending has gone up every year and the U.S. dishes out in the neighborhood of $10,000 per student. The solution: (a growing call from the education establishment) stop handing out homework and stop testing. yikes!

Social Security and Medicare are not much better. Politicians are constantly using these programs as pawns in their political power plays. Do you want your healthcare decisions made by the likes of Sam Brownback or Barney Frank. They will set the guidelines as to who gets what type of treatment and how often. Remember Hillary's first attempt at a national healthcare plan? In that plan you could end up in jail if you sought treatment outside of your "designated health region".

If there is going to be some sort of reform, why don't we tackle some of the obvious small problems first, and see if we can improve things....instead of turning everything over to the bureaucracy (very dangerous). Why not pick up the tab for health education and emergency care for the poor, and let everyone else have their own choices and pay out of pocket?

#42 Live Forever

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 26 June 2007 - 05:09 AM

Here is one guy's proposal for allowing the health care system to operate more on a free market system:
http://freemarketcur...houldbedone.php

#43 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 26 June 2007 - 07:30 PM

Take education for example. U.S. students used to lead the world....40 years ago. After decades of federal government running (ruining) the education system U.S. students are a laughing stock, nearly dead last among industrialized nations. This is despite the fact that education spending has gone up every year and the U.S. dishes out in the neighborhood of $10,000 per student. The solution: (a growing call from the education establishment) stop handing out homework and stop testing. yikes!

The Federal government is "running the education system?" How do you figure? No Child Left Behind popped up half a dozen years ago, but aside from that, in what way do the feds run it? And stop homework and testing? Are you joking? My kids have orders of magnitude more homework than I did at the same age.

Remember Hillary's first attempt at a national healthcare plan? In that plan you could end up in jail if you sought treatment outside of your "designated health region".

This sounds like it came from a rightwing website. I'm not saying you're wrong, but an extraordinary claim like this would benefit from some documentation. The insurance industry poured a fortune into killing this initiative, and I would not put anything past them in terms of lies and propaganda.

#44 quicksilver

  • Guest
  • 98 posts
  • -1

Posted 27 June 2007 - 09:22 AM

Here is one guy's proposal for allowing the health care system to operate more on a free market system:
http://freemarketcur...houldbedone.php


Mostly good steps in the right direction.

#45 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 28 June 2007 - 07:24 AM

You gotta love it when the Wall Street Journal positions itself in other areas than financial news! [thumb] Fierce journalism. I hope that doesn't change if the firm changes hands.

News Source: The Wall Street Journal

Posted Image

'I haven't seen 'Sicko,'" says Avril Allen about the new Michael Moore documentary, which advocates socialized medicine for the United States. The film, which has been widely viewed on the Internet, and which will officially open in the U.S. and Canada on Friday, has been getting rave reviews. But Ms. Allen, a lawyer, has no plans to watch it. She's just too busy preparing to file suit against Ontario's provincial government about its health-care system next month.

Her client, Lindsay McCreith, would have had to wait for four months just to get an MRI, and then months more to see a neurologist for his malignant brain tumor. Instead, frustrated and ill, the retired auto-body shop owner traveled to Buffalo, N.Y., for a lifesaving surgery. Now he's suing for the right to opt out of Canada's government-run health care, which he considers dangerous.

Ms. Allen figures the lawsuit has a fighting chance: In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that "access to wait lists is not access to health care," striking down key Quebec laws that prohibited private medicine and private health insurance.

In the U.S., 83 House Democrats voted for a bill in 1993 calling for single-payer health care. That idea collapsed with HillaryCare and since then has existed on the fringes of the debate -- winning praise from academics and pressure groups, but remaining largely out of the political discussion. Mr. Moore's documentary intends to change that, exposing millions to his argument that American health care is sick and socialized medicine is the cure.

It's not simply that Mr. Moore is wrong. His grand tour of public health care systems misses the big story: While he prescribes socialism, market-oriented reforms are percolating in cities from Stockholm to Saskatoon.


Mr. Moore goes to London, Ontario, where he notes that not a single patient has waited in the hospital emergency room more than 45 minutes. "It's a fabulous system," a woman explains. In Britain, he tours a hospital where patients marvel at their free care. A patient's husband explains: "It's not America." Humorously, Mr. Moore finds a cashier dispensing money to patients (for transportation). In France, a doctor explains the success of the health-care system with the old Marxist axiom: "You pay according to your means, and you receive according to your needs."

It's compelling material -- I know because, born and raised in Canada, I used to believe in government-run health care. Then I was mugged by reality.

Consider, for instance, Mr. Moore's claim that ERs don't overcrowd in Canada. A Canadian government study recently found that only about half of patients are treated in a timely manner, as defined by local medical and hospital associations. "The research merely confirms anecdotal reports of interminable waits," reported a national newspaper. While people in rural areas seem to fare better, Toronto patients receive care in four hours on average; one in 10 patients waits more than a dozen hours.

