Sometimes, it’s a little tough for the Fox News-bashing left to stamp the Ailes Network with the Uniformly Right-Wing complaint. For example, it’s not every day that Fox News looks liberal on CNN. But I caught the new commercial for leftist propagandist Michael Moore’s new mockumentary "Sicko" on CNN late this morning. One of three ecstatic reviewers in the TV ad is Roger Friedman of FOXNews.com ("Brilliant!")
Is that one of those tricky studio edits that doesn’t really represent the critic’s opinion? Um, no. Friedman’s online review was a rave. It began: "Filmmaker Michael Moore's brilliant and uplifting new documentary, ‘Sicko,’ deals with the failings of the U.S. healthcare system, both real and perceived. But this time around, the controversial documentarian seems to be letting the subject matter do the talking, and in the process shows a new maturity."
Friedman added: "Unlike many of his previous films ('Roger and Me,' 'Bowling for Columbine,' 'Fahrenheit 9-11'), 'Sicko' works because in this one there are no confrontations. Moore smartly lets very articulate average Americans tell their personal horror stories at the hands of insurance companies. The film never talks down or baits the audience." Friedman even agreed with Moore that the film was not partisan – but the commercial has two jokey cuts mocking President Bush, including the old gaffe that OB-GYNS can't "practice their love with women" due to the liability problem. Mature? Nonpartisan?
Of course, film reviewing is about the art of film, and not just the politics, I haven't seen the film so I can't comment on its maturity or lack of confrontation. (The commercial does feature Moore lying to a security guard about whether his camera was on. Cheeky? Or too casual about lying?)
But Friedman also raved the last Moore film was "brilliant" at FOXNews.com: "It turns out to be a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail. As much as some might try to marginalize this film as a screed against President George Bush, "F9/11" — as we saw last night — is a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty — and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice." He added it was a must-see: "But, really, in the end, not seeing 'F9/11' would be like allowing your First Amendment rights to be abrogated, no matter whether you're a Republican or a Democrat."
So much for the cartoon image of Fox News as a land of Bush-loving automatons. The other rave reviewers in the commercial are Leah Rozen of People Magazine ("A massive home run!") and Jan Stuart of Newsday ("Wildly entertaining!")
UPDATE: Scott Whitlock e-mailed that Friedman had a similar rave for Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" -- it's featured on the cover of the DVD, he says. The quote: "It doesn't matter whether you're a Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative...your mind will be changed in a nanosecond."
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
So should Roger be fired now
June 19, 2007 - 13:46 ET by whatajoySo should Roger be fired now or what?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Take it easy! We're not making a western here.
~ Uncle Junior (The Sopranos)
Fire Roger?
June 19, 2007 - 13:49 ET by Tim GrahamI'm not saying that at all. I do think it makes Fox News look more ideologically diverse than the Democrat critique would have you believe.
I would add that it's very lame to tell someone that "Republican or Democrat, you have to agree" that a film is persuasive or important. I saw "Fahrenheit 9/11" and thought it was incredibly lame work -- lame in its art, lame in its politics, and especially lame with its grip on accuracy.
Okay, I see now. Yeah, it's
June 19, 2007 - 14:27 ET by whatajoyOkay, I see now. Yeah, it's not all black and white and us conservatives like all sorts of things and even disagree with our President now and then. It's not all black and white like it is with flaming liberals. Rosie, Maher and the dems would find fault with Pres Bush helping a cat out of a tree, however I would applaude Moore for helping a cat out of a tree. I don't hate the sinner, just the sin!
-------------------------------------------------------------
Take it easy! We're not making a western here.
~ Uncle Junior (The Sopranos)
Tim,Have you seen Sicko? I'
June 19, 2007 - 13:58 ET by LeonTim,
Have you seen Sicko? I'm just wondering how you are able to classify it as a leftist-proaganda 'mockumentary'.
I mean, in order to say these things, you have to have seen it, right?
Did you read the post?? Your
June 19, 2007 - 14:03 ET by florida_chadDid you read the post?? Your answer is there
It's in the fourth paragraph
June 19, 2007 - 14:20 ET by LeonIt's in the fourth paragraph or so.
So I just wanted to know how he can call it a mockumentary when he hasn't even seen it.
It's so funny when people bash Moore yet when you ask them if they've seen his movies they say no. It's hilarious.
The truly funny part is when
June 19, 2007 - 16:43 ET byThe truly funny part is when questions get asked on the specifics of Moores rantumentaries and Mikie answers that it's satire and personal opinion.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
At least in the case of the
June 20, 2007 - 01:58 ET by sarcasmoAt least in the case of the South Park esque part of Farenheit 9/11, it was classic manipulative-media style deception rather than "satire." Can you blame Parker & Stone for blowing Moore's fat ass up in Team America, while they were busy making fools of a lot of other fools, too? I can't.
JMR
is the answer there though?
