..... what's the problem ? http://www.calnurse.org/sicko :goodjob:
Sicko.... Michael Moore
I'd like to see it I like MM for the most part.
I saw portions of Sicko during research for my biography Citizen Moore (RDR Books). Michael's new film puts the national health care debate on the front burner and should make an important contribution in states that are moving ahead quickly to reform health care delivery. The national picture is far more complicated becasue that is where the lobbyists put much of their effort, convincing both parties that partial remedies are better than a complete overhaul. What's great about Sicko is that it shows why America has fallen behind on health care in many crucial areas such as infant mortality. It's true that other nations have plenty of problems delivering health care. But what I like about Sicko is that it opens up the debate beyond the usual spokespeople, publicisits, lobbyists and trade associations and lets lay people have their say. Their views are fascinating and show why we need to listen to the patients, as well as the HMOs. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have all the answers to this problem. It's up to all of us to get involved at the state and national level.
Roger Rapoport
roger@rdrbooks.com
Roger Rapoport
roger@rdrbooks.com
" Sicko " an incisive diagosis of U.S. health care..... :thumbsup: http://www.reuters.com/article/reviewsNews/idUSN2027073520070521?pageNumber=2
here's an e-mail I got this morning you know Michael says Oprah should run for president:
Michael Moore on Oprah Tuesday
Michael Moore will appear on Oprah tomorrow, Tuesday, June 5, and will present, for the first time on television, scenes from his new film, "Sicko." Oprah will interview Michael about the movie and the attention it's receiving before its release (opening day everywhere is June 29). The theme of Oprah's show is the one film you must see this summer -- "Sicko" -- and the one book you must read (Cormac McCarthy's "The Road"). Oprah loved Michael's film and wants to make health care for all one of her main missions this year.
So set your recorders for Oprah tomorrow, Tuesday!
Michael Moore on Oprah Tuesday
Michael Moore will appear on Oprah tomorrow, Tuesday, June 5, and will present, for the first time on television, scenes from his new film, "Sicko." Oprah will interview Michael about the movie and the attention it's receiving before its release (opening day everywhere is June 29). The theme of Oprah's show is the one film you must see this summer -- "Sicko" -- and the one book you must read (Cormac McCarthy's "The Road"). Oprah loved Michael's film and wants to make health care for all one of her main missions this year.
So set your recorders for Oprah tomorrow, Tuesday!
mared wrote:..... what's the problem ? SiCKO Index Page :goodjob:
Hey! We're ahead of Slovenia! :houra:
barrrrhhh, more about universal healthcare. 1 word "disasterous"
:endof:
:endof:
If he puts his personal bias into the movie, then it's a waste of time and a disservice to Americans. see: Fahrenheit 911...the last so called "documentary" he made.
Yeah, I'm a conservative, but I'm not some Bush apologist...far from it. However that "film" was little more than liberal propoganda.
I hope this one will do some good though.
I'm going to watch it, and give him the benefit of the doubt.
-------------
On Oprah, she could win the Presidency in a LANDSLIDE victory IMO. She's got the vote of EVERY woman in America, and probably every black person in America. That's a pretty good start. She's level headed, and makes pretty good sense of most issues.
I'd probably vote for her, but she might be a little far left for my taste.
I'm pretty far too the right on fiscal issues, crime and punishment, and other things, but more towards the left on some social issues.
Anyway, I'd love to get fired up about this one, but I can't help but roll my eyes...
Yeah, I'm a conservative, but I'm not some Bush apologist...far from it. However that "film" was little more than liberal propoganda.
I hope this one will do some good though.
I'm going to watch it, and give him the benefit of the doubt.
-------------
On Oprah, she could win the Presidency in a LANDSLIDE victory IMO. She's got the vote of EVERY woman in America, and probably every black person in America. That's a pretty good start. She's level headed, and makes pretty good sense of most issues.
I'd probably vote for her, but she might be a little far left for my taste.
I'm pretty far too the right on fiscal issues, crime and punishment, and other things, but more towards the left on some social issues.
Anyway, I'd love to get fired up about this one, but I can't help but roll my eyes...
In our "Policies and Politics" class, we'd watched part of a movie (forgot what one, though) that showed the desparity of who gets what kind of coverage.
The discussion quickly (!) moved on to the number of premature births, especially the really early ones. When is it futile?
'Cat'
The discussion quickly (!) moved on to the number of premature births, especially the really early ones. When is it futile?
'Cat'
[QUOTE=Aaron C.;43504]If he puts his personal bias into the movie, then it's a waste of time and a disservice to Americans. see: Fahrenheit 911...the last so called "documentary" he made.