This problem hit close to home last year: A relative, living in Winnipeg, nearly died of a strangulated bowel while lying on a stretcher for five hours, writhing in pain. To get the needed ultrasound, he was sent by ambulance to another hospital.

In Britain, the Department of Health recently acknowledged that one in eight patients wait more than a year for surgery. Around the time Mr. Moore was putting the finishing touches on his documentary, a hospital in Sutton Coldfield announced its new money-saving linen policy: Housekeeping will no longer change the bed sheets between patients, just turn them over. France's system failed so spectacularly in the summer heat of 2003 that 13,000 people died, largely of dehydration. Hospitals stopped answering the phones and ambulance attendants told people to fend for themselves.

With such problems, it's not surprising that people are looking for alternatives. Private clinics -- some operating in a "gray zone" of the law -- are now opening in Canada at a rate of about one per week.

Canadian doctors, once quiet on the issue of private health care, elected Brian Day as president of their national association. Dr. Day is a leading critic of Canadian medicare; he opened a private surgery hospital and then challenged the government to shut it down. "This is a country," Dr. Day said by way of explanation, "in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years."

Market reforms are catching on in Britain, too. For six decades, its socialist Labour Party scoffed at the very idea of private medicine, dismissing it as "Americanization." Today Labour favors privatization, promising to triple the number of private-sector surgical procedures provided within two years. The Labour government aspires to give patients a choice of four providers for surgeries, at least one of them private, and recently considered the contracting out of some primary-care services -- perhaps even to American companies.

Other European countries follow this same path. In Sweden, after the latest privatizations, the government will contract out some 80% of Stockholm's primary care and 40% of total health services, including Stockholm's largest hospital. Beginning before the election of the new conservative chancellor, Germany enhanced insurance competition and turned state enterprises over to the private sector (including the majority of public hospitals). Even in Slovakia, a former Marxist country, privatizations are actively debated.

Under the weight of demographic shifts and strained by the limits of command-and-control economics, government-run health systems have turned out to be less than utopian. The stories are the same: dirty hospitals, poor standards and difficulty accessing modern drugs and tests.

Admittedly, the recent market reforms are gradual and controversial. But facts are facts, the reforms are real, and they represent a major trend in health care. What does Mr. Moore's documentary say about that? Nothing.


Dr. Gratzer, a practicing physician licensed in Canada and the U.S. and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, is the author of "The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care" (Encounter, 2006).



#46 oregon

  • Guest
  • 83 posts
  • 1

Posted 01 July 2007 - 04:28 AM

Regarding the article posted above ^^^ .

Health care in US is big business. They have financed the smear campaign against Moore and his movie. Its obvious, nobody wants to loose profits.

From the article: "Dirty hospitals, poor standards" - its a lie, I've been there myself. There are no such things.

Many US doctors can cure you from diseases you do not have, just to make more money. Thousands of dangerous operations are not necessary. Can something like this happen in Britain? France? Canada?

Profit motive IS good, capitalism IS good, but firefighters, police, AND health care must be controlled by government.

#47 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 01 July 2007 - 04:41 AM

Wow, this is great to see -- MTV positioning itself in other areas than Music -- it seems even the most modern "mainstream" music television station seems to know what's "up" when it comes to health care:

MTV: News Source
Jun 29 2007 12:34 PM EDT

'Sicko': Heavily Doctored, By Kurt Loder

Is Michael Moore's prescription worse than the disease?
By Kurt Loder

Michael Moore may see himself as working in the tradition of such crusading muckrakers of the last century as Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell and Upton Sinclair — writers whose dedication to exposing corruption and social injustices played a part in sparking much-needed reforms. In his new movie, "Sicko," Moore focuses on the U.S. health-care industry — a juicy target — and he casts a shocking light on some of the people it's failed.

There's a man who mangled two of his fingers with a power saw and learned that it would cost $12,000 to save one of them, but $60,000 to save the other. He had no health insurance and could only scrape together enough money to salvage the $12,000 finger.

There's a woman whose husband was prescribed new drugs to combat his cancer, but couldn't get their insurance company to pay for them because the drugs were experimental. Her husband died.

Then there's a woman who made an emergency trip to a hospital for treatment and subsequently learned her insurance company wouldn't pay for the ambulance that took her there — because it hadn't been "pre-approved." And there's a middle-aged couple — a man, who suffered three heart attacks, and his wife, who developed cancer — who were bankrupted by the cost of co-payments and other expenses not covered by their insurance, and have now been forced to move into a cramped, dismal room in the home of a resentful son. There's also a 79-year-old man who has to continue working a menial job because Medicare won't cover the cost of all the medications he needs.

