My first thought on this movie was probably the same as a lot of people: Fat man making a movie about health is just comical. You gotta give Michael Moore credit though, the guy is out there trying to do something about a problem. I'm looking forward to it.

 

Release Date: June 29th

**BUMP**

 

I saw the film, and all I have to say is that Moore raises many valid arguments concerning health care.

 

I find it very disturbing how the UK, France, and even Cuba, can provide free healthcare for their citizens, while we, the richest country in the entire world, cannot.

 

As a person who has healthcare, I was very appalled by the medical horror stories of many other people. It is easy for us that have healthcare to be satisfied with the current health system, but I just cannot bear to see our senior citizens working because they cannot afford to pay for their medications, to see people have to sell their homes to keep on living, or to even watch people die because they are neglected by the health insurance companies.

 

I have to say the movie was very well made, and unlike his previous movies, it's not one of those right versus left debates, it's something that should get all of us thinking.

this guy is a genius, always love his stuff. this is just another to add to the pile.

this guy is a genius

:lol

 

Genuis is an extremely strong word, you pretty much just insulted everyone in histroy who is considered an actual genuis. (Einstein, Feynmann, Newton, Archimedes etc.)

Socialized health care does not work. Just ask a Canadian.

Socialized health care does not work. Just ask a Canadian.

 

Well he asked Canadians, French, Britons, and Americans living in these places and they all loved it.

 

He spoke to doctors, patients, and many other witnesses.

 

They showed the conditions of some hospitals in different countries.

 

And were the only Western country not to have socialized medicine.

Socialized health care does not work. Just ask a Canadian.

 

Well he asked Canadians, French, Britons, and Americans living in these places and they all loved it.

 

He spoke to doctors, patients, and many other witnesses.

 

They showed the conditions of some hospitals in different countries.

 

And were the only Western country not to have socialized medicine.

Did you expect him to interview people who disagreed with him?

Of course he found doctors, patients, and other witnesses, but he only presented one side. Of course only presenting one side of an issue can be convincing and that's what crazies like Moore who are too far of one side of the spectrum do.

Socialized health care does not work. Just ask a Canadian.

 

Well he asked Canadians, French, Britons, and Americans living in these places and they all loved it.

 

He spoke to doctors, patients, and many other witnesses.

 

They showed the conditions of some hospitals in different countries.

 

And were the only Western country not to have socialized medicine.

Did you expect him to interview people who disagreed with him?

Of course he found doctors, patients, and other witnesses, but he only presented one side. Of course only presenting one side of an issue can be convincing and that's what crazies like Moore who are too far of one side of the spectrum do.

 

Obviously dood.

 

He is trying to make a point.

 

Either way you cannot deny there is a big flaw in our Healthcare system and I am not just talking about the people who are insured.

 

The movie in fact is more about the flaws in our healthcare system than about universal healthcare. He shows the possibilities of universal healthcare. I'm sure there are down sides to universal healthcare but there are bigger holes in our system.

Socialized health care does not work. Just ask a Canadian.

While I do not advocate a Canadian style system I have a problem with you making it out that canadians hate their health system.

 

If this is the case why has the Democratic country of Canada continually elected in it's entire existence politicians who continue to support the canadian health system? Let's look at this the past election the conservative party one with Stephen Harper, conservative is the keyword. He made no mention of even reforming the system because he wasn't about to lose his chances at election on a passionate issue in Canada.

 

You may have a few dissenters but it's kinda ludicrous to make the case than an entire country of free people hate the system they have yet continually elect people vowing to uphold the system.

 

It's kinda like knowing two athiests in America and then claiming that you can ask any American and most are not relegious, yet we have an entire wopping total of one agnostic in our country's history of Congress, or the White House and he just came out and has yet to face election.

Also continuing on Rune's point.

 

Even Thatcher the most conservative British prime minister didnt abolish socialized health care in England because the British do love there NHS.

Despite whatever flaws it might have, it's still the best system out there. We have biomedical technology that is widely accessible that the vast majority of these socialized medicine countries simply don't have.

 

However, I'll reserve my judgments on the film itself until I see it Tuesday night.

 

It is the best system for everyone out there or the best system for those who can afford it's high end uses?

The will of the people is rarely what's best for the people.

The will of the people is rarely what's best for the people.

 

See one George W. Bush....

 

 

best example of health system:

 

I broke my leg while skiing in England back in early last year. I was hopitalized for 5 days and operated. ( I have a total of 9 screws in my leg) I also recieved a brief free physical therapy (because I came back to the US but it would have gone on for longer) and the only thing they needed from me was a copy of my passport and my signature to allow the doctors to operate on me. How much would this have cost me in the US? ... not sure, but I would probably still be paying for it now and for the next 15 years.

