PDA

View Full Version : Sicko


Admiral Afterworld
24 Jun 2007, 02:13
Moore's 'Sicko' Lands Blows on U.S. Health Care

Director Michael Moore has found critical and popular success with documentaries that blend comedy and pathos to attack powerful interest groups. But those films are nearly always challenged as misleading. His latest work, Sicko, is an indictment of the U.S. health care system, highlighting insurance horror stories and profiling countries with universal health care.

Melissa Block sizes up Sicko — as entertainment and expose — with film critic Bob Mondello and science correspondent Joanne Silberner, who covers the health industry for NPR.

Melissa Block: Michael Moore does what he does quite well, which is to mix tragedy and comedy, back to back.

BOB MONDELLO: At the very beginning, he starts out with a whole bunch of horror stories; they're absolutely grim, and you look at people who are deprived of care because they can't afford it. And he does a lot of clever things to make the reasons for this funny. For instance, he uses the Star Wars theme, and he shows all of the various reasons you can be denied coverage by your insurance company, rolling away on the screen — it's thousands of them. Then Moore starts suggesting that there are other places where health care works better, for instance, Canada, Britain and France, and even — this is the shocking one — Cuba. As he shows other systems, I think it is a very persuasively put-together picture of the health care problem, and it's also very, very funny.

I wonder if there is a moment in this movie that you thought worked especially well?

MONDELLO: The sequence when he goes to Britain. He talks to the people at the National Health Service hospital about the cost of the care they're getting. And you can see that as soon as he mentions money, their brows furrow, and they can't get their head around the questions. They have almost literally never thought about money and medicine in the same breath. I think that is so telling, because I know when I go to a doctor or to a hospital, it is almost the first thing I'm thinking of — "Oh my God, how much is this going to cost?"

Let's talk about some of the medical cases Michael Moore describes in this film. At the very beginning, there is one about an American man who loses the ends of two of his fingers in an accident with an electric saw. He did not have insurance. The man must choose between having his middle finger reattached for $60,000, or his ring finger for $12,000. The man chooses his ring finger. How can a man be put into the position of making that choice?

JOANNE SILBERNER: [In the U.S.,] the hospital doesn't have to give him care unless it's lifesaving care, and his life wasn't threatened by the loss of two digits. So the hospital was within its rights to say, "We can reattach your two digits, but it's going to cost you." The irony is that if he had insurance, the insurance company would have paid far less than $12,000 or $60,000. The insurers can negotiate rates with hospitals that individuals can't.

There are also a number of times in the movie where we hear from people who either work or used to work inside the health care system, either turning down applicants for insurance, denying claims…

SILBERNER: He had an insurance company employee who started crying when she described what she had to do in terms of talking with people who called in.

Moore contrasts the U.S. system with the systems in France, Britain and Cuba, where care is free. He claims there's no waiting, and you can choose your own doctor. And in France, he says, there are doctors who make house calls in the middle of the night. How accurate are those claims?

SILBERNER: I think some of the things that those countries are willing to pay for are things that we Americans would not be willing to pay for. There was also the remarkable revelation that in France, when you're a new mother, a government employee will come to your house and maybe even do your laundry and make you soup. That's not going to go over well in this country.

What about the notion that long lines for health care in other countries are a myth?

SILBERNER: Moore didn't really look at the other side of that. What happens in each of these countries is that they get near to crisis situations, where there are lines — this has happened in Canada, too. And then the government, under pressure, puts more money into the system, and the lines go away. But then they come back. It's a cyclical thing; those lines come and go.

One thing did bother me with presenting Cuba as a paragon of health care, while showing the 9/11 workers who couldn't get care in this country: Moore didn't point out that, on that famous chart where the U.S. comes out 37th in health care, Cuba comes out 39th. So I'm not sure that was the best comparison for him to make.

MONDELLO: On the other hand, that is not necessarily something we should be terribly proud of — being 37th in a chart where France is No. 1.

One of the things he does that's very clever is to try to destroy the myth that socialized medicine is so terrifying. When you see what is probably the most impressive hospital I've ever seen, in Cuba, and it looks like a gigantic Hyatt hotel, it's simply not what you were picturing. We were joking when we came out of the film that it was probably the only MRI machine in all of Cuba, and it may very well have been. But the fact of the matter is that it was there and it was able to help a patient. The rooms there did not look decrepit and old, which is kind of what I expected.

SILBERNER: I think there's an issue of expectations. What do the Cubans expect? What do the French expect? What do the British expect? We expect to be able to get drugs like a recently approved drug for cancer that adds 13 days to life at a cost of $4,000 a month. I don't think people would expect that in France or Germany or Cuba. Thirteen days of added life with some side effects for $4,000 a month? We want it, and they don't. When we stop wanting things like that, I think we can move ahead.

In this movie, Moore advocates eliminating insurance companies entirely and going to a single-payer, government-funded system. This is not what any of the mainstream candidates this year are talking about.

SILBERNER: No, they're talking about various packages that would make insurance more affordable, give a little more government assistance, and in some cases, create a bit more regulation. They are talking about incremental changes, and this comes from the experience of '93 and '94, when attempts to change the system got nothing changed.