Moore does a real service in bringing these stories to light — some of them are horrifying, and then infuriating. One giant health-maintenance organization, Kaiser Permanente, is so persuasively lambasted in the movie that, on the basis of what we're told, we want to burst into the company's executive suites and make a mass citizen's arrest. This is the sort of thing good muckrakers are supposed to do.

Unfortunately, Moore is also a con man of a very brazen sort, and never more so than in this film. His cherry-picked facts, manipulative interviews (with lingering close-ups of distraught people breaking down in tears) and blithe assertions (how does he know 18 million people will die this year because they have no health insurance?) are so stacked that you can feel his whole argument sliding sideways as the picture unspools. The American health-care system is in urgent need of reform, no question. Some 47 million people are uninsured (although many are only temporarily so, being either in-between jobs or young enough not to feel a pressing need to buy health insurance). There are a number of proposals as to what might be done to correct this situation. Moore has no use for any of them, save one.

As a proud socialist, the director appears to feel that there are few problems in life that can't be solved by government regulation (that would be the same government that's already given us the U.S. Postal Service and the Department of Motor Vehicles). In the case of health care, though, Americans have never been keen on socialized medicine. In 1993, when one of Moore's heroes, Hillary Clinton (he actually blurts out the word "sexy!" in describing her in the movie), tried to create a government-controlled health care system, her failed attempt to do so helped deliver the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives into Republican control for the next dozen years. Moore still looks upon Clinton's plan as a grand idea, one that Americans, being not very bright, unwisely rejected. (He may be having second thoughts about Hillary herself, though: In the movie he heavily emphasizes the fact that, among politicians, she accepts the second-largest amount of political money from the health care industry.)

The problem with American health care, Moore argues, is that people are charged money to avail themselves of it. In other countries, like Canada, France and Britain, health systems are far superior — and they're free. He takes us to these countries to see a few clean, efficient hospitals, where treatment is quick and caring; and to meet a few doctors, who are delighted with their government-regulated salaries; and to listen to patients express their beaming happiness with a socialized health system. It sounds great. As one patient in a British hospital run by the country's National Health Service says, "No one pays. It's all on the NHS. It's not America."

That last statement is even truer than you'd know from watching "Sicko." In the case of Canada — which Moore, like many other political activists, holds up as a utopian ideal of benevolent health-care regulation — a very different picture is conveyed by a short 2005 documentary called "Dead Meat," by Stuart Browning and Blaine Greenberg. These two filmmakers talked to a number of Canadians of a kind that Moore's movie would have you believe don't exist:

A 52-year-old woman in Calgary recalls being in severe need of joint-replacement surgery after the cartilage in her knee wore out. She was put on a wait list and wound up waiting 16 months for the surgery. Her pain was so excruciating, she says, that she was prescribed large doses of Oxycontin, and soon became addicted. After finally getting her operation, she was put on another wait list — this time for drug rehab.

A man tells about his mother waiting two years for life-saving cancer surgery — and then twice having her surgical appointments canceled. She was still waiting when she died.

A man in critical need of neck surgery plays a voicemail message from a doctor he'd contacted: "As of today," she says, "it's a two-year wait-list to see me for an initial consultation." Later, when the man and his wife both needed hip-replacement surgery and grew exasperated after spending two years on a waiting list, they finally mortgaged their home and flew to Belgium to have the operations done there, with no more waiting.

Rick Baker, the owner of a Toronto company called Timely Medical Alternatives, specializes in transporting Canadians who don't want to wait for medical care to Buffalo, New York, two hours away, where they won't have to. Baker's business is apparently thriving.

And Dr. Brian Day, now the president of the Canadian Medical Association, muses about the bizarre distortions created by a law that prohibits Canadians from paying for even urgently-needed medical treatments, or from obtaining private health insurance. "It's legal to buy health insurance for your pets," Day says, "but illegal to buy health insurance for yourself." (Even more pointedly, Day was quoted in the Wall Street Journal this week as saying, "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years.")

Actually, this aspect of the Canadian health-care system is changing. In 2005, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled in favor of a man who had filed suit in Quebec over being kept on an interminable waiting list for treatment. In striking down the government health care monopoly in that province, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said, "Access to a waiting list is not access to health care." Now a similar suit has been filed in Ontario.

What's the problem with government health systems? Moore's movie doesn't ask that question, although it does unintentionally provide an answer. When governments attempt to regulate the balance between a limited supply of health care and an unlimited demand for it they're inevitably forced to ration treatment. This is certainly the situation in Britain. Writing in the Chicago Tribune this week, Helen Evans, a 20-year veteran of the country's National Health Service and now the director of a London-based group called Nurses for Reform, said that nearly 1 million Britons are currently on waiting lists for medical care — and another 200,000 are waiting to get on waiting lists. Evans also says the NHS cancels about 100,000 operations each year because of shortages of various sorts. Last March, the BBC reported on the results of a Healthcare Commission poll of 128,000 NHS workers: two thirds of them said they "would not be happy" to be patients in their own hospitals. James Christopher, the film critic of the Times of London, thinks he knows why. After marveling at Moore's rosy view of the British health care system in "Sicko," Christopher wrote, "What he hasn't done is lie in a corridor all night at the Royal Free [Hospital] watching his severed toe disintegrate in a plastic cup of melted ice. I have." Last month, the Associated Press reported that Gordon Brown — just installed this week as Britain's new prime minister — had promised to inaugurate "sweeping domestic reforms" to, among other things, "improve health care."