June 19, 2007 - 14:24 ET by treshan"I haven't seen the film so I can't comment on its maturity or lack of confrontation."
that's what mr. graham has stated after he previously states, "I caught the new commercial for leftist propagandist Michael Moore’s new mockumentary "Sicko".
So he only admits he can't comment on its maturity or lack of confrontation, hence, it seems he still holds the view that is leftist propaganda. It's interesting though that in light of the positive review, newsbusters takes the chance to promote the balance of fox news without acknowledging the obvious praise from both sides of the aisle of michael moore's success with his new film. the film is obviously legitimate, yet newsbusters' tim graham has labeled it 'propaganda.' i have a copy of it, if you wanna take a look.
Hypocricy, tthomas?
June 19, 2007 - 16:28 ET by RJIf you're going to whine about Graham's post over one statement, then you should at least not misrepresent what he said.
Graham said that Moore is a leftist propagandist, which is true. Since he didn't comment on the actual content of the film, for you to say he has labeled it leftist propaganda is incorrect.
It is interesting, though, that you whine about the supposed dishonesty of others while bragging that you have an apparently solen copy of the movie.
I plan to see the film but as
June 19, 2007 - 14:22 ET by BinxlyI plan to see the film but ask the man who registered his 'dog' to get a cat scan at the vet and upon calling for the dog's appt turns out the man WAS the dog. Problem is this man had cancer, that CAT scan was imperative to find out what treatment was necessary as well as how advanced the tumor was. So, why did he go to the vet and not a doctor? He's crazy right? Nope. His nation had socialized healthcare and the waiting list for people JUST WITH HIS FORM OF CANCER was 4+ months. Tell me now that socialized medicine is better. What we need to do is fight back against frivolous malpractice law-suits and the rediculously overzealous amount of money these doctors are being sued for. While doctors DO make a good living, the reason healthcare in America is so darn expensive is by and large due to obscene medical malpractice insurance for practicing doctors.
i think that your situation
June 19, 2007 - 14:29 ET by treshani think that your situation may or may not reflect how socialized medicine works in countries that employ that system on a broad scale.
however, one of the main points of michael moore's film (i have watched the whole thing) is that health insurance companies find any excuse to NOT cover such operations for those with terminal illnesses like cancer. so instead of being on a waiting list in a country with universal healthcare, one just might not even be COVERED in the U.S. under their health insurance policy for a plethora of dubious reasons. watch the film and get back to me.
you'll see that universal healthcare also improves the process of preventative healthcare, which will in the long run cut costs down on more expensive and dangerours procedures in the future and promotes a healthier lifestyle.
TThomas,Agreed, I haven't see
June 19, 2007 - 14:50 ET by BinxlyTThomas,
Agreed, I haven't seen the movie, and while I find it rediculous to think ANY employer would refuse to cover a serious disease, I am not 'in the loop' when it comes to this movie nor am I actively in the top tiers of corporate America that decides what is covered and what isn't. While I understand 'some' or 'late' coverage is better than none, by and large America is the best set up for healthcare, litigation issues aside. As I said before, yes, too many people are uninsured because healthcare for just ONE individual can be up to 300 bucks per month! That's obscene. However, it is because litigation America sees doctors as huge cash cows and will not hesitate to milk them every time. Besides, Id rather have to bust my ass to get healthcare TODAY rather than wait till 4 months from now so a million lazy, out of work people can go ahead of me just because 'they got in line first.' The more incentives we take away from hard-working Americans to STAY hard-working, the more likely we are as a society to become more lazy and less productive. After all, if *everyone* gets the same perks in life, why bother striving to be productive?
it's a good point about how
June 19, 2007 - 15:11 ET by treshanit's a good point about how litigation affects the medical industry, however, as far as michael moore's film is concerned, it focuses on people WITH health insurance that can't get covered for important procedures. the point is that the people who do strive to work hard so they can have health insurance have done so for nought because they aren't covered when needed. as far as the solution necessarily being universal healthcare, that is definitely debatable, but the practice of health insurance companies to prescribe death essentially by not allowing certain procedures seems to be the biggest problem with private healthcare.
I think in your last point I
June 19, 2007 - 15:20 ET by BinxlyI think in your last point I do agree with you. As I work in a corporation where I am severely underpaid so the higher-ups can charge their rate for work admins can do, therefore saving company spending as well as the many MANY 'business meetings' they go on which consists of 18 holes and a six pack I know all too well the evils of certain 'cut a little here, they'll never notice.' While I do think certain frivolous things such as plastic surgery, gastric bypass, and other more 'vain' surgeries that aren't required for overall health, shouldn't be covered, I do think basic healthcare IS imperative and should be readily available to a company's employees if indeed they pay into their health plans. My solution would be to simply encourage whistle-blowing within corporations, make Human Resources autonamous from the corporation completely since nowadays all HR functions as is a guestapo for the higher ups to eliminate anything they disagree with. I'm not for making MORE laws, but something needs to be done to keep this in check. Alot of corporations do great things for their employees, My company is one of them, however, there are many out there who as you said, do cut corners in healthcare and almost ALWAYS its only to the benefit of the higher ups who load that 'saved money' from shoddy health plans into their own bank accounts.
a Georgia representative
June 19, 2007 - 16:25 ET by misterbilla Georgia representative Phil Gingrey put forth a bill: June 6.2007
"U.S. Congressman Phil Gingrey, M.D. (R-GA) today introduced the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act, legislation to reduce frivolous medical lawsuits that are raising the cost of healthcare and driving many physicians out of business. This bipartisan bill would abolish the financial incentives for filing expansive lawsuits, while providing a fair and timely reparations process for those who have been wronged."