MONDELLO: We've had a lot of pictures recently about Iraq, and we had An Inconvenient Truth last year about climate change. These movies are not going to change policy. But it certainly does change the debate. If you think about the way the administration talked about climate change prior to An Inconvenient Truth, and the way it's talking about it now, I think it's clear that there was a major shift. I'm not sure if the movie is responsible for that, but certainly it changed the way the media dealt with it. It was a very persuasive case. And I think this will be a very persuasive case for a lot of people, too.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=11285514 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11285514)

Michael Moore's 'Sicko' Flogs U.S. Health Care

by Kim Masters

Director Michael Moore, whose upcoming film, Sicko attacks the American health care system, is scheduled to hold a news conference on Capitol Hill Wednesday. While Sicko does not open in most theaters until next week, it has already generated considerable attention.

A visit to Cuba to shoot part of the film might have violated a U.S. trade embargo; the Treasury Department is investigating. Moore has made a lot of noise in the media over the probe, saying he has stashed a copy of the film in Canada for fear it will be seized in the United States.

Some of that is due to Moore's knack for promotion. But he is also known for putting his finger on the public's pulse in such films as Roger & Me and Bowling for Columbine. To some, he is a kind of folk hero; others accuse him of manipulating the facts.

On a recent hot June afternoon, Moore preached to the choir in Sacramento, Calif.

First, he attended a legislative briefing in the Capitol building, cheered on by a crowd of health care workers. Then, he addressed a rally sponsored by the California Nurses Association.

Rose Ann DeMoro is executive director of the California Nurses Association. When her group had a rally in Sacramento a few weeks ago, the local media covered a frog-jumping contest instead. Moore, she said, "brings light" to the health care issue.

Sicko paints a sobering picture of health care in America. It shows sick patients being dumped on skid row in Los Angeles; an accident victim who has to choose which finger to have reattached because he can't afford to pay for both. Some of the worst stories involve those who have insurance but are denied coverage, or who are overwhelmed by high deductibles. In his film, Moore says the consequences are undeniable.

"And the United States slipped to 37 in health care around the world, just slightly ahead of Slovenia," Moore said.

In an interview the day before the Sacramento rally, Moore said he usually has been ahead of the times. But this is different.

"All the polls show that it's the No. 1 domestic issue — and it will be in the upcoming election," he said. "So, maybe this time I will have synced myself up on the same place where the American public is at."

Actually, independent polls, including one by Gallup, indicate that health care is not the No. 1 issue, but it does rank high on the list. Moore hopes Sicko will focus the looming election.

Certainly, some in the industry are concerned. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America issued a statement denouncing Moore's film, sight unseen. A spokesman declined to be interviewed by NPR.

Moore has been controversial from the time he made Roger & Me, his 1989 movie about the ravaging effects of General Motors layoffs on Moore's hometown of Flint, Mich. The film revolved around Moore's pursuit of GM's chief executive at the time.

"My mission was a simple one: to convince Roger Smith to spend a day with me in Flint and meet some of the people who were losing their jobs," Moore said in the film.

Instantly, critics attacked Moore for fudging facts to strengthen his case, or to make Roger & Me funnier. Film Comment magazine cited several examples, including a sequence in which displaced workers met in a pizza parlor with Ronald Reagan — then a presidential candidate — although that point wasn't made clear.

"None of Reagan's luncheon guests got back into the factory in the ensuing years," Moore narrated. "And the only bright spot to come out to the affair was the individual who 'borrowed' the restaurant's cash register on the way out of the door."

Actually, the cash register was stolen a day or so before Reagan's visit. Moore attributes the discrepancy to a misstatement by the restaurant's owner. But such glitches prompted Pauline Kael, the late New Yorker film critic, to label the film "a piece of Gonzo demagoguery."

Kael made Moore out to be a precursor to Sacha Baron Cohen's Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, exploiting dupes to make his point.

"She was just mad at me," Moore said.

He said that when the film came out, Kael wanted a copy to watch at her home. But he insisted that she attend a regular screening.

"Listen to me, you know, Mr. Guy from Flint making a hundred bucks a week. And I'm going, 'No, I don't care who she is, writing for the New Yorker, make her come down and watch the movie,' " Moore said.

Moore said he regretted that almost instantly. But he dismisses her challenges — and all others — to his films.

"I make sure that all of the facts in my movie are absolutely 100 percent true," Moore said. "And I'm very, very concerned about that, because I want people to listen to my opinion. And that opinion is based on these facts."

Jack Mathews, film critic for the New York Daily News, is not convinced. He said Moore is a brilliant filmmaker but has lowered the bar for documentaries.

"I share his politics, generally, but I don't like his style," Mathews said.

Mathews was appalled by Moore's confrontation with gun-rights advocate Charlton Heston in the 2002 film, Bowling for Columbine. The movie implies that Heston attended a rally in Flint just after a 6-year-old girl had been shot and killed.

In the film, Moore appears at Heston's house, snags an interview and asks the seemingly frail actor whether he felt insensitive because the community had "just" suffered the loss of the child. Eventually, Heston walks out on the interview.

"This is her. Please don't leave, Mr. Heston, please. Take a look at her. This is the girl," Moore said.

In fact, Heston attended a rally in Flint eight months after the child was killed. Moore is unapologetic.

"Yes, somebody should go knock on his door. And, yes, somebody should ask him some hard questions. He was the president of the NRA at that time," Moore said. "A year or so later, he came down with Alzheimer's and resigned. I feel very bad that he eventually got Alzheimer's. He didn't have Alzheimer's when I interviewed him."

The real fault, Moore said, lies with the mainstream media, which, he said, never hold his villains to account.

"I mean, it really is disgusting when a guy in a ball cap with a high school education is the one asking the tough questions," Moore said. "Criticize me? No. Somebody really should show up and say, 'Thanks.'"

Certainly, many health care workers are saying exactly that. But in Sicko, Moore has once again opened the door to critics — partly because he paints the systems in other countries in such glowing colors.