Yeah, I'm a conservative, but I'm not some Bush apologist...far from it. However that "film" was little more than liberal propoganda.
I hope this one will do some good though.
I'm going to watch it, and give him the benefit of the doubt.
-------------
I don't know that it was personal bias or the bias of lots of persons.
Yeah, I'm a conservative, but I'm not some Bush apologist...far from it. However that "film" was little more than liberal propoganda.
I hope this one will do some good though.
I'm going to watch it, and give him the benefit of the doubt.
-------------
I don't know that it was personal bias or the bias of lots of persons.
[QUOTE=cassioo;43581]
What?????
Aaron C. wrote:If he puts his personal bias into the movie, then it's a waste of time and a disservice to Americans. see: Fahrenheit 911...the last so called "documentary" he made.
Yeah, I'm a conservative, but I'm not some Bush apologist...far from it. However that "film" was little more than liberal propoganda.
I hope this one will do some good though.
I'm going to watch it, and give him the benefit of the doubt.
-------------
I don't know that it was personal bias or the bias of lots of persons.
What?????
[QUOTE=NavyJim58;43627]
I don't think it's just MM thinnking like that there are many people that think like MM he just puts it on film
cassioo wrote:What?????
I don't think it's just MM thinnking like that there are many people that think like MM he just puts it on film
Michael Moore joined thousands of RNs,doctors,patients, and healthcare activists at the state Capitol.......... http://www.calnurse.org/sicko/june-12-rally-photos.html :houra: :houra: :houra:
Sicko Premiere Sign-up Form........ Michael Moore's Sicko Movie Premiers Nationwide June 29'........ http://www.calnurse.org/sicko/premiere-sign-up-form.html :luck:
From '' SICKO " to Sanity - Nurses, Doctors, Healthcare Activists to Greet Audiences with call for Guaranteed Healthcare as Sicko opens today... :welcome1: http://www.calnurse.org/media-center/press-releases/2007/june/page.jsp?itemID=30944122
I’ve done quite a bit of reading and reseach in this area and here are my thoughts.
1) The US consistently lags behind other industrialized nations in most healthcare measures see infant mortality and life expectancy).
2) The average single coverage gives about $145 towards covering un or underinsured people. Avg. family over $200. (Hospitals who care for these people pass the costs long to the insurance company and they pass them along to the employers and employees)
3) The US “system” is geared towards treating and curing diseases rather than preventing them, which is the most costly way to practice medicine.
4) The Cost of the Tort System adds an additional $124 billion in liability-based health care costs according to some.
5) Pharmaceutical Companies Spend More on Marketing than on R&D.
6) Americans in general have more unhealthy habits (diet and exercise) than other industrialized nations.
A few solutions are as follows:
1) Provide low cost primary care for every US citizen including generic drug coverage. Taking the $145 and $200 every person is already paying and putting it towards preventive care would decrease insurance costs for all.
2) Reform the tort system
3) Require pharmaceutical companies that get tax breaks and public funds must provide those medications to US citizens at lower costs.
4) Ban direct to public advertising by the pharmaceutical companies
1) The US consistently lags behind other industrialized nations in most healthcare measures see infant mortality and life expectancy).
2) The average single coverage gives about $145 towards covering un or underinsured people. Avg. family over $200. (Hospitals who care for these people pass the costs long to the insurance company and they pass them along to the employers and employees)
3) The US “system” is geared towards treating and curing diseases rather than preventing them, which is the most costly way to practice medicine.
4) The Cost of the Tort System adds an additional $124 billion in liability-based health care costs according to some.
5) Pharmaceutical Companies Spend More on Marketing than on R&D.
6) Americans in general have more unhealthy habits (diet and exercise) than other industrialized nations.
A few solutions are as follows:
1) Provide low cost primary care for every US citizen including generic drug coverage. Taking the $145 and $200 every person is already paying and putting it towards preventive care would decrease insurance costs for all.
2) Reform the tort system
3) Require pharmaceutical companies that get tax breaks and public funds must provide those medications to US citizens at lower costs.
4) Ban direct to public advertising by the pharmaceutical companies
MM was on I believe Larry King yesterday with reruns today I hear the movie is doing quite well I had a postcard in the mail when I got home to be on a nurse resource team for sicko.
Was talking to some of our docs today about single-pay healthcare, & they said that if the US goes to "socialized" medicine, there will be no incentive for them to become docs!! I'm unfamiliar with socialized medicine. Is anyone online who is?
I mean they were saying that the US is "cutting edge" on R&D, but wasn't it Britain who cloned the first animal? And wasn't it Britain who produced the first "test-tube" baby?