“Today’s medical tort system is designed for lawyers, not patients,” Gingrey continued. “Average awards in medical malpractice cases have risen 76% in recent years. This drives doctors to practice defensive medicine, adding $126 billion a year to our national healthcare costs. "
$126 billion
thank you MR BILL
June 19, 2007 - 16:30 ET by LionKingThank you, misterbill !!! That is exactly what I consider our biggest problem with our Healthcare System.
Gingrey is one of my favorite
June 19, 2007 - 16:35 ET by bigtimerGingrey is one of my favorite Congressmen.....
The Senate/congress has got some torte reform done...but not the big enchalida...which has been very unfortunate...this was awhile back..we shall see what happens now, let alone what the conference committee puts out when all is said and done...after-all, trial lawyers are one of the biggest contributers to the dem's...and they control the House and Senate.
American health care can and
June 19, 2007 - 15:50 ET by stratmanAmerican health care can and does promote preventative medicine. The USA does not need socialized medicine in order to have preventative medicine. Primary care physicians are drilled in their training to promote preventative medicine. There are more than enough patients to be seen such that a doctor never has to encourage disease to have a busy schedule. Patients are in fact more grateful if they don't have disease for you to treat. And those who pay for the insurance (the employers are the true customer of the insurance companies since the employer is typically the one that negotiates a plan for their employees) are the ones that drive market decisions, to some extent, of the insurance companies. If the businesses that purchase health care state they want coverage for alternative medicine, sooner or later the insurance companies bend to the clients wishes to keep the customer happy.
What has lagged are the insurance companies, including the federal government (who acts as a bellwether for the private sector in many respects), in recognizing and reimbursing for perormance of preventative medicine. As more understanding of how preventative medicine can maintain profits/save money for the companies, including the government, there has been a steady shift in paradigms of what is desirable and reimbursable.
According to Michael Moore himself on The View today, Sicko purposely is devoid of ANY rebuttal or interview by the pharmaceutical companies since, and I am paraphrasing, they get to advertise product commercials in the media so they already have their point of view known. Now I don't know what journalism school you or Moore went to, but, a "documentary" makes an effort to have both sides of an issue be presented by representatives of each side. Without allowing the pharmaceutical companies to respond is itself excellent evidence that Sicko is NOT a documentary and is in fact an advocavy piece. AS such, no one has to watch Sicko to know it is propaganda, know matter how "well-meaning" you think Moore is.
BTW, a Canadian man with headaches and a seizure of new onset needed an MRI but Canada's socialized healthcare system would not give him one for several weeks. He went to America for the MRI and found out he had a brain tumor. Surgery in Canada would not be available for 8 months, which for an unknown brain mass could very well mean his death. The man went to the USA for the surgery, spending his own money, for which the Canadian government will not reimburse him a penny (whatever Canada's smallest monetary unit is) since he didn't have permission to go out of "network" The brain mass was an astrocytoma which would have grown rather rapidly and killed him if he had followed the Canadian system.
The point is, Canada and the rest of socialized health care systems are imperfect and withhold treatments resulting in death and worsened illness. Stop holding up these systems as utopian. It is a baldfaced lie.
I think anything Michael Moor
June 19, 2007 - 14:29 ET by whatajoyI think anything Michael Moore makes is a mockumentary. It's good though to hear that this film isn't as biased or slanted as Columbine or 9/11. That's good to hear. Maybe he's learned a thing or two about a thing or two.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Take it easy! We're not making a western here.
~ Uncle Junior (The Sopranos)
BINGO. I think Michael Moore'
June 19, 2007 - 15:14 ET by Tim GrahamBINGO. I think Michael Moore's body of work establishes what kind of films he makes -- and I think the anti-Bush "humor" of the commercial establishes that this is more of the same. If it quacks like a duck...it's a duck.
more criticism from someone who hasn't seen the film.
June 19, 2007 - 15:41 ET by treshanonce again, tim graham is making comments on a film he hasn't seen. he's already saying that the film is "established" as bush-hating. well since i've seen it, i can tell you that that is one of maybe 2 clips of george bush in the entire movie. the bush clip is even pertinent because it actually describes how doctors are hurt by lawsuits, another problem within our current health system. however, moore's work focuses all on the patients throughout the whole movie. tim, before you characterize the movie more specifically i would download or wait to see the flick.