"Everyone, anyone can go to the hospital, can go to a doctor and never have to worry about paying a bill," Moore said. "And those countries – Britain, France, Canada — the people in those countries all live longer than we do."

Even, he insists, in Cuba.

"On average they live, in Cuba, a month longer than we do," he said.

Actually, NPR research suggests that Americans edge out Cubans, but not by much. Moore acknowledged he has heard complaints about supply shortages in Cuba, and that he has heard about long waits for treatment in Great Britain and Canada. But, he said, those reports are "anecdotal." And he is quick to take on those who question him.

"This is the typical NPR: afraid of being accused of having liberal bias — so, let's make sure we attack him enough in this piece," Moore said.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=11208212 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11208212)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/04/Sickoposter.jpg

Opens in Australia this Thursday (9th August).

Discuss!

camsmith
24 Jun 2007, 02:34
Yeah, I'd be sick too if I saw that in the mirror looking back at me.

The film lost most of my respect when I heard Moore made it, but when I heard he went to Cuba to make his point... I actually did feel sick.

I heard a good point the other day, next time Moore needs life threatening surgery, will he be rushing to Cuba for it? How many medical breakthroughs have they had in the last 50 years?

No doubt you'll love this film :rolleyes:

Admiral Afterworld
24 Jun 2007, 02:36
when I heard he went to Cuba to make his point... I actually did feel sick.

Harden up?

camsmith
24 Jun 2007, 02:44
Harden up?

:D

When I think of communists I generally feel sick, must just be pity.

I guess its better than what the 100 million people who died as a result of communism feel, nothing.

SunKing
24 Jun 2007, 12:04
I'm a big fan of MM so will watch this with interest.

Hopefully this will help lead to the US adopting a free health care system like we have in australia. Everyone in the US regardless of how much money they have should have access to the same health system.

bringbackschwarter5
24 Jun 2007, 12:27
Is this another one of those lie-filled anti Bush doco's

pmad87
24 Jun 2007, 14:18
Yeah, I'd be sick too if I saw that in the mirror looking back at me.

The film lost most of my respect when I heard Moore made it, but when I heard he went to Cuba to make his point... I actually did feel sick.

I heard a good point the other day, next time Moore needs life threatening surgery, will he be rushing to Cuba for it? How many medical breakthroughs have they had in the last 50 years?

No doubt you'll love this film :rolleyes:

Any credibility you ever had, you just lost.

SunKing
24 Jun 2007, 16:40
Any credibility you ever had, you just lost.

Agreed the guy is a master doco maker and always tackles subjects other fear to.

likka
24 Jun 2007, 17:15
Yeah, I'd be sick too if I saw that in the mirror looking back at me.

The film lost most of my respect when I heard Moore made it, but when I heard he went to Cuba to make his point... I actually did feel sick.

I heard a good point the other day, next time Moore needs life threatening surgery, will he be rushing to Cuba for it? How many medical breakthroughs have they had in the last 50 years?

No doubt you'll love this film :rolleyes:

http://www.uruknet.de/uruknet-images/neocons1.jpeg

Typical neocon idiotic rubbish.

camsmith
25 Jun 2007, 00:32
Any credibility you ever had, you just lost.

What, you dont have a particular director or actor that you hold preconceived negative feelings of?

Agreed the guy is a master doco maker and always tackles subjects other fear to.

He is a master trickster and hypocrite too.

mulhollanddrive
25 Jun 2007, 01:10
Why are all the people angry at the government and polluters and wildlife killers always ugly? I have a theory about this, slightly off topic.

Michael Moore, fat and ugly. Probably hasnt gotten over being the ugliest person in his school, gets angry and frustrated. What is the most powerful thing in the world he can redirect his angriness at, besides the actual things that reject him cause he's a fat bast-rd, the government. He can't yell at people for calling him fat, so instead of that he yells at the same people for some other psuedo noble reason.

Crosby87
25 Jun 2007, 01:42
Why are all the people angry at the government and polluters and wildlife killers always ugly? I have a theory about this, slightly off topic.

Michael Moore, fat and ugly. Probably hasnt gotten over being the ugliest person in his school, gets angry and frustrated. What is the most powerful thing in the world he can redirect his angriness at, besides the actual things that reject him cause he's a fat bast-rd, the government. He can't yell at people for calling him fat, so instead of that he yells at the same people for some other psuedo noble reason.

Uh, yeah. I'm sure that's it. :rolleyes:

Skeppersap
25 Jun 2007, 16:54
Any credibility you ever had, you just lost.

At least he had some credibility to start with! Those who enjoy MM movies are a disgrace.

Selective editing of footage can allow a documentary maker to perpetrate any lies he wishes the world to see. There are so many people i know who just take MM's word as gospel, without even considering the possibility that he is producing a doco full of half truths (and non-truths) to pull the wool over viewers eyes and make them blindly follow his own agenda.

Mike Moore, you are a hypocritical and an embarassment!

Skeppersap
25 Jun 2007, 17:00
http://www.uruknet.de/uruknet-images/neocons1.jpeg

Typical neocon idiotic rubbish.

Hey, Ive got an idea guys. I am going to use all the left wing political catch-phrases I learnt in my first year political science degree to attempt to sound smart and put down everyone who does not share the same beliefs as myself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What on earth did that poster say that was incorrect? If Mike Moore falls chronically ill, he will use the millions upon millions of dollars he has made in capitalist America to get the best treatment money can buy!

If you doubt that, you are even more stupid than you sound.