Moore's most ardent enthusiasm is reserved for the French health care system, which he portrays as the crowning glory of a Gallic lifestyle far superior to our own. The French! They work only 35 hours a week, by law. They get at least five weeks' vacation every year. Their health care is free, and they can take an unlimited number of sick days. It is here that Moore shoots himself in the foot. He introduces us to a young man who's reached the end of three months of paid sick leave and is asked by his doctor if he's finally ready to return to work. No, not yet, he says. So the doctor gives him another three months of paid leave — and the young man immediately decamps for the South of France, where we see him lounging on the sunny Riviera, chatting up babes and generally enjoying what would be for most people a very expensive vacation. Moore apparently expects us to witness this dumbfounding spectacle and ask why we can't have such a great health care system, too. I think a more common response would be, how can any country afford such economic insanity?

As it turns out, France can't. In 2004, French Health Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy told a government commission, "Our health system has gone mad. Profound reforms are urgent." Agence France-Presse recently reported that the French health-care system is running a deficit of $2.7 billion. And in the French presidential election in May, voters in surprising numbers rejected the Socialist candidate, Ségolène Royal, who had promised actually to raise some health benefits, and elected instead the center-right politician Nicolas Sarkozy, who, according to Agence France-Presse again, "plans to move fast to overhaul the economy, with the deficit-ridden health care system a primary target." Possibly Sarkozy should first consult with Michael Moore. After all, the tax-stoked French health care system may be expensive, but at least it's "free."

Having driven his bring-on-government-health care argument into a ditch outside of Paris, Moore next pilots it right off a cliff and into the Caribbean on the final stop on his tour: Cuba. Here it must also be said that the director performs a valuable service. He rounds up a group of 9/11 rescue workers — firefighters and selfless volunteers — who risked their lives and ruined their health in the aftermath of the New York terrorist attacks. These people — there's no other way of putting it — have been screwed, mainly by the politicians who were at such photo-op pains to praise them at the time. (This makes Moore's faith in government medical compassion seem all the more inexplicable.) These people's lives have been devastated — wracked by chronic illnesses, some can no longer hold down jobs and none can afford to buy the various expensive medicines they need. Moore does them an admirable service by bringing their plight before a large audience.

However, there's never a moment when we doubt that he's also using these people as props in his film, and as talking points in his agenda. Renting some boats, he leads them all off to Cuba. Upon arrival they stop briefly outside the American military enclave on Guantanamo Bay so that Moore can have himself filmed begging, through a bullhorn, for some of the free, top-notch medical care that's currently being lavished on the detainees there. Having no luck, he then moves on to Cuba proper.

Fidel Castro's island dictatorship, now in its 40th year of being listed as a human-rights violator by Amnesty International, is here depicted as a balmy paradise not unlike the Iraq of Saddam Hussein that Moore showed us in his earlier film, "Fahrenheit 9/11." He and his charges make their way — their pre-arranged way, if it need be said — to a state-of-the-art hospital where they receive a picturesquely warm welcome. In a voiceover, Moore, shown beaming at his little band of visitors, says he told the Cuban doctors to "give them the same care they'd give Cuban citizens." Then he adds, dramatically: "And they did."

If Moore really believes this, he may be a greater fool than even his most feverish detractors claim him to be. Nevertheless, medical care is provided to the visiting Americans, and it is indeed excellent. Cuba is in fact the site of some world-class medical facilities (surprising in a country that, as Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar noted in the Los Angeles Times last month, "imprisoned a doctor in the late 1990s for speaking out against government failure to respond to an epidemic of a mosquito-borne virus"). What Moore doesn't mention is the flourishing Cuban industry of "health tourism" — a system in which foreigners (including self-admitted multimillionaire film directors and, of course, government bigwigs) who are willing to pay cash for anything from brain-surgery to dental work can purchase a level of treatment that's unavailable to the majority of Cubans with no hard currency at their disposal. The Cuban American National Foundation (admittedly a group with no love for the Castro regime) calls this "medical apartheid." And in a 2004 article in Canada's National Post, writer Isabel Vincent quoted a dissident Cuban neurosurgeon, Doctor Hilda Molina, as saying, "Cubans should be treated the same as foreigners. Cubans have less rights in their own country than foreigners who visit here."