 

and the best part was when the ambulance took me into the warden and I nervously asked the nurse how much this would cost me, she laughed and said: "dont worry this is not the United States here, your health system is free" ... I will NEVER forget that.

The will of the people is rarely what's best for the people.

My exact to response to this question:

If this is the case why has the Democratic country of Canada continually elected in it's entire existence politicians who continue to support the canadian health system?

While it's obvious that not everyone HATES socialized health in Canada and/or England, there are definitely problems with this system as well. For anyone who has never lived abroad and had to use one of these systems, it's easy to overlook the fact that you are generally seen on a triage basis [higher need/emergency care first, lower need second, preventative on stand-by] and can wait several weeks to be seen by a physician.

 

Have you ever been to a busy ER and had to wait? Remember how annoying and frustrating it was to sit in an ER waiting room because you weren't a priority patient? Same principals apply. Now imagine if you had millions of people in the ER. That's your socialized health system in a nutshell.

 

It's great if/when you get treated. It sucks if you need to see someone soon and you aren't dying.

hahaha to yankeefan21

 

you are generally seen on a triage basis [higher need/emergency care first, lower need second

 

isnt that the case in EVERY hospital from here to hiroshima? it common sense

 

Now imagine if you had millions of people in the ER. That's your socialized health system in a nutshell.

 

... I have been to 2 hospitals abroad in two different countries of the EU and they both apologized countless times because they were running late which was about 20 - 30 minute wait after my appointment, you are lucky if they even pay attention to you here.

hahaha to yankeefan21

 

you are generally seen on a triage basis [higher need/emergency care first, lower need second

 

isnt that the case in EVERY hospital from here to hiroshima? it common sense

Yes. That is probably the case in most HOSPITALS from here to Hiroshima. Health Care is more than just a hospital visit, though.

 

When I tried to see a physician for some respiratory issues in the UK, I was on a wait list for two weeks [it went away on its own]. With my health plan, I see my doctor same day and get some meds. Again, I am fortunate enough to work for an organization with a great health plan and reasonable rates. I just went to the hospital on Tuesday evening for stepping on a nail that went two inches into my foot. I got seen, got an x-ray, got my meds, and got a doctor's note for a $25 copay on the visit and $10 copay on the meds.

If this is the case why has the Democratic country of Canada continually elected in it's entire existence politicians who continue to support the canadian health system?

While it's obvious that not everyone HATES socialized health in Canada and/or England, there are definitely problems with this system as well. For anyone who has never lived abroad and had to use one of these systems, it's easy to overlook the fact that you are generally seen on a triage basis [higher need/emergency care first, lower need second, preventative on stand-by] and can wait several weeks to be seen by a physician.

 

Have you ever been to a busy ER and had to wait? Remember how annoying and frustrating it was to sit in an ER waiting room because you weren't a priority patient? Same principals apply. Now imagine if you had millions of people in the ER. That's your socialized health system in a nutshell.

 

It's great if/when you get treated. It sucks if you need to see someone soon and you aren't dying.

Look above post,: Do I advocate a Canadian style system? Let's get's the answer.... No, No, and No.

 

All I was making the point was the absolute ridiculous post by Beinfest that somehow a Democratic country of people has been tired of their system for years and knows it sucks. Here's the real answer, no they don't. Canadians are about as proud of their system as anything and you can say all you want the will of the people is not always best but that's not was up for discussion by myself now was it? All I was pointing out was how ludicrous it was to say that Canadians hate their system. NO THEY DON'T. They may find flaws in it but if you ask most Canadians what they would rather have they'll go with theirs any day of the week.

 

And for the record I think the closest plan we've got that can work is the one implemented in Massachusets where we make it like car insurance and subsidise the cost for the lower class. The plan is not perfect but it's the closest we've come to a good solid plan.

best example of health system:

 

I broke my leg while skiing in England back in early last year. I was hopitalized for 5 days and operated. ( I have a total of 9 screws in my leg) I also recieved a brief free physical therapy (because I came back to the US but it would have gone on for longer) and the only thing they needed from me was a copy of my passport and my signature to allow the doctors to operate on me. How much would this have cost me in the US? ... not sure, but I would probably still be paying for it now and for the next 15 years.

 

and the best part was when the ambulance took me into the warden and I nervously asked the nurse how much this would cost me, she laughed and said: "dont worry this is not the United States here, your health system is free" ... I will NEVER forget that.