If you agree with that, then you will be agreeing that Mike Moore is a hypocrite of the highest degree, who deserves no respect or credibility!

dmc333
25 Jun 2007, 20:27
camsmith found his way off the SR&P board, and for what else, but to attack the left. :rolleyes:

You're in a bit of trouble when even Foxnews calls it "brilliant and uplifting" (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273875,00.html)

apollo_creed
25 Jun 2007, 21:16
Why are all the people angry at the government and polluters and wildlife killers always ugly? I have a theory about this, slightly off topic.

Michael Moore, fat and ugly. Probably hasnt gotten over being the ugliest person in his school, gets angry and frustrated. What is the most powerful thing in the world he can redirect his angriness at, besides the actual things that reject him cause he's a fat bast-rd, the government. He can't yell at people for calling him fat, so instead of that he yells at the same people for some other psuedo noble reason.
oh dear. :rolleyes:

Black JuJu
25 Jun 2007, 22:45
I thought Bowling for Columbine was well made and enjoyed his series but Fahrenheit 9/11 was painfully bias, bordering on anti government propaganda, it will be interesting to see how successful he is in getting his message across this time.

mulhollanddrive
26 Jun 2007, 01:22
I'm not saying Michael Moore doesnt have merit in his arguments or have good intentions, im saying that its no coincidence such an ugly person would choose to redirect his energy onto other problems, rather than have to lose weight or deal with people with his true character and not behind angry campaigns.

Jabso
26 Jun 2007, 18:13
:D

When I think of communists I generally feel sick, must just be pity.

I guess its better than what the 100 million people who died as a result of communism feel, nothing.

While we're making stupid analogies like that you do realise a fair few people also died from national socialism. You seem to be right wing, so I can call you a nazi, just like you call Moore a communist.

apollo_creed
26 Jun 2007, 18:39
the movie is about America's healthcare system.

perhaps said topic could be dicussed?

Geddy Lee
26 Jun 2007, 19:42
I've seen it and it's very interesting, I enjoyed him giving the cheque anonymously to his biggest hater in the world. :)

He romanticizes other countries healthcare a bit too, particularly Cuba.

red+black
26 Jun 2007, 20:02
Opens in the U.S. and Canada this Friday, June 29.

Don't think an Australian release date has been set yet.

A release date has indeed been set. Wednesday 25 July 2007 @ The Regent Theatre, Melbourne (http://www.theage.com.au/news/film/film-fest-goes-for-moore-style/2007/06/20/1182019201446.html), but it's SOLD OUT (http://tickets2.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/categories.asp?cID=27).

camsmith
26 Jun 2007, 21:33
While we're making stupid analogies like that you do realise a fair few people also died from national socialism. You seem to be right wing, so I can call you a nazi, just like you call Moore a communist.

Err, for a start, it wasn't an analogy and.. national socialism? Are you confused? You know Moore advocates a fully socialised health system?

I dont know if I actually called Moore a communist, I just dont like how he glorified communist Cuba in his film. Saying that, Moore couldn't go much further to the left, so he could well be classed as a communist by some.

Admiral Afterworld
6 Aug 2007, 02:02
In cinemas this Thursday.

Margaret Pomeranz and David Stratton give it four stars each: http://www.abc.net.au/atthemovies/txt/s1983745.htm

Bomber Bears
6 Aug 2007, 13:44
problem with michael moore is i want to agree with him, but the way he goes about his movies is shithouse

Contra Mundum
6 Aug 2007, 15:26
Yeah, I'd be sick too if I saw that in the mirror looking back at me.

The film lost most of my respect when I heard Moore made it, but when I heard he went to Cuba to make his point... I actually did feel sick.

I heard a good point the other day, next time Moore needs life threatening surgery, will he be rushing to Cuba for it? How many medical breakthroughs have they had in the last 50 years?

No doubt you'll love this film :rolleyes:


Do some reseach compare the infant mortality rates in the US and Cuba and then tell me which has the better health system

Mattlowry
6 Aug 2007, 17:25
I dislike Michael Moore. I think he is fantastic at what he does however, in that he can manipulate almost any fact to support his p.o.v. I have read a great article on Fahrenheit 9/11 which pretty much showed how biased and one sided nearly all of his claims where. He is so good at doing what he does that it is sometimes hard to watch what he does with an level head, especially since he will rarely tell you the other side of the argument anyhow. Most people who see his films wont do anything to discover the other side either, and will go away thinking exactly what Moore wants you too, this annoys me.

He has profited so much out of this too. I hope someone makes a doco on him called 'Sicko 2'.

agitator
6 Aug 2007, 18:23
Agreed the guy is a master doco maker and always tackles subjects other fear to.

oooh save us mike moore, save us from the baddies...

i cant believe how many fools get sucked in by this fat *uck and all his phoney baloney.
he always wears the same signature joe schmoe outfits and his carefully designed disheveled look pretending to be an average american slob when infact he's a multi millionare who owns a manhatten apartment and lives the high life.

the american medical system is sick because there are so many obese fat *ucks like mike moore waddling around the country...

Crosby87
6 Aug 2007, 19:21
Happened to catch uber-conservative Sean Hannity trying to exploit Moore's personal life with some Republican lackey on FOX News today.

Surprise, surprise.

Crosby87
6 Aug 2007, 19:25
I dislike Michael Moore. I think he is fantastic at what he does however, in that he can manipulate almost any fact to support his p.o.v. I have read a great article on Fahrenheit 9/11 which pretty much showed how biased and one sided nearly all of his claims where.