As the Caribbean sun sank down on Moore's breathtakingly meretricious movie, I couldn't help recalling that when Fidel Castro became gravely ill last year, he didn't put himself in the hands of a Cuban surgeon. No. Instead, he had a specialist flown in — from Spain.


Check out everything we've got on "Sicko." http://www.mtv.com/m...moviemain.jhtml

Visit Movies on MTV.com http://www.mtv.com/movies/

for more from Hollywood, including news, reviews, interviews and more.

Want trailers? Visit the Trailer Park http://www.mtv.com/m...s/trailer_park/

for the newest, scariest and funniest coming attractions anywhere.


Take care.

#48 sentrysnipe

  • Guest
  • 491 posts
  • 5

Posted 01 July 2007 - 06:21 AM





http://www.cnn.com/2...eref=rss_health
"Analysis: 'Sicko' numbers mostly accurate; more context needed"

#49 Live Forever

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 01 July 2007 - 06:34 AM

Haha. I saw that he had been denied entrance to the exchange.

#50 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 01 July 2007 - 07:48 AM

Here's another story that may be of interest about the views of a well known New Yorker film critic -- known to be a pretty liberal publication, right? As a kid, I used to read the comics in the New Yorker thinking that's all they are about...oh, their stories are great though, right? Anyways, here ya go:

SignOnSanDiego: News Source

Posted Image

The New Yorker assails Michael Moore -- again
New Yorker film critic David Denby trashes "Sicko," which opens today:

Moore and his crew go from place to place--to Canada, England, and France, as well as Cuba--and, at every stop, he pulls the same silly stunt of pretending to be astonished that health care is free. How much do people pay here in France? Nothing? You've got to be kidding. But isn't everyone taxed to death to pay for health care? Well, here's a nice, two-income French couple who have a great apartment and collect sand from the deserts of the world. Not only haven't they been impoverished by taxation; they travel. And so on.

In each country, Moore interviews doctors who speak proudly of how well their country's system works. But the candor of these doctors is no more impressive than that of the corporate spokesmen Moore has confronted in the past. No one mentions the delays or the instances of less than first-rate care. We find out that a doctor in Great Britain makes a good income (about two hundred thousand dollars), but not how medical care in, say, Toronto might differ from that in a distant rural area, or how shortages may have affected the quality of Cuban health care. Moore winds up treating the audience the same way that, he says, powerful people treat the weak in America--as dopes easily satisfied with fairy tales and bland reassurances. And since he doesn't interview any of the countless Americans who have been mulling over ways to reform our system, we're supposed to come away from "Sicko" believing that sane thinking on these issues is unknown here.

Denby isn't the first New Yorker critic to be underwhelmed by Moore even as fellow liberals went gaga. The legendary Pauline Kael -- a classic Manhattan liberal who famously expressed bafflement that Richard Nixon was re-elected in 1972 because she didn't know anyone who voted for him -- saw through Moore from the start:

I've heard it said that Michael Moore's muckraking documentary "Roger & Me" is scathing and Voltairean. I've read that Michael Moore is "a satirist of the Reagan period equal in talent to Mencken and [Sinclair] Lewis," and "an irrepressible new humorist in the tradition of Mark Twain and Artemus Ward." But the film I saw was shallow and facetious, a piece of gonzo demagoguery that made me feel cheap for laughing.


UPDATE, 10:47 a.m.: Read what The Toronto Star has to say about Moore's paean to Canada's health system here:
http://www.thestar.com/article/230677


That looks close to ad hominem to me...

Here is the article by David Denby himself from The New Yorker:

News Source: The New Yorker

Do No Harm
“Sicko” and “Evening.”
by David Denby

Posted Image

Michael Moore has teased and bullied his way to some brilliant highs in his career as a political entertainer, but he scrapes bottom in his new documentary, “Sicko.” The movie is an attack on the American health-care system, and it starts out strongly, with Moore interviewing families who have been betrayed or neglected by H.M.O.s and insurance companies. A man whose life might have been saved by a bone-marrow transplant died when he was refused “experimental” treatment. A feverish baby died when her mother, rather than taking her to a hospital run by her insurer, Kaiser Permanente, rushed her to the nearest emergency room, where they were turned away. Moore then zeroes in on the situation of three volunteer Ground Zero rescue workers, who have trouble breathing or who suffer from stress and can’t get assistance from the federal government. More baffled than angry, they soberly report on their conditions, and Moore comments that even national heroes aren’t given help by the nation. A bit later in the film, however, he presents congressional testimony suggesting that people the Administration has deemed to be national enemies—the detainees at Guantánamo Bay—are receiving good health care free. So Moore loads the Ground Zero volunteers, plus some other people who have serious health problems, into three boats in the Miami harbor. “Which way to Guantánamo Bay?” he calls out to a Coast Guard vessel, and the little flotilla sets off for Cuba. When the boats arrive outside the base, they are, of course, stonily denied entrance.