SICKO...pirated
June 19, 2007 - 15:44 ET by LionKingSo you have evidently seen a pirated version of the movie.
Liberal mantra: "It's only wrong if I get caught."
i think the issue is, i hav
June 19, 2007 - 15:49 ET by treshani think the issue is, i have informed myself before i make critical comments for/against the work. the question is, will you?
In other words, Lion King,
June 19, 2007 - 15:57 ET by RJIn other words, Lion King, unless you're willing to steal the movie too, you have to shut up for now and listen to the voice of tt. See, he's "better informed" and you must just ignore that he probably went into the viewing of the movie ready to accept whatever the movie had to say. You must also ignore what you know of Moore's spotty history with the truth.
RJ...not debating SICKO
June 19, 2007 - 16:06 ET by LionKingI have no interest in any works of Michael Moore. I am not even debating this. I just made an observation...IMHO, we can improve our Healthcare system. Socialized healthcare would not solve our problems. The problem is lawyers and insurance companies...mostly lawyers.
I know, LK
June 19, 2007 - 16:11 ET by RJI know, LK. I'm just poking fun at tt's silly premise.
rj...we're cool
June 19, 2007 - 16:13 ET by LionKingNot a problem. I was clarifying more for TT.
although everyone is eager
June 19, 2007 - 16:10 ET by treshanalthough everyone is eager to bring down the new m moore film, wouldn't you agree that you have to watch to know what to criticize about it? this is what graham has done.
Can't you just give us the
June 19, 2007 - 16:17 ET by MightyMouthCan't you just give us the "Cliff Notes" version? I mean, who want's to watch Michael Moore for 90 minutes? I can't even watch his trailers without the urge to puke.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I cannot either MM.I would ha
June 19, 2007 - 16:29 ET by bigtimerI cannot either MM.
I would have to be paid to watch anything that the gigantic slug of a leftist creature puts out...and it wouldn't be peanuts either.
I hate to admit it BT but I
June 19, 2007 - 16:34 ET by MightyMouthI hate to admit it BT but I actually bought "Bowling for Columbine". I didn't even know who Michael Moore was at the time. Watching the movie, all I can remember thinking was: "Who does this A-hole think he is?"...My God, harassing the man who played Moses?!?! What a creep.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
tthomas has a point. The is
June 20, 2007 - 07:45 ET by Binxlytthomas has a point. The issue is not piracy of a movie. Is it wrong? Yes. Who are you or *any* of us to judge though? If you're in law enforcement, ok, bust him. If you are a filmmaker who feels strongly about piracy, try and prove your case and get him arrested. However, the point *here* was never about piracy. my biggest pet peeve with libs is that as soon as you provide a point in which they may learn something or realize perhaps there is a minor flaw in logic, they IMMEDIATELY change the subject matter. It's sad to come here and see that done alot by the other side as well.
What tthomas is saying is how can you judge a movie without ever seeing it? Many producers have made great movies only to have their next hyped up piece be garbage and vice versa. Im probably the biggest MMoore hater because of the man's inability to put his own biases aside and his slovenly way of only learning about his own pet project issues and even then only learning the talking points of them which support his disgustingly liberal point of view, but again, tthomas isn't talking about michael moore here, he's mentioning it is slightly shoddy journalism to pass judgement on a movie they haven't seen. I like this article, I do think Moore is extremely flawed in his logic thinking socialized medicine is going to save the world, but again, you can't argue tthomas' point, you shouldn't, well heck, you *can't* provide a fair viewpoint on a documentary having never seen it.
It is nonsense, Binxly, to claim that Graham is unable to make a
June 20, 2007 - 08:28 ET by RJIt is nonsense, Binxly, to claim that Graham is unable to make a logical judgment based on the consistent behavior of Moore. It is appropriate to be skeptical that he has suddenly become even-handed. Until Moore proves that he has created a non-propagandistic movie, intelligent people should expect his work to be more of the same.
You may think it to be of no significance, but I find it relevant to point out the hypocricy of someone who complains about a supposed misrepresentation of another, while bragging that he has an apparently solen copy of the movie.
Also, tthomas misrepresented Graham. Check the thread. tthomas originally whined about one statement out of Graham's entire post, but he misrepresented what Graham said. (I responded to him about that, but he hasn't answered)
Overall, placing your standard beside tthomas is a poor choice.
RJ, I agree wholeheartedly th
June 20, 2007 - 13:33 ET by BinxlyRJ, I agree wholeheartedly that M Moore's standard of film he makes is at best a mockumentary. I also am *extremely* skeptical of himself being evenhanded, if I were one who was a gambler, I'd let it all ride on the bet that this film is no different. That being said, I did not place my standard next to tthomas, I merely said he has a right to his opinion and it is quite valid to say, although we can judge M Moore's previous films as propaganda trash, having not seen the movie, anyone to judge it without viewing it would inheirently be hypocritical.