I mean they were saying that the US is "cutting edge" on R&D, but wasn't it Britain who cloned the first animal? And wasn't it Britain who produced the first "test-tube" baby?
July 7, 2007 Sicko's Impacts By Michael Moore................................................http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_michael_070707_sicko_s_impact.htm
Enerjan wrote:Was talking to some of our docs today about single-pay healthcare, & they said that if the US goes to "socialized" medicine, there will be no incentive for them to become docs!! I'm unfamiliar with socialized medicine. Is anyone online who is?
I mean they were saying that the US is "cutting edge" on R&D, but wasn't it Britain who cloned the first animal? And wasn't it Britain who produced the first "test-tube" baby?
so their incentive to go into medicine wasn't to help people it was show me the money...monthing wrong with money just sorry that's their only incentive.
Enerjan wrote:Was talking to some of our docs today about single-pay healthcare, & they said that if the US goes to "socialized" medicine, there will be no incentive for them to become docs!! I'm unfamiliar with socialized medicine. Is anyone online who is?
I mean they were saying that the US is "cutting edge" on R&D, but wasn't it Britain who cloned the first animal? And wasn't it Britain who produced the first "test-tube" baby?
This is because typically socialized medicine focuses on preventive medicine and not specialized medicine. Most doctors become a specialist because that’s where more of the money is. Limiting who can get what when, like an HMO hits them in their pocket book and the general public plays into this thinking that they need a specialist for every little ailment, which in most cases a primary care/family practice physician can treat the majority of maladies.
A lot of issues stem from what the lay public believes, which is commonly due to advertising or word of month. I read a study once that said a high percentage of people make medical decisions based on the advice of family members. For example a person might want to go to hospital “A” because that’s where that person’s uncle went for similar procedure and had a good out come. However, in reality the person should go to hospital “B” because they have more experience in doing the procedure than hospital “A”.
Lastly how often to doctors refer to an other doctor that they went to medical school with or met at a conference and not based on what is best for the patient?
A national health care crisis? Hogwash, purest nonsense. I will freely admit that I have not seen Sicko (when I first heard the title, I thought Moore had finally produced an autobiography), nor do I have any intention of doing so. Not because my mind is made up and I don’t want to be presented with information that might run counter to my beliefs. No, I won’t see it because MM is not a documentary producer, but rather a producer of pure propaganda. In every film, he starts with a conclusion, then seeks out information that supports that conclusion, excluding all information that might tend to disprove that conclusion.
I could write pages of information, supported by facts to explain why a “National Healthcare Program” would be a social, economic, and medical disaster. For example, by their own figures, 40 million Americans are “without health insurance.” What you are not told is that “without health insurance” does not equate to “without health care.” Neither do they want you to do the math, and think critically about the conclusions the math leads you to. 40 million people is about 15% of our nation. That means that 85% of Americans do have health care coverage. Name another program or social institution that covers 85% of our population that we consider a failure. It doesn’t exist. Well, maybe social security or the education system, but both are heavily regulated by the federal government. Not a ringing endorsement for allowing the government to take over health care.
But what I find to be most frustrating is the misinformation and statistical manipulation that occurs by those who want what amounts to socialized medicine. The most egregious is the oft presented supposed fact that Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the US. This is a perfect example of statistical manipulation to favor a pre-supposed conclusion, and the manipulation can be boiled down to three words: Age of viability.
In the US, an infant born alive, for example, at 26 weeks gestation is considered to be viable. Even so, these cases require enormous resources and 24 medical intervention to save such an infant. Yet we always try. Inevitably, some of these children will not survive. Even so, since we considered the child viable at birth, those that do not survive will contribute to our infant mortality statistics. In Cuba, the same child is not considered to be viable. No time or resources are expended to save such children. As a result, all these kids die, but since they are considered to be miscarriages, they are not included in the statistical calculations for infant mortality. When adjusted for differences such as these, statistically, Cuban infant mortality zooms past the US.
You must look beyond the simple statements that Moore and his supporters provide before reaching conclusions.
Kevin
I could write pages of information, supported by facts to explain why a “National Healthcare Program” would be a social, economic, and medical disaster. For example, by their own figures, 40 million Americans are “without health insurance.” What you are not told is that “without health insurance” does not equate to “without health care.” Neither do they want you to do the math, and think critically about the conclusions the math leads you to. 40 million people is about 15% of our nation. That means that 85% of Americans do have health care coverage. Name another program or social institution that covers 85% of our population that we consider a failure. It doesn’t exist. Well, maybe social security or the education system, but both are heavily regulated by the federal government. Not a ringing endorsement for allowing the government to take over health care.