An absurdist of outrage, Moore has attacked corporations that destroy cities by closing down local plants (“Roger & Me”); a gun-happy culture that makes arms easily available (“Bowling for Columbine”); an Administration that begins a war without sufficient cause (“Fahrenheit 9/11”). He has stalked corporate officials and congressmen, planted his bulk before them and asked mock-naïve questions, and his provocations, at their best, have smoked out hypocrites and liars. But this confrontation is different. Hauling off seriously ill people to a military base where they won’t receive treatment is a dumb prank. And the insensitivity isn’t much relieved by the piece of whimsy that comes next: Moore and the rescue workers (the other sick voyagers having mysteriously disappeared) wander onto the streets of Havana and ask some guys playing dominoes if there’s a doctor nearby. They go to a pharmacy and then to a hospital, where the Americans are admitted and treated. Few people in Moore’s audience are likely to be displeased that they receive help from a Communist system. But what is the point of Moore’s fiction of a desperate, wandering quest for medicine on the streets, as if he hadn’t known in advance that Cuba has free health care? Why not tell us what really happened on the trip—for instance, what part Cuban officials played in receiving the American patients?

After the early tales of the system’s failure, “Sicko” becomes feeble, even inane. A recent poll shows that a majority of Americans not only favor a national health service but are willing to pay higher taxes for it. In that case, wouldn’t it have made sense for Moore to find out what features of universal care in other countries could be adapted to America? Instead of sorting through any of this, Moore and his crew go from place to place—to Canada, England, and France, as well as Cuba—and, at every stop, he pulls the same silly stunt of pretending to be astonished that health care is free. How much do people pay here in France? Nothing? You’ve got to be kidding. But isn’t everyone taxed to death to pay for health care? Well, here’s a nice, two-income French couple who have a great apartment and collect sand from the deserts of the world. Not only haven’t they been impoverished by taxation; they travel. And so on.

In each country, Moore interviews doctors who speak proudly of how well their country’s system works. But the candor of these doctors is no more impressive than that of the corporate spokesmen Moore has confronted in the past. No one mentions the delays or the instances of less than first-rate care. We find out that a doctor in Great Britain makes a good income (about two hundred thousand dollars), but not how medical care in, say, Toronto might differ from that in a distant rural area, or how shortages may have affected the quality of Cuban health care. Moore winds up treating the audience the same way that, he says, powerful people treat the weak in America—as dopes easily satisfied with fairy tales and bland reassurances. And since he doesn’t interview any of the countless Americans who have been mulling over ways to reform our system, we’re supposed to come away from “Sicko” believing that sane thinking on these issues is unknown here. In the actual political world, the major Democratic Presidential candidates have already offered, or will soon offer, plans for reform. A shift to the left, or, at least, to the center, has overtaken Michael Moore, yielding an irony more striking than any he turns up: the changes in political consciousness that Moore himself has helped produce have rendered his latest film almost superfluous.

In “Evening,” based on Susan Minot’s celebrated 1998 novel, an elderly woman, Ann Lord (Vanessa Redgrave), lies dying, attended by her two daughters (Natasha Richardson and Toni Collette) and by memories of a painful and ecstatic weekend decades before. In the early fifties, at the Newport wedding of her best friend (Mamie Gummer), she divided her time between two young men—her friend’s ranting alcoholic brother (Hugh Dancy) and a handsome young doctor (Patrick Wilson), with whom she fell in love. The elderly Ann drifts in and out of memory and delirium, and the director, Lajos Koltai, aided by a screenplay written by Minot and the novelist Michael Cunningham, has concocted a remarkably complicated structure that alternates past and present, fantasy and reality. It is perhaps unnecessary to say that Vanessa Redgrave, flat on her back, makes lucid poetry and vivid emotion out of the most fragmentary and evanescent feelings. I can pay Redgrave no higher compliment than to say that if I have to watch an actor expire for two hours I would rather it be her than anyone else. Meryl Streep, as the long-ago bride now grown old, has a fine moment, too, as she lies in bed with Redgrave, and the two women look at the past, compare marriages, and make an accounting of their “mistakes”—which turn out to be merely life as it is lived, rather than as it is hoped for. As the young Ann, Claire Danes, with her broad shoulders and broad smile, has a forceful way about her that makes one want to see more.

Watching these performances, however, is about the only pleasure I got from “Evening.” This is one of the rare movies that are too sensitive for their own good. In the course of it, in both the past and the present, all the characters have to spill their feelings about everyone else, and the pileup of hurt, rue, and guilt—confessions and reconciliations and partings—becomes oppressive. The structure that the filmmakers have created is too complicated and fussy for their fairly simple story and what it has to say about time and memory, and some of Koltai’s directorial touches, such as a scene in which Redgrave imagines herself chasing little white moths in her bedclothes, turn poetry into kitsch.