Also I did point out not that its ok he has a 'pirated copy' if indeed that is pirated, I merely said his point was it is wrong to judge it without seeing it and when I see people switch arguments merely because of pride (not saying he's correct in ANY capacity other than judging it without seeing is a tad foolish) it pains me. That's the liberals tactic, when they find they may be wrong, change the subject. I for one loved the time when people had no shame in admitting perhaps they did not have the end all be all answer.
Hi Binx
June 20, 2007 - 13:54 ET by RJHi Binx. Guess we'll have to disagree. I flatly reject tthomas' (and yours, apparently) concept that in a case like this it's hypocritical to judge the probablity that Moore's film is more propaganda. I don't give up my right to have a logical and reasoned opinion based on existing information. Then, when more evidence comes out, opinions can change.
We'll also have to disagree that having a stolen copy of the movie is not relevant. Not only does tthomas have a stolen copy of the movie, but he misrepresented what Graham said. Therefore, the totality of his behavior makes his judgement suspect at best. Since he's apparently "flexible" in his values, why should anyone uncritically accept arguments from him? That becomes another judgement based on information.
In fact, it seems the two concepts, judging Moore's film and judging tthomas' opinion based on existing information, are related, doesn't it?
BINGO. I think Michael Moore
June 19, 2007 - 20:22 ET by balboaBINGO. I think Michael Moore's body of work establishes what kind of films he makes
COME ON. You haven't seen the movie, but this is your excuse?
Excuse for what, balboa?
June 19, 2007 - 20:29 ET by RJExcuse for what, balboa?
Excuse for prejudging the sub
June 19, 2007 - 21:24 ET by balboaExcuse for prejudging the substance of the film.
Considering his past record
June 20, 2007 - 01:39 ET by sarcasmoConsidering his past record with the truth (has Mike ever produced a non-falsified film? Certainly not 'Farenheit 9/11' if you say "yes"!) what's wrong with a little prejudice? For Moore, making an honest movie for once instead of socialist propaganda would be like a well known conservative tort-reform advocate filing a million-dollar slip & fall lawsuit. (Oh, wait...)
JMR
Exercising logical judgment is now an "excuse", balboa?
June 20, 2007 - 07:33 ET by RJNice exhibition of lib-think, balboa. Exercising logical judgment, based on consistent past performance, is an "excuse?"
You know if this situation
June 20, 2007 - 14:39 ET by balboaYou know if this situation were reversed, you'd think the same thing.
Balboa says this alot too...a
June 20, 2007 - 14:50 ET by TruthMongerBalboa says this alot too...as long as were keeping special tabs on this right wing fanatic:)...
...it was hard but I managed to keep religion out of it:)...
But it's true. If I said &q
June 20, 2007 - 14:54 ET by balboaBut it's true. If I said "Oh I haven't seen the movie, but it's garbage," you guys would crucify me.
He says that alot, too...Get
June 20, 2007 - 14:57 ET by TruthMongerHe says that alot, too...
Get some left-wing stones going ya neocon bushbot...!
Your best new friend,
TM
...it was hard but I managed to keep religion out of it:)...
Balboa's try it you'll like it approach
June 19, 2007 - 20:29 ET by Cool ArrowI haven't seen Sicko.
I haven't had sex with any prostitutes in South Africa either. "They" say the HIV rate is over 30%. Could you please tell us how that went for you?
Medical malpractice costs con
June 19, 2007 - 14:59 ET by stratmanMedical malpractice costs constitutes 10-25% net loss of a physician's income. These are costs for physician's with clean records concerning malpractice. Costs spiral upwards for specialty, procedures performed and a prior history of malpractice claims both convictions and acquitals (including the mere naming in a lawsuit but dropped prior to a court trial or even dropped during the discovery process by the plaintiff's attorney.). Merely being named in a lawsuit will jack up your rates.
While malpractice is one factor for increased costs, the true 800 pound gorilla in the room are the medical insurance companies. These corporations essentially set the rules as they like and we all dance to their tune. The profits are astounding, not a bad thing for capitalism, but userous in the sense that the patient and the physician ore on the perpetual wrong end of the whipping stick.
Socialized medicine is ALREADY in the USA. It is called Medicare, Medicaide and EMTLA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act) which guarantee and provide healthcare for a sizable portion of our population. While these socialized medicine entities do provide for the care of people, they have become horrible beauracracies which have doubled and tripled costs to providers in order to comply with regulations and to be reimbursed.
Medicare and Medicaide are also usually horrible at reimbursing, in fact Medicare has cut reimbursements by 25% in the past 10 years, and are horrible at providing assistance with problems and guidance on preventing certain problems that physician's are beginning to close their doors to patients covered under these beauracracies. How many know that your Medicaide and Medicare is managed by the same managed care companies (the big bad medical insurance companies) that profits and corrupts the health care system? The government has handed over the day to day tasks of implementing, running and collecting for our government. Not only do the private sector insurance companies profit from their private business of health care insurance but they are also cashing in off of our government's inability to manage its own government plans! And people want the "government" to take over health care?!?