But yet, almost everyone who attacks him is completely biased in the opposite direction.

Richo83
6 Aug 2007, 22:53
the movie is about America's healthcare system.

perhaps said topic could be dicussed?

Good idea.

Whether you like Moore or not, he makes a point, the US healthcare system leaves a lot to be desired, it is inefficient, mismanaged and underfunded.

For people who are saying, well Moore would go to the US instead of Cuba if he was sick, that aint saying much. The US is a 1st world nation, Cuba isn't, so you would expect the US system to be better. Infact in reality, if Moore did have a debilitating illness and he could afford the best healthcare, he'd probably go to a place like Sweden with some of the highest healthcare standards in the world. Sweden is a social liberalist democracy, and spends money on it's health system. It also has one of the best health systems in the world. Funny that.

Whether you like Moore or the movie is irrelevant, Moore's claim that the US health system needs improvement is correct.

drew_j
7 Aug 2007, 11:17
Do some reseach compare the infant mortality rates in the US and Cuba and then tell me which has the better health system

How about you do some research instead of taking Moore at his word. The Cuban infant mortality rate is a farce.

agitator
7 Aug 2007, 14:07
Happened to catch uber-conservative Sean Hannity trying to exploit Moore's personal life with some Republican lackey on FOX News today.

Surprise, surprise.

what's the problem??..........mike moore should taste his own medicine.

TheColeTrain
7 Aug 2007, 14:38
i refuse to watch anything with Michael Moore's name on it since I saw Farenheit 9/11.
The worst, factless doco I have ever seen

Richo83
7 Aug 2007, 15:11
i refuse to watch anything with Michael Moore's name on it since I saw Farenheit 9/11.
The worst, factless doco I have ever seen

At least it isn't as bad as the spiel that comes out of fox news. Moore is never 100% correct of his claims but much of what Moore said in Fahrenheit stands up.

TheGeneral
7 Aug 2007, 22:11
Why would we want to pay to go and see a documentary about America's health system?

It doesn't concern us even if their healthcare system is underfunded.

We still have patients waiting on trolleys and being sent to Hotels in Victoria because we don't have the beds.

camsmith
7 Aug 2007, 23:05
Do some reseach compare the infant mortality rates in the US and Cuba and then tell me which has the better health system

How tricky and Moorish of you :rolleyes:

To start with, we have an issue of inaccurate statistics:

In April 2001 Dr. Juan Felipe García MD, of Jacksonville, Florida, interviewed several recent doctor defectors from Cuba. Based on what he heard his report may discomfit some Sicko fans. "The official Cuban infant-mortality figure is a farce," asserts Dr. Garcia. "Cuban pediatricians constantly falsify figures for the regime. If an infant dies during its first year the doctor often reports he was older. Otherwise such lapses could cost him severe penalties and his job."

A samizdat smuggled out of Cuba in January 2003 by Mario Enrique Mayo reported that Dr Olga Oropeza from Camag*ey province was severely reprimanded by her hospital chief Leonardo Ramirez for delivering a premature baby. "That could raise this hospital's infant-mortality rate!" Ramirez berated the terrified woman.

According to a report by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, the mortality rate of Cuban children aged 1 to 4 is 34% higher than the U.S. (11.8 versus 8.8 per 1000). But these don't figure into U.N.-spotlighted "infant-mortality rates," you see. So apparently the pressure (so far) is not on Cuban doctors to fudge these figures.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons also reports that the current maternal mortality rate in Cuba is almost FOUR TIMES the U.S. rate (33 versus 8.4 per 1000). Peculiar (and tragic) how so many mothers die during childbirth in Cuba? And how many 1–4 year olds perish, while from birth to one year old (the period during which they qualify in U.N. statistics as infants) they're perfectly healthy?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/fontova/fontova66.html

And even then, we see that those statistics dont tell the full story:

Cuba vs. the United States on Infant Mortality (http://www.overpopulation.com/articles/2002/cuba-vs-the-united-states-on-infant-mortality/)

Recently released statistics on the infant mortality rate in the Western hemisphere yielded an odd conclusions — Cuba’s infant mortality rate, 16 6.0 per 1,000, is now lower than the U.S. infant mortality rate, at 7.2 per 1,000. Given Cuba’s poverty level, its 6.0 rate is very impressive, but is it accurate to say that Cuba now has an infant mortality rate lower than the United States? No.

The problem is that international statistics on infant mortality are helpful in revealing large differences, but when it comes to small differences such as that between Cuba and the United States, often other factors are really behind the numbers.

The primary reason Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the United States is that the United States is a world leader in an odd category — the percentage of infants who die on their birthday. In any given year in the United States anywhere from 30-40 percent of infants die before they are even a day old.

Why? Because the United States also easily has the most intensive system ofemergency intervention to keep low birth weight and premature infants alive in the world. The United States is, for example, one of only a handful countries that keeps detailed statistics on early fetal mortality — the survival rate of infants who are born as early as the 20th week of gestation.

How does this skew the statistics? Because in the United States if an infant is born weighing only 400 grams and not breathing, a doctor will likely spend lot of time and money trying to revive that infant. If the infant does not survive — and the mortality rate for such infants is in excess of 50 percent — that sequence of events will be recorded as a live birth and then a death.

In many countries, however, (including many European countries) such severe medical intervention would not be attempted and, moreover, regardless of whether or not it was, this would be recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth. That unfortunate infant would never show up in infant mortality statistics...

So on one hand we see that the statistics are coming from the dishonest Cuban regime, which have been shown to lie... and on the other we see that the high abortion rate lowers the infant mortality rate as most problem pregnancies are terminated before birth.

