Michael Moore's "SiCKO"

But what if, as with one example shown in the film, your insurance company had RETROACTIVELY denied and cancelled coverage based on a "pre-existing condition" or undisclosed medical history unrelated to your illness? Meaning they had PAID your claims for that illness, then months later, taken the money back due to say (to cite the example in the film), a yeast infection that occurred years before the insurance went into affect, and which had no relationship whatsoever to the current disease, but which the insurance company used as grounds to cancel your policy retroactively to the date of inception due to an alleged failure to disclose.

Rather like any other insurance I suppose, car insurance especially.

I thought so, I suppose it's a fundemental ideological differerence in upbringing and environment but to me, medial care being driven by profit in a modern society seems wrong. I know that's an oversimplification but the underlying ethos is, in general financial.

That's not to say socialised medicine is perfect when it manifestly isn't.

Yes, Michael Moore's films are serving his Political agenda, but they do one thing...they make people talk about important subjects (see above), which in my opinion is a good thing.

As a self-employed person with a variety of health problems and an independent health plan, I'm still on hold for 6 more months until I can get coverage on 1 pre-existing condition and owe over $15,000 for 3 Emergency Room visits in the past 6 months (that's MY part of the fees AFTER insurance!)...that's fucked up and something needs to change.

I'm not saying this Documentary will change America's health system, but maybe with it's sensationalist nature it will bring to the forefront some issues and make people think about them when voting or making laws.

My two cents...

I don't think that there's anyone who will disagree on that point.

i can't imagine a more worthless waste of time......

I don't see much political agenda behind his films, except they work anti-Bush, anti-economics and anti-military. Anti-Bush is okay, but not very groundbreaking. Also, I prefer an argument based on facts rather than polemicizing it. Same goes for anti-economics, plus, in this special matter, you don't have to forget that a medical insurance is a major incentive for companies hiring personnel, and a binding clause in contracts of employment. Anti-military: Well, there are always bad peas in a pod. And as a former career officer, I have a different opinion on that subject anyways.

I'm sure the movie will rise a few discussions, making the problems of health insurance popular. But it doesn't give proper information on how it could be done better with its black/white way of depicting the health systems of other states, nor will the hype it creates live much longer than its last airing. The debates about the Iraqi war have been going on before and after the airing of Fahrenheit 9/11, the discussions about the right to carry arms have been in the news now and then before and after the airing of Bowling for Columbine. These movies have much less been creating a the discussions than exploited possibly popular subjects.

Moore isn't anti-economics, he might disagree with a particular economic idealogy or practice, but he's hardly against the practice of economic theories (in fact, Sicko has a bit of a discussion on the Keynesian economic theory that was behind the NHS in the UK). Also, I'd say he's more anti-war than anti-military. Careful wording is important because "anti-economics" and "anti-military" mean more different and extreme views.

While Moore is definitely guilty of polemicizing, he does actually present facts and references, it isn't total sensationalism. Sicko is much better than Bowling for Columbine or Fahrenheit 9/11 as a documentary (rather than just sensationalism) just because he does actually focus more on facts and case-study than sensationalist confrontational tactics.

I can't wait to see it, not that any of the information will be very surprising as an employed, (very) under-insured person.

My ultra-conservative boss and I (a Flaming Liberal, to be fair ) had a surprisingly adult conversation about this the other day. I was talking about socializing health-care, to which he quipped, "Oh, yeah - so you want to be enslaved by the government?" From there I explained a health issue I am having, the cost to me after insurance contributes, and the effect it will have on my financial situation. I explained that the amount of money I will be expected to pay will cripple me financially, and that I will end up 'enslaved' by the doctors and hospitals that will doubtless garnish my wages until they get all of their money, plus late fees - anyways. I, for one, would rather pay higher taxes up front than to be harassed by debt collectors, dragged through court proceedings and ultimately made to pay these bills I can't afford by force. Either way the money is taken out of my check; it is simply less painful to have it taken up-front, in the form of taxes, than later on as insurance premiums AND garnishments. Either way they will get their money; that's really what my health is about now anyway.

Please enslave me and pay my medical bills. Thanks!

No human designed system will ever be perfect but some are definitely more perfect than others. The US has utterly failed in reaching any kind of parity in its health care.

One of my biggest gripes about health care is that a lot of money is spent on useless end of life attempts to prolong life that should no longer be prolonged.

My grandmother collapsed three years ago at a friend's funeral. She was taken to the local hospital and then when they realized how serious her condition was, they airlifted her to a larger hospital.

She told everyone who listened that when it came to her time she did NOT want any heroic actions taken. All that expense meant that she suffered for two more days with a great deal of pain. She was 87 years old.

More was spent on her those last two days than was spent on her health care in her ENTIRE life.

Her wishes were disregarded by the medical system, she was forced to suffer and tens of thousands of dollars were spent to keep her alive for TWO lousy days.

We need to have a serious discussion about end of life treatment.

......but you know, we wouldn't have to pay much higher taxes for Universal Health if we slashed military spending and brought our children/husbands/wives home from the killing grounds...........

*dons her flame-retardant suit*

Sounds like she needed to have a living will. When I was sick 4 years ago, the hospital staff came around to me and asked if I wanted to make out a living will. I was too out of it to think about doing that by that time. After I recovered, I said to one of my friends, "They don't ask that of all the patients, do they? I kind of thought they did when they were asking it, but afterwards, I realized that they don't - that they asked me because they honestly thought I was going to die. Anyway, the thing to do about end of life treatment I would say is to have a living will - get it in writing, rather than just telling people what actions you want the medical staff to take.

Yup, your knowledge of capitalism is astounding.

I love that analysis of him.

He presents facts in a way that distorts reality by leaving out facts that run against his theses. Has he said what I've said in my first post on this thread, that the Cuban health system is close to complete collapse due to its ineconnomic nature, that the French system offers basic support for everyone, but not more than a very basic support if you're not insured? That the German system is struggling with reformations (since my new man is German, I have a little more insight on those issues now) that are aiming at making it more economic? Or let's make it short: The publicly-funded systems are either cutting costs whereever they can, or are being re-designed after economic guidelines, and heading for more private provision and insurance.

Medicare is clearly a socialized form of medicine. How do our elderly feel about the fact that they have coverage? As someone who spent 35+ years in the health insurance industry (many as an exec), I'm quite conflicted, but how in the hell can we justify 50 million Americans, most of them working, who are uninsured? I'm not smart enough to figure this all out, but I'm glad I'm no longer in the industry.