"Medicare and Medicaide
June 19, 2007 - 15:09 ET by ckc1227"Medicare and Medicaide are also usually horrible at reimbursing, in
fact Medicare has cut reimbursements by 25% in the past 10 years, and
are horrible at providing assistance with problems and guidance on
preventing certain problems that physician's are beginning to close
their doors to patients covered under these beauracracies. "
Having worked in a pharmacy, I know first hand that these reimbursements oftentimes don't cover the pharmacy's cost for the drug in question. I can only assume it is the same for doctors.
I was not aware that pharmaci
June 19, 2007 - 15:40 ET by stratmanI was not aware that pharmacies were caught up in the same downward spiral called reimbursement.
One of my pet peaves is the fact that all the do-gooders that insisted on mandatory interpretors be provided BY the doctors for non-english patients is NOT fully reimbursed by insurance companies! Why should doctor's be penalized financially for non-english speaking patients? It's crazy.
"Have you seen Sicko?
June 19, 2007 - 15:03 ET by ckc1227"Have you seen Sicko? I'm just wondering how you are able to classify it as a leftist-proaganda 'mockumentary'."
Historical precedent based on every other MMoore flick? Or maybe it's because of MMoore implying that Cuba has a better healthcare system than ours.
It IS true we have a crappy s
June 19, 2007 - 15:15 ET by mattmIt IS true we have a crappy system. And, to socialists, a socialist system is the solution. But all the problems with our system are to the extent that socialism has been injected into it.
HMO's, medicare, medicaid etc.etc. are all flawed because they are based in a flawed economic philosophy.
We need free-market solutions. Michael Moore-on wouldn't know a free-market unless it was making him rich.
The World Health Or
June 19, 2007 - 15:16 ET by treshanThe World Health Organization's ranking
of the world's health systems
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba, so our health system is better than cuba's but how much better? is this the standard we want for healthcare? even if you don't agree that we need universal healthcare, it's obvious that there are too many instances where patients are denied coverage because the insurance company wants to keep with its bottom line. should health insurance companies be making as much profit as they are? doesn't that just mean that less people are getting the coverage they need?
It appears the French have
June 19, 2007 - 15:23 ET by MightyMouthIt appears the French have the best health care system. It is totally supported by taxes. Interesting....
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
"The cooperation betwe
June 19, 2007 - 15:35 ET by LionKing"The cooperation between the public and private sector in the French
healthcare system is a positive feature that allows citizens to avoid
waiting lists for surgeries, which are often associated with socialized
medicine. Indeed, private medical care in France is particularly active
in treating more than 50% of surgeries and more than 60% of cancer
cases. This unique combination of government financed medical care and
private medical services produces a health care system that is open to
all and provides the latest in medical technology and treatment."
It appears to be a blend of public and private. Interesting that the number of surgeries is less than 60% and the number of cancer cases is less than 70%. Apparently those needing quality care go the private route...so much for equal care for everyone.
i see huge advantages of pu
June 19, 2007 - 15:58 ET by treshani see huge advantages of public-private partnerships to accomplish such tasks as healthcare. but the number one problem right now is that since healthcare is mostly in the private sector, these private companies ing are determing life and death by not offering key services to desperate policyholders. why? because they can. why don't we let the free market take total control of the police force? the firefighting force? sometimes it is best to balance the free market with regulatory government when it comes to something as serious as life and death.
Why? Because Medicare and M
June 19, 2007 - 17:18 ET by stratmanWhy? Because Medicare and Medicaid have performed so well?
Part of the problem is that private insurers are not regulated by the federal government in certain key areas and not that the federal government isn't the one dispensing the care. When someone is denied a claim or a procedure despite their physician's insistence, the insurance company is providing medical advice - in the insurance companies' opinion you don't need XYZ. That sounds like medical advice to me, and one given without seeing the patient. Yet the insurance company denies giving medical advice, otherwise they would open themselves up to liability. This needs addressing on a federal/state level.
Additionally, the medical insurance private sector was given a break after WWII such that they are immune from federal anti-trust trials in order to build their fledgling industry. Now as megapowerful profit-driven corporations, the insurance companies get to call most of their own shots, similar to how our federal level politicians voting in their own pay increases without independent oversight. The insurance companies are waging a monopolistic coup d'etat on our citizenry. This needs to be addresses on a federal level.
i agree with you there how
June 19, 2007 - 18:56 ET by treshani agree with you there how insurance companies are not regulated enough.
stratman: Could you detail wh
June 19, 2007 - 19:03 ET by QueenMumstratman: Could you detail what particular regulations you would like to see the Federal Government enact in regard to health insurance and health insurance companies? Thank you.
BTW, in my experience Medicare and Medicaid provide excellent benefits in comparison to private HMO's, for example. What are some of the issues you have with these entities?