But what I find to be most frustrating is the misinformation and statistical manipulation that occurs by those who want what amounts to socialized medicine. The most egregious is the oft presented supposed fact that Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the US. This is a perfect example of statistical manipulation to favor a pre-supposed conclusion, and the manipulation can be boiled down to three words: Age of viability.
In the US, an infant born alive, for example, at 26 weeks gestation is considered to be viable. Even so, these cases require enormous resources and 24 medical intervention to save such an infant. Yet we always try. Inevitably, some of these children will not survive. Even so, since we considered the child viable at birth, those that do not survive will contribute to our infant mortality statistics. In Cuba, the same child is not considered to be viable. No time or resources are expended to save such children. As a result, all these kids die, but since they are considered to be miscarriages, they are not included in the statistical calculations for infant mortality. When adjusted for differences such as these, statistically, Cuban infant mortality zooms past the US.
You must look beyond the simple statements that Moore and his supporters provide before reaching conclusions.
Kevin
Kevin,
You make some great points.
I shared your outlook on MM and I still do, HOWEVER I did watch the documentary.
Why? Because even though I agreed with what you wrote that I quoted above, I also realize that just because he does that, does not make him wrong.
I don't know if socialized medicine will help us or hurt us but I can say for sure that the message he's sending, however biased, isn't hurting the cause of healthcare in this country.
There are some excellent points in the "documentary" but as I said before, maybe it was in this thread I can't remember, I don't like the direction he goes in as the film progresses--towards socialism trying to say Cuba and France are better places to live, etc. and promoting free child care, free laundry service, etc.
I do agree with his stance on insurance companies basically scamming people, and prescription drug companies gouging the crap out of us, along with a couple of other things...
You make some great points.
I won’t see it because MM is not a documentary producer, but rather a producer of pure propaganda. In every film, he starts with a conclusion, then seeks out information that supports that conclusion, excluding all information that might tend to disprove that conclusion.
I shared your outlook on MM and I still do, HOWEVER I did watch the documentary.
Why? Because even though I agreed with what you wrote that I quoted above, I also realize that just because he does that, does not make him wrong.
I don't know if socialized medicine will help us or hurt us but I can say for sure that the message he's sending, however biased, isn't hurting the cause of healthcare in this country.
There are some excellent points in the "documentary" but as I said before, maybe it was in this thread I can't remember, I don't like the direction he goes in as the film progresses--towards socialism trying to say Cuba and France are better places to live, etc. and promoting free child care, free laundry service, etc.
I do agree with his stance on insurance companies basically scamming people, and prescription drug companies gouging the crap out of us, along with a couple of other things...
Aaron C. wrote:I don't know if socialized medicine will help us or hurt us but I can say for sure that the message he's sending, however biased, isn't hurting the cause of healthcare in this country.I'd have to disagree. While there are problems in the healthcare industry today, they are better repaired through judicious "tweaking" of the present system . We have a system that provides for 85% of our population. 85%. Again, I challenge anyone to show me any service that provides for 85% of our population. If they can do so, I further challenge them to show me such a system we consider to be a failure.
MM is banging the drum to completely junk this system, and have it taken over by the federal government. As Goebbles said (paraphrasing), tell a big enough lie often enough, and people will begin to believe it. That's what is happening here. Worse, that drumbeat is finding a believing audience among healthcare professionals, particularly nurses and nursing organizations, who unknowingly perpetuate the lies and propaganda. The utter lack of critical thinking is appalling. And the potential economic, social, and health consequences are staggering.
I do agree with his stance on insurance companies basically scamming people, and prescription drug companies gouging the crap out of us, along with a couple of other things...Again, I'd have to disagree. You are not being scammed. These anonymous companies still have bosses to report to, called shareholders. They must show a profit. What you are seeing are simple free market economics. Goods or services can be sold at market value, or more commonly "what the market will bear." Right now, the market will bear what the insurance companies are charging, but my sense is that will not continue much longer. The profit margins of most of these companies are too large, and as a result we are seeing more and more companies that are charging less for the same (or nearly the same) service. If you don't believe me, watch TV advertising. Not a day goes by that I don't see some company advertising that it can offer health insurance for less.
This is a normal adjustment that will happen in free markets, if left alone. When the huge companies get "too big for their breeches," new companies come along and undercut the big boys. And in a fairly short time, the big boys either come down or go the way of the dinosaurs. Welcome to the free market.
Ours is not, and was constitutionally not designed to be, a socialist country. Yet folks like MM, or the Clintons, want to take us further and further down that road. We have a great standard of living, with the average American living far better than the average citizen of more socialized nations, yet for some reason we keep getting nudged in the direction of greater governmental control of the market, not to mention our lives. We MUST draw the line somewhere.
Kevin