But I guess we wont hear those inconvenient facts from either yourself or Mr Moore as they might just show the farce that is the Cuban health system.

camsmith
7 Aug 2007, 23:23
Happened to catch uber-conservative Sean Hannity trying to exploit Moore's personal life with some Republican lackey on FOX News today.

Surprise, surprise.

Whats your response to the Fox News entertainment review that gave it a raving review? I'm sure Allan argued the opposite to Hannity... Did you turn over when he came on or just ignore that bit?

Btw, was that talking about his shares in companies that he apparently is opposed to? I think it does have some relevance.

camsmith
7 Aug 2007, 23:24
Good idea.

Whether you like Moore or not, he makes a point, the US healthcare system leaves a lot to be desired, it is inefficient, mismanaged and underfunded.

For people who are saying, well Moore would go to the US instead of Cuba if he was sick, that aint saying much. The US is a 1st world nation, Cuba isn't, so you would expect the US system to be better. Infact in reality, if Moore did have a debilitating illness and he could afford the best healthcare, he'd probably go to a place like Sweden..

Then he should have used Sweden as an example. He didn't, he used Cuba as an example and he needs to cop the flack of doing that.

I'd have no problem if he made a movie telling us how bad the US health system is.. but to go and bring Cuba into it in the way he did, is disgraceful.. but typical of him.

Why doesn't he donate some of his money to some hospitals to help the situation? Im sure he has plenty of money from his Halliburton shares.

Geelong_Bisons_#36
8 Aug 2007, 13:49
Statistics can be made up to prove anything.
Forfty percent of people know that.

drew_j
8 Aug 2007, 14:02
Statistics can be made up to prove anything.
Forfty percent of people know that.

Facts! You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! Facts, shmacks.

Contra Mundum
8 Aug 2007, 14:41
How tricky and Moorish of you :rolleyes:

To start with, we have an issue of inaccurate statistics:



And even then, we see that those statistics dont tell the full story:



So on one hand we see that the statistics are coming from the dishonest Cuban regime, which have been shown to lie... and on the other we see that the high abortion rate lowers the infant mortality rate as most problem pregnancies are terminated before birth.

But I guess we wont hear those inconvenient facts from either yourself or Mr Moore as they might just show the farce that is the Cuban health system.


OK who cares about infant mortality. It is simply the axiomatic fact that in a true modern democracy your health should not be subject to the dicates of the market

Both my parents died of blood borne cancers - they both had at least two lots of chemotherapy , radiotherapy and were in intensive care and then hospices for months. Tell me this: would you deny someone this treatment if they either could not pay for it or where not medically insured!

The Market should have a limited role in health care

Jimi
8 Aug 2007, 15:57
I saw this weeks ago on the net.

It made me very glad to live in Australia thats for sure.

drew_j
8 Aug 2007, 16:23
OK who cares about infant mortality. It is simply the axiomatic fact that in a true modern democracy your health should not be subject to the dicates of the market

Both my parents died of blood borne cancers - they both had at least two lots of chemotherapy , radiotherapy and were in intensive care and then hospices for months. Tell me this: would you deny someone this treatment if they either could not pay for it or where not medically insured!

The Market should have a limited role in health care

While this post is true, if Michael Moore was to have depicted your parents in a (and I use the term loosely) documentary, the situation show would have been a misrepresentation.

The argument that if Fox news does it or that if his motives are just then we should let him off the hook and rave about his films regardless is just wrong. It's called hypocrisy and no amount of good intentions changes the fact. Michael Moore is a narcissistic, despicable human being and the fact that his movies are praised by the left and show in schools as educational material disturbs and sickens me as much as the fact that the right want to stay in Iraq and Bush is in power.

camsmith
8 Aug 2007, 16:33
OK who cares about infant mortality. It is simply the axiomatic fact that in a true modern democracy your health should not be subject to the dicates of the market

Both my parents died of blood borne cancers - they both had at least two lots of chemotherapy , radiotherapy and were in intensive care and then hospices for months. Tell me this: would you deny someone this treatment if they either could not pay for it or where not medically insured!

The Market should have a limited role in health care

You did care obviously, until you were shown to be ill-advised.

I'd hope there would safety nets for those who are too poor to pay, but I believe the government should have a limited role - where possible. Its been shown that the countries Moore praises have much longer waiting times and many hospitals are going bankrupt or are under funded. Personal responsibility for ones health and government assistance where needed would be the right mix for both.

Letting the government run something can be dangerous and there are many examples of where this is proven.

Im no expert on health care, let alone the US health care but from reading about this movie, the main thing im critical of is Moore declaring Cuba's health care system to be better than Americas. Its deceptive and misleading.

Im sure the US health care system does need reform, but it doesn't need to be socialised.

Also, im sorry to hear about your parents. Cancer is a terrible disease and I too have lost people close to me because of it. However im sure im correct in saying that the treatment they received would be much better in a western country such as the US or Australia where government doens't run all aspects of it, than somewhere like Cuba.

jo172
8 Aug 2007, 16:51
Facts! You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! Facts, shmacks.

The truth has a well known left wing bias:thumbsd:

Contra Mundum
8 Aug 2007, 16:57
You did care obviously, until you were shown to be ill-advised.

I'd hope there would safety nets for those who are too poor to pay, but I believe the government should have a limited role - where possible. Its been shown that the countries Moore praises have much longer waiting times and many hospitals are going bankrupt or are under funded. Personal responsibility for ones health and government assistance where needed would be the right mix for both.