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
I would like to see regulatio
June 20, 2007 - 00:07 ET by stratmanI would like to see regulation begin with my two original examples: Remove the anti-trust protections on the medical insurance businesses and treat the decisions of medical insurance companies as medical advice, instead of a business or actuarial decision, subject to liability for their medical decision making performed (if you're going to act like a physician then you should be judged accordingly). One other area that would be nice is if the IRS would recognize practice write-offs for tax purposes. Any unpaid patient bills are not tax write-offs, instead the practice just eats the loss. (This is a separate issue from the difference in what a doctor may charge and how much the insurance company actually reimburses.) You provide a service, get stiffed by the patient and then the IRS says "tough, eat it".
How many other businesses are unable to write off losses? (I'm not a tax attorney so I'm asking the question in good faith without sarcasm)
Medicare was conceived as a "stop-gap" protection, same as welfare. It has morphed into an overly beauracratic, overly expensive and overly complicated toxic organism. Prior to its inception, seniors were afforded care based on either compassion or the ability to pay. Now seniors demand full and unlimited coverage, precisely what the program was not intended to be. Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't care for our citizenry, in fact I believe people who have worked hard and contributed to the system should be compensated in their twilight years. Medicare is critical for my mother's continued insured health care and she is very grateful. But she, like many other seniors, either did not plan to buy her own insurance or thought all would be provided by "someone" or "something" else.
The problems with Medicare and Medicaid occur from both patient and provider (oh, how I hate that term, since your momma and daddy are your providers, not me.) point of views. With the government reining in costs, the reimbursements are less and less, yet fixed and variable costs for the business of medicine have continued to increase. While most businesses can raise prices for their goods and services based on what the market will bear, hospitals and physicians are nearly or completely powerless. The only options for primary care practices are seeing more patients, offer unscientific fee-for-service care (such as neutraceuticals, accupuncture or full body CT scans), offer expanded scientific or cosmetic money making services (like physical therapy, laser dematological therapies, CLIA-waved lab tests and botox injections), take out bank loans to meet payroll (happens more than laypeople might expect), or, cut back on or stop seeing altogether Medicare and Medicaid patients. Most every practice has already been stripped down to keep expenses in the 50-60% of gross reimbursements. Decreased access for Medicare and Medicaid patients is a disaster in the making but will become a reality if the government continues their downward spiraling reimbursements.
How long would you be willing to continue to perform a service that costs you more to provide than you are reimbursed?
On a separate yet parallel track, continuation of the reimbursement timebomb will result in lower and lower incomes for physicians which will result in fewer of our brightest people entering the field of medicine. Why should someone sacrifice throughout their education and training, be under constant threat of liability, and working long hours to be compensated significantly less than someone in the business world? Your doctor will end up being a foreign trained physician (not necessarily a bad thing) or someone less trained like a nurse practitioner or physician assistant (both having a place in patient care but can not replace the expertise of a physician).
These are some of the things we should all be concerned about in my opinion since we will all be the patient in need one day.
WHO's statistical rankings ar
June 19, 2007 - 16:57 ET by stratmanWHO's statistical rankings are a product of a skewed vision. In order to get a ranking, certain assumptions are made which by neccessity demand the exclusion of certain other factors.
While access to health care is absolutely important, the WHO does not consider apathy and ignorance in the calculation of rankings.
There is access to low and no income individuals in the USA. The inner cities are serviced by a number of health care resources across the country, from free clinics to state/federally funded clinics and programs to private business that tithe a small portion of their panel of patients that result in free or geratly reduced cost for their care.
So what causes higher infant mortality, for instance, in the USA?
1) Apathy - people don't utilize free or low cost health care because of denial, ignorance, inconvenience, etc.
2) Ignorance - Ignorance of the importance and (sometimes) availability of free and low cost health care. Even after utilizing prenatal care some still don't follow the simple guidelines given them because of ignorance and apathy.
3) Poor diets and other lifestyle choices like smoking, drug use, no prenatal care, unprotected sex causing STD's.
4) Poor social support systems. Fragmented families, parents who have abdicated their parental responsibilites and tenuous interpersonal relationships make for increased ignorance and stressors which negatively impact fetal health.
5) Ever decreasing age at time of pregnancy. A twelve year old may become pregnant but it is more difficult on their health than an eighteen year old and the fetus may suffer/reflect that incongruency. Without appropriate support systems, how is an adolescent or early teen expected to make good decisions concerning their own health and the health of their baby let alone make the appropriate decision to seek and follow early medical care?
6) Cultural expectations and norms of the patients. These intangible factors critically shape all the other factors. A faster and more widespread deviation from cultural norms have occured since the 1960's than in any other era concurrent with the advent of the oral birth control pill and the embracing of the sexual revolution and counter-culturalism. One result is adolescent and teen pregnancy is more common today.
