3:29AM
I watch Michael Moore promote "Sicko" and he impresses throughout

Not an endorsement of everything claims, but a sense that he's trying very hard to make things better.
And is that not the essence of America?
Not an endorsement of everything claims, but a sense that he's trying very hard to make things better.
And is that not the essence of America?
Reader Comments (12)
And wouldn't a potential government-run healthcare plan be better compared to things like Medicare or Medicaid or even Social Security?
Moore's major point that he expresses in every interview is that private insurance must, by law, maximize profits for their shareholders. The more they pay out, the less they can give to their shareholders in profits. So insurance companies must find any way possible to avoid paying out. That means a trend of denying legitimate claims rather than paying illegitimate ones.
This is obviously a quality of life issue. America does best when it attracts the best and brightest, right? Why will smart people continue to come to America when it's easier everyday to innovate/work from overseas, you're not as likely to get a health care denial (and you're MUCH less worried about the stress of all this), you're guaranteed long vacations, etc.
Our current health-care system pushes away the riff-raff from our society, but sometimes those are the types that make the innovation...does a pre-existing medical condition preclude me from being a successful entrepreneur here? Or would my medical bills make it impossible to start a business? Also, why would a smart American without a college degree stay here - someone with an idea who goes all-out to pursue it...these are the people we need to keep.
Also, as someone passively looking for a new job...good benefits are a must.
I haven't seen Michael Moore's movie, but I plan to. What I know of the medical system in this country comes from personal experience, along with what I've learned from friends and family who spent decades working in the system. Here's something to keep in mind, if you become gravely ill, or you suffer massive trauma in an accident, most often you will be far better off in our system if you don't have health insurance. This is because the way the law is written in this country, you can't be denied medical procedures or tests if you aren't covered by anyone.
On the other hand if you have health insurance, the decision to give you multiple MRIs or cat scans or any number of other procedures which your insurance provider has a say in approving, may be denied you if that insurance company balks. This is one of the frightening realities of managed-care. The rest of the time, some insurance is usually better than no insurance, but this irony is one of the sickening realities of having profit-making entities involved in life and death decisions.
At the other end of the wellness spectrum, often insurance companies resist when doctors want to take preventative measures, and patients must wait until their conditions become more severe before they receive the care they need, care that most often would've prevented the condition from worsening in the first place. It's as if insurers only want to cover a small narrow band of what is entailed in maintaining health, and the reason they operate in this manner is for no other reason than to maintain high profit margins.
In the current system in America, patients, doctors, hospitals and health-care workers all suffer while insurance companies capitalize on that suffering, that's the way it is, and anyone who denies it, just hasn't spent enough time in the system.
In the bigger picture, I agree with antonymous. I see medical security as a competition issue on the global market. If we want the American economy to become more adaptive and flexible in a dynamic, competitive global market, that will inevitably include loss of jobs and pay cuts. I believe a minimum level of healthcare should be built into the social infrastructure. Healthcare as public good would go a long way to allay insecurity and lack of confidence on the part of labor in our society as the economy becomes more unstable on the ground level. Also, decreasing the responsibility for healthcare on employers should reduce costs for them.
In fact, a friend of mine stated after seeing Sicko that Moore's real complaint in film after film is not a criticism of conservatism, or of Bush, but of the apathy of so much of the American citizenry. He is upset at how much we let go -- it is a subtle point, and he (my friend) may not be right. But it made me view Moore differently.