Minot’s prose, which is dreamy and taut at the same time, has a distinctive rhythm that probably can’t be transferred to film. In truth, this sort of mood-memory material would have been done better fifty years ago, when it would have starred Lana Turner, Rock Hudson, Sandra Dee, and John Gavin, and been directed by Douglas Sirk. The resulting movie—let’s call it “There’s Always Yesterday”—would have been obvious and floridly emotional, but it would have had greater energy and theatrical flair than “Evening,” which isn’t much fun. The current crop of players is far more talented than my 1957 cast, but refined acting can be a trap. As everyone’s love object, Patrick Wilson is given little to do but stand around and look good. He was very effective as the dumb male dish in “Little Children,” but, if he doesn’t find some assertive roles to play, he’s in danger of turning into a joke. American movies desperately need a young leading man. He’s my candidate.

ILLUSTRATION: PHILIP BURKE


Further thoughts anyone?

My comment? I just saw the film, it was okay and I laughed a few times.

Take care.

Edited by adam_kamil, 01 July 2007 - 08:07 AM.


#51 maestro949

  • Guest
  • 2,350 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Rhode Island, USA

Posted 09 July 2007 - 12:42 AM

Watch the full movie on Google video.

#52 Shannon Vyff

  • Life Member, Director Lead Moderator
  • 3,897 posts
  • 702
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 09 July 2007 - 01:54 AM

It is a lot more fun and illuminating to watch 'Sicko' in the theatre. You can see where people laugh, what the are upset with. Another interesting phenomenon was listening to strangers discuss the movie in the theatre lobby afterwards. I'm even impressed with the cultural dialog that the movie instigated, and with the varied reviews/reports shared here at ImmInst. Moore, again has done his job well of getting an issue publicized to a wider audience--I'm wondering if healthcare will continue to be a partizan issue throughout the 08 elections here in the U.S., and whether or not there will be any significant change in U.S. healthcare during the next administration's term.

#53 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 09 July 2007 - 02:50 AM

National health care will be a gigantic tax burden on young people, especially when you consider the huge future tax burden they already have to look forward to. I'm not saying I don't think it can be done, but unless something about the economy changes it'll be a different kind of life than we have now.

Right now Americans are the workaholics of the world. After the tax burden reaches a certain point I think that will probably change.

#54 oregon

  • Guest
  • 83 posts
  • 1

Posted 10 July 2007 - 12:59 AM

National health care will be a gigantic tax burden

Not really, other countries do pay higher taxes, but the cost of health care there is MUCH lower.

Paul Krugman is one of the top US economists. Right now he is a professor at Princeton. PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE BELOW AND SEND A LINK TO YOUR FRIENDS

------

    Health Care Terror, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: These days terrorism is the first refuge of scoundrels. So when British authorities announced that a ring of Muslim doctors working for the National Health Service was behind the recent failed bomb plot, we should have known what was coming.

    “National healthcare: Breeding ground for terror?” read the on-screen headline, as the Fox News host Neil Cavuto and the commentator Jerry Bowyer solemnly discussed how universal health care promotes terrorism.

    While this was crass even by the standards of Bush-era political discourse, Fox was following in a long tradition. For more than 60 years, the medical-industrial complex and its political allies have used scare tactics to prevent America from following its conscience and making access to health care a right for all its citizens.

    I say conscience, because the health care issue is, most of all, about morality.

    That’s what we learn from the overwhelming response to Michael Moore’s “Sicko.” Health care reformers should, by all means, address the anxieties of middle-class Americans, their ... fear of finding themselves uninsured or ... den[ied] coverage when they need it most. But reformers shouldn’t focus only on self-interest. They should also appeal to Americans’ sense of decency and humanity.

    What outrages people who see “Sicko” is the sheer cruelty and injustice of the American health care system — sick people who can’t pay their hospital bills literally dumped on the sidewalk, a child who dies because an emergency room that isn’t a participant in her mother’s health plan won’t treat her, hard-working Americans driven into humiliating poverty by medical bills.

    “Sicko” is a powerful call to action — but ... defenders of the status quo  ...[are] very good at fending off reform by finding new ways to scare us.

    These scare tactics have often included over-the-top claims about the dangers of government insurance. “Sicko” plays part of a recording Ronald Reagan once made for the American Medical Association, warning that .... the program now known as Medicare ... would lead to totalitarianism...

    Mainly, though, the big-money interests with a stake in the present system want you to believe that universal health care would lead to a crushing tax burden and lousy medical care.

    Now, every wealthy country except the United States already has some form of universal care. Citizens ... pay extra taxes as a result — but they make up for that through savings on insurance premiums and out-of-pocket medical costs. The overall cost of health care ... is much lower...

    Meanwhile, every available indicator says that in terms of quality, access to needed care and health outcomes, the U.S. health care system does worse, not better, than other advanced countries. ...