I am going to preface this by saying I am not a physician nor am I involved with hospital administration, so I admit I could be dead wrong on this particular case. However, I don't think that sounds as glamorous as you make it sound.

 

Five days in the hospital sounds like an awful long time before operation for that procedure. It would be interesting to know how long the wait would be in the US before surgery was performed. Of course, five days in a hospital room would not be cheap. And the other question is: are you or your parents insured?

 

 

Also, easy diagnosis is handled more easily. Imagine suffering with a more complex illness that requires further testing (I hear that even a simple EKG can take up to three weeks). The inability to select my own physician (instead receiving a government appointed one) is also a huge drawback.

 

In a socialized medicine world it is virtually impossible to select a specialist at the top of his field if you are willing to take that route.

 

Not sure if he means he was in a bed for 5 days and then operated. I think those five days were for recovery. I could be wrong though.

 

Also you can choose your own doctor from what I've read and seen. They are all paid by the government but you can still choose what doctor you want to see, your not appointed one.

best example of health system:

 

I broke my leg while skiing in England back in early last year. I was hopitalized for 5 days and operated. ( I have a total of 9 screws in my leg) I also recieved a brief free physical therapy (because I came back to the US but it would have gone on for longer) and the only thing they needed from me was a copy of my passport and my signature to allow the doctors to operate on me. How much would this have cost me in the US? ... not sure, but I would probably still be paying for it now and for the next 15 years.

 

and the best part was when the ambulance took me into the warden and I nervously asked the nurse how much this would cost me, she laughed and said: "dont worry this is not the United States here, your health system is free" ... I will NEVER forget that.

I am going to preface this by saying I am not a physician nor am I involved with hospital administration, so I admit I could be dead wrong on this particular case. However, I don't think that sounds as glamorous as you make it sound.

 

Five days in the hospital sounds like an awful long time before operation for that procedure. It would be interesting to know how long the wait would be in the US before surgery was performed. Of course, five days in a hospital room would not be cheap. And the other question is: are you or your parents insured?

 

 

Also, easy diagnosis is handled more easily. Imagine suffering with a more complex illness that requires further testing (I hear that even a simple EKG can take up to three weeks). The inability to select my own physician (instead receiving a government appointed one) is also a huge drawback.

 

In a socialized medicine world it is virtually impossible to select a specialist at the top of his field if you are willing to take that route.

 

5 days in hospital AFTER the operation ... I was accepted to the hospital at around after 1am and operated at 7:00 am (I was sedated to aliviate the pain throughout the night)

 

 

I really dont think I needed to explain that one

 

ps. I left early at my own discretion, they recommended me staying for a whole week

My apologies, but your sentence was awkwardly structured.

 

Are you or your parents insured?

 

my mother is

 

I am not

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1563758/story.jhtml

 

In this article, Kurt Loder from MTV News offers a surprisingly informative review of Moore's latest film. I normally don't rely on MTV for anything news related, but someone sent me a link to this article and I happen to think it's a very good read.

 

Some of the highlights:

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 18,000* 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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

Hey guys, just for the record, Michael Moore is not a documentarian. His films are at best film versions of stuff like Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly and, at worst (and this is usually the case, especially with his last 2) exploitation films.

 

I hate people like Moore (and Limbaugh and O'Reilly), because when people listen to or watch them, they assume what they are being told is true. People like them have pushed normal journalism to the brink of extinction because instead of dealing with facts, they forgoe facts and pursue sensationalism. You can call it sensationalism, propaganda, yellow journalism, whatever. The point of the matter is these guys do more harm to our country than they do good. We don't need more people dealing with "truth minus fact", which is the territory these guys deal with. We need more plain old truth. You can make George Bush look awful without making crap up or leaving stuff out. Same with the American medical situation. Michael Moore doesn't provide any answers, he's in this for his own personal gain.

 

End of rant. I'm a journalism major, so when people take crap like this seriously, it boils my blood. It's entertaining, but take it with a grain of salt.

Moore's anecdotal approach is pretty aggravating, but it does emphasize the problem that not even penguino can deny exists. A lot of Americans just do not have access to healthcare, none whatsoever. On top of that, a lot more Americans have access to extremely bad health care coverage.

 

We can ridicule and attack the Canadians and British all we want. But it doesn't depart from the reality that we have a major problem in this country.

But their systems probably aren't the answer, either. We don't know what the answer is. And my point is you can be damn certain you won't find the answer from Moore.