Take away the Medicaid patients and the WHO's ranking for the US would be considerably better. The government based socialized medicine is both responsible for as well as at the mercy of the failures of itself and the patients it covers.
Cuba, for instance, has zero transparency or oversight as to the validity of the statistics. There are real and disasterous inequities in the Cuban health care system that are not measured by the WHO. Castro decided the best course of humiliating the West, medically speaking, was to create a system that essentially catered to arbitrary goals by organizations like WHO so that Cuba would appear greater than it truly is.
Do not be skewed by statistics of the WHO. Do not be fooled by posh foreign visitor-only facilities in Cuba. Do not be fooled by Michael Moore and his skewed Cuban health care bias. The great Cuban medical system screwed up with Castro's own care recently and had to import a Spanish surgeon to fix the mess made by the glorious Cuban health care.
strat...excellent
June 19, 2007 - 17:01 ET by LionKingstratman...Excellent analysis.
Thank you.Medicine is my busi
June 20, 2007 - 13:06 ET by stratmanThank you.
Medicine is my business and I make it my business to know medicine.
Even so, I still have plenty to learn.
FOX has Hernando Revolver and
June 19, 2007 - 15:11 ET by mattmFOX has Hernando Revolver and a bunch of other libnatics...(so I'm not surprised at this)
...and the moonbats keep try
June 19, 2007 - 15:56 ET by bigtimer...and the moonbats keep trying to say FOX is a conservative/right-wing network.....
Here is your laugh for the day...let alone another statement of proof that you are wrong.....
As usual.
Amazing, amazing, amazing!
June 20, 2007 - 06:52 ET by blogonatorAmazing, amazing, amazing! Reading y'all is like reading the Onion article, "Half of Nation Outraged at New, Not-Yet-Released Moore Film."
Some basics: Moore has a point of view, and maybe trusts his audience more than commenters to come to their own conclusions. American medicine is great if you have access, but if your insurance doesn't cover that life-saving operation, how long do you wait? Or do you go bankrupt trying to pay for it? Look up the leading causes of personal bankruptcy. Or do you sue? Look up the percentage of tort cases where individuals are involved, and the percentage of successful lawsuits. Hmm, anyone see a pattern here?
The argument is not that nationalized health care is perfect, but that the American system is so corrupt and chaotic that all of the industrialized nations do better for far less money.
I was as surprised as anyone to see Fox News give "Sicko" a good review, but since then, just about everybody except the New York Post has, too. Could there possibly be a genuine good reason for this?
Moore has a point of view, an
June 20, 2007 - 08:38 ET by BinxlyMoore has a point of view, and maybe trusts his audience more than the commenters to come to their own conclusions.
That's sorta hard to swallow considering the audience is given only one side, his own. I agree that he should've given the system he so rabidly is against a chance to also speak *their* side. Again, documentaries should be full coverage of an issue, when its simply one side, it is what I consider a personal crusade or at least a 'biased documentary.' How can his audience make up their minds honestly if they don't have both sides honestly represented?
American medicine is great if you have access, but if your insurance doesn't cover that life-saving operation, how long do you wait? Or do you go bankrupt trying to pay for it? Look up the leading cause of bankruptcy.
#1: American Hospitals will *never* turn away someone who is in dire need of medical attention, true, they are billed, but no hospital in America will sit back and watch a human being die in their halls, other nations, such as M. Moore's beloved Cuba, it's a common occurence, due to 'waiting.'
#2: How long do you wait? Certainly not 4-8 months. There are two stories of people already on here who had to either leave their nation's healthcare system to a free-market one or even worse, *trick* their own healthcare system in order to simply get a diagnosis on a very terminal health problem. Had these two men waited for 'universal healthcare' by the time their number was called they'd be halfway through a chess game with death. You don't 'wait' in the U.S., you DO everywhere else.
#3: its easy to find studies that will say even that Mars tastes like chicken. So its not hard to find a liberal outlet who's polled a section of people, given at random, but in a primarily impoverished area where adults do not opt for government sponsored healthcare but also due to lack of responsibility or other factors, end up in debt for MANY reasons but simply *only* cite the medical bills. Its on their agenda, alot of people want free healthcare, its just most don't realize what that means in terms of taxes, these 'free' doctors don't just fall out of the sky doing their jobs out of the goodness of their hearts just how you and I don't go to work everyday for the fun of it. Also, here's a link:
http://www.gordon-ermer.com/2006/07/medical-debts-not-leading-cause-of.html
Turns out indeed Medical reasons *aren't* the #1 cause of bankruptcy.
So, no one in America gets
June 20, 2007 - 22:07 ET by blogonatorSo, no one in America gets dumped out of Los Angeles hospitals onto street corners? Nobody ever gets misdiagnosed? Nobody is stuck making too much money for free healthcare, with insurance that doesn't cover medical catastrophes? Oh, wait... Edith Rodriguez did not die untreated in the emergency room at King-Harbor Hospital, Los Angeles, on May 9, with onlookers calling 911 from inside the building?