    All of which raises the question Mr. Moore asks at the beginning of “Sicko”: who are we?

    “We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics.” So declared F.D.R. in 1937, in words that apply perfectly to health care today. This isn’t one of those cases where we face painful tradeoffs — here, doing the right thing is also cost-efficient. Universal health care would save thousands of American lives each year, while actually saving money.

    So this is a test. The only things standing in the way of universal health care are the fear-mongering and influence-buying of interest groups. If we can’t overcome those forces here, there’s not much hope for America’s future.



#55 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 10 July 2007 - 07:03 AM

National health care will be a gigantic tax burden

Not really, other countries do pay higher taxes, but the cost of health care there is MUCH lower.


America is not other countries. If you look at the tax rate people will need to be paying in 30 more years to cover obligations the federal government already has, I feel sorry for those people. If you add something like national health care the overall tax rate will probably have to be about 70% or more.

#56 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 10 July 2007 - 12:18 PM

National health care will be a gigantic tax burden on young people, especially when you consider the huge future tax burden they already have to look forward to. I'm not saying I don't think it can be done, but unless something about the economy changes it'll be a different kind of life than we have now.

Right now Americans are the workaholics of the world. After the tax burden reaches a certain point I think that will probably change.


Biknut it is not about NATIONAL HEALTH CARE it is simply a Federal Medical Insurance program. BTW the present insurance industry has already failed in its promise to self regulate and more efficiently manage the industry so the issue is when will the citizens take on a more active role in managing a critical resource that is not living up to the promises of the free market?

It is not however about national health care as private research, medicine, doctors, hospitals, products, services etc will still be available. In fact so will private insurance but now it will have to compete against a national standard. This could make it easier for private industry to do a better job than the pathetically dismal one it has been doing.

BTW insurance is predicated on distributing the risk and reward over a large population to assess individual cost for service. Should we tell an uninsured young person that is in an automobile accident to bleed to death by the curb because they didn't want to assume the shared cost burden of dealing with the elderly by having health insurance?

BTW the history of private industry in these large scale social matters of health insurance and pensions is not so great when compared to government so perhaps we should take a closer look.

For example the the VA presently operated better than any private concern until the present demonstration gutted its effectiveness through cronyism, ironically during a time of war of their own creating.

Social Security presently works better than almost all industry offered pension plans and given the recent spate of bankruptcies, devaluations and sell offs is considerably more reliable in the long run. It has its long term threats but these are identifiable and manageable given the popular will and at present the system is in the black and working.

It is arguable that insurance industries have mismanaged a number of areas of shared risk and in fact government can do those better when provided sufficient incentive and opportunity because given the economies of scale dealing with large social issues is the one thing government is really designed to do. Could it do it better?

Of course it can but doing them is in part why they exist and when industry handles those roles all it has really done is usurp the role of government and made itself a de facto form of government without adequate oversight, without representation to the taxpayer and without providing a fair means of redressing grievance for its failure to meet its contractual promises.

So please everyone let's talk about insurance industry reform and whether government should be in the insurance business not about a national medical service, which frankly has nothing to do with what is really in debate for change.

#57 JonesGuy

  • Guest
  • 1,183 posts
  • 8

Posted 10 July 2007 - 03:54 PM

National health care will be a gigantic tax burden

Not really, other countries do pay higher taxes, but the cost of health care there is MUCH lower.


America is not other countries. If you look at the tax rate people will need to be paying in 30 more years to cover obligations the federal government already has, I feel sorry for those people. If you add something like national health care the overall tax rate will probably have to be about 70% or more.


The American Federal gov't is already paying more, per capita, than the Canadian federal gov't for healthcare.
I'm not just saying that the US spends more per capita, but that the gov't spends more per capita. If the US gov't came down to our spending, they'd see their deficit grow more slowly
http://www.who.int/w...&indicators=nha

(But you're right about the escalating future costs. The solution, of course, is to encourage investment and wealth creation in your local society (and personally). People watching "the Simple Life" doesn't make the country more wealthy)

#58 sentrysnipe

  • Guest
  • 491 posts
  • 5

Posted 10 July 2007 - 06:48 PM

I don't like Moore, I don't hate him either, like some people do, but here's to giving credit where credit is due.


Moore v. Blitzer on Asking Hard Questions, Walter Reed, etc.


Is Wolf a Zionist (Jewish or non-Jewish) too?

Michael Moore's YouTube Clip Saves Couple's Home


#59 Live Forever

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 10 July 2007 - 08:14 PM

Moore rips Wolf Blitzer on CNN (with video):
http://rawstory.com/...er_on_0709.html




Same one as sentrysnipe provided above. ;))

#60 Athanasios

  • Guest
  • 2,616 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Texas

Posted 10 July 2007 - 08:26 PM

Moore is going to be talking to Blitzer tonight, again.

Then

Moore and Gupta are going to be on Larry King tonight.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users