Letting the government run something can be dangerous and there are many examples of where this is proven.

Im no expert on health care, let alone the US health care but from reading about this movie, the main thing im critical of is Moore declaring Cuba's health care system to be better than Americas. Its deceptive and misleading.

Im sure the US health care system does need reform, but it doesn't need to be socialised.

Also, im sorry to hear about your parents. Cancer is a terrible disease and I too have lost people close to me because of it. However im sure im correct in saying that the treatment they received would be much better in a western country such as the US or Australia where government doens't run all aspects of it, than somewhere like Cuba.

PAY or DIE is the american system - if my parents did not have access to pain killers particularly mum who had bone cancer it would have been inhumane.

Pontificate on your ideological high horse all you like - give it every label you like [I particularly like your strictly neutral use of the terms "socialised" vs "personal responsibility"] no one should be deprived amelioaritive health care if they are critically ill.

How the hell is the private sector going to give universal access to health care

You did not answer my question - do you think that a society which kicks out critically ill cancer patients when they run out of money is healthy?

Contra Mundum
8 Aug 2007, 17:06
Further the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme - the product of a socialist Government is one of the greatest innovations in Australian democracy. A course of Chemotherapy in the states costs US $50,000. Tell me how is humanity not compromised by subjecting the access to drugs like that to the market?

Can you tell me what is wrong with the PBS - a thing that the American Free Enterprise Institute calls "our socialised medicine".

We are talking about flesh and blood humans here Cam not dots on a supply and demand curve

Richo83
8 Aug 2007, 22:19
Then he should have used Sweden as an example. He didn't, he used Cuba as an example and he needs to cop the flack of doing that.

I'd have no problem if he made a movie telling us how bad the US health system is.. but to go and bring Cuba into it in the way he did, is disgraceful.. but typical of him.

Why doesn't he donate some of his money to some hospitals to help the situation? Im sure he has plenty of money from his Halliburton shares.

You are nitpicking, the overall message of the movie; that the US health system sucks and is need in reform is correct.

drew_j
9 Aug 2007, 09:54
You are nitpicking, the overall message of the movie; that the US health system sucks and is need in reform is correct.

That is a stupid comment.

The overall motives of Hitler was love of his country.

Richo83
9 Aug 2007, 19:19
That is a stupid comment.

The overall motives of Hitler was love of his country.

Wrong. The overall motives of Hitler were to ensure the superiority of the German race above all other peoples via murder and invasion. That's not simply love for his country, that's facism. Furthermore, if Hitler loved his country so much he'd love it in it's whole, instead of prioritizing certain peoples.

Are you denying the fact that the US health system is stuffed up? Because if you are then you are a fool.

Jabso
9 Aug 2007, 19:29
Bah I don't care. Michael Moore makes good points and I consider myself left leaning, and his documentaries are very entertaining but people need to realise the focus is on entertainment and a MM doco isn't a source you should be really quoting.

drew_j
9 Aug 2007, 21:42
Are you denying the fact that the US health system is stuffed up? Because if you are then you are a fool.

Nice of you to jump to conclusions. Further proof you simply want to justify you principals and don't care how you do it. I can see why someone with the low moral fibre of Moore would apeal to you.

Richo83
9 Aug 2007, 23:34
Nice of you to jump to conclusions. Further proof you simply want to justify you principals and don't care how you do it. I can see why someone with the low moral fibre of Moore would apeal to you.

Conclusions, the US rates behind much of the western world in terms of healthcare ratings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare

The table shows some damning stats.

Between the UK, US, France, Australia, Germany, Sweden, Canada and Japan, the US ranks last in life expectancy, worst in life mortality, 5th in physician rates and health costs covered by the government are less than 50%, unlike all other displayed nations.

dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf (google healthcare ratings first one) is a good source of info on the ratings of the US health system. http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
ranks the US as 37th. If I have jumped to conclusions, what do these figures say?

Now look, I agree that Moore is biased and impartial, and displays a very simplistic view of the US and other nation healthcare. HOWEVER, he is right in an overall sense that very much so, the US healthcare system leaves a lot to be desired and is behind most other western nations in healthcare for their citizens. I personally have suffered at the hands of the NHS, so I know problems, but I had a choice of where I'd rather be cared for, here, the US or one random western European nation, it'd be anywhere but Yankeeland.

KissStephanie
10 Aug 2007, 04:33
Opens in Australia this Thursday (9th August).Terrific film, and since I work in the field, and live in the US, it is yet another quite accurate documentary from Michael Moore.The film lost most of my respect when I heard Moore made it, but when I heard he went to Cuba to make his point... I actually did feel sick.I see that you're in the minority yet again as the film has received outstanding reviews (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sicko/). Cuba simply offered the health care for these people that the US does not.I'm not saying Michael Moore doesnt have merit in his arguments or have good intentions, im saying that its no coincidence such an ugly person would choose to redirect his energy onto other problems, rather than have to lose weight or deal with people with his true character and not behind angry campaigns.He feels that he can change the world for the better, and he should be congratulated for that and not ridiculed. He has also in fact lost weight recently, and in three months he has lost more than 14 kg's and has lowered his blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar to normal levels.The overall motives of Hitler was love of his country.Are you serious? It was not!Michael Moore makes good points and I consider myself left leaning, and his documentaries are very entertaining but people need to realise the focus is on entertainment and a MM doco isn't a source you should be really quoting.Why not use most (not all) of his points as sources? He has backed most (not all) of them up quite accurately on his web site (http://www.michaelmoore.com/) for all to compare for themselves.Between the UK, US, France, Australia, Germany, Sweden, Canada and Japan, the US ranks last in life expectancy, worst in life mortality, 5th in physician rates and health costs covered by the government are less than 50%, unlike all other displayed nations.There is absolutely no doubt about that, and it's time for the American health care system to be overhauled.

drew_j
10 Aug 2007, 09:01
Conclusions, the US rates behind much of the western world in terms of healthcare ratings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare

The table shows some damning stats.

Between the UK, US, France, Australia, Germany, Sweden, Canada and Japan, the US ranks last in life expectancy, worst in life mortality, 5th in physician rates and health costs covered by the government are less than 50%, unlike all other displayed nations.

dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf (google healthcare ratings first one) is a good source of info on the ratings of the US health system. http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
ranks the US as 37th. If I have jumped to conclusions, what do these figures say?

Now look, I agree that Moore is biased and impartial, and displays a very simplistic view of the US and other nation healthcare. HOWEVER, he is right in an overall sense that very much so, the US healthcare system leaves a lot to be desired and is behind most other western nations in healthcare for their citizens. I personally have suffered at the hands of the NHS, so I know problems, but I had a choice of where I'd rather be cared for, here, the US or one random western European nation, it'd be anywhere but Yankeeland.

Look you don't seem to get it so let me spell it out for you. I don't care if the U.S. health system is screwed, I don't care that you were screwed over by the NHS and I don't care how many stats you can throw up to prove either point. I’m NOT arguing that point, never was from the beginning, don’t pretend to know enough about the subject to start.

What I WAS debating was Michael Moore is not biased he is intentionally misleading to the point of fraud and fighting for the right side shouldn't exclude you from following the rules of engagement.

Richo83
10 Aug 2007, 11:44
Look you don't seem to get it so let me spell it out for you. I don't care if the U.S. health system is screwed, I don't care that you were screwed over by the NHS and I don't care how many stats you can throw up to prove either point. I’m NOT arguing that point, never was from the beginning, don’t pretend to know enough about the subject to start.

What I WAS debating was Michael Moore is not biased he is intentionally misleading to the point of fraud and fighting for the right side shouldn't exclude you from following the rules of engagement.

So you say that you know little about the topic yet to think you know that what Moore is claiming is completely biased? HA!

But you are right, he should play by the rules, the opposition don't, but he should. Look, you are right about Moore's film that it doesn't follow the rules of fairness, but IMO if this film hadn't been made, it would never have illustrated a point that Moore has made very bluntly, that the US system needs reform.

Now whether you think he's wrong in his methods, fine. But heres the thing, while his methods are questionable, his point isn't. For many Americans, this movie is great because it might be the wake-up call they have been waiting for, the wake-up call to America to fix their system. And if this movie somehow encourages thought of the need for reform, it may help many suffering Americans. Think of An Inconvenient truth, it got people talking about the environment in ways they had never before.

jorel6669
11 Aug 2007, 22:05
Of course Michael Moore has an agenda. All of his films have an agenda. Why do Moore haters continue to argue this point?

I've enjoyed all of his films because they have encouraged me to think and ask questions. I'm not dumb enough to think that he's totally objective about the subject matter.

Richo83
12 Aug 2007, 01:27
Of course Michael Moore has an agenda. All of his films have an agenda. Why do Moore haters continue to argue this point?

I've enjoyed all of his films because they have encouraged me to think and ask questions. I'm not dumb enough to think that he's totally objective about the subject matter.

Exactly. People like drewj just don't get it.

agitator
12 Aug 2007, 08:27
the problem with mike moore is that he makes money out of other peoples' misery.

everyone of his 'docos'.......people losing jobs, 9/11, school shooting, health system are taking advantage of peoples' suffering and tragedy and using that as a vehicle to mike moore's celebrity status.

he is the worst kind of blood sucking leech.

Chief
8 Feb 2008, 22:08
Watching it now.

He does gloss over NHS problems, and it really is ridiculous to accuse him of making money from people's misery. :rolleyes: Amazing neocon myopia.

BTW - camsmith have you actually watched it yet?

midorigreenwood
9 Feb 2008, 11:37
overall it was quite an interesting watch...... a good return to form after the bore-fest that was farenheit 9/11.

I liked how he made the point that the film wasn't about the 50 million ppl in america who didn't have healthcare....but about the ppl who do have health insurance and still suffer.

The part about Cuba was abit saccharine for my liking though...... ie: how he glossed over the faults of Castro.

ps: I would have chosen the middle finger...... would look alot more stranger without it than the ring finger imo :/

Admiral Afterworld
2 Jun 2008, 12:30
I saw finally saw this movie recently and liked it :thumbsu:

camsmith
2 Jun 2008, 12:44
Of course you did.

midorigreenwood
2 Jun 2008, 18:58
Have you watched it yet Cam?

camsmith
2 Jun 2008, 22:39
Nope. Most people haven't seen Triumph of the Will either but they still know its full of shit (although masterfully done).

I'll see 'Sicko' and 'An Inconvenient Truth' one of these days.

Admiral Afterworld
2 Jun 2008, 23:38
Nope. Most people haven't seen Triumph of the Will either but they still know its full of shit (although masterfully done).

I'll see 'Sicko' and 'An Inconvenient Truth' one of these days.

Ah, yes. Nazi Germany is the first thing I think of when I see films about the state of health care and the environment.

Face facts: You don't like this movie (despite having never seen it) because it doesn't fit in with your Fox Newz view of the world.

camsmith
3 Jun 2008, 12:22
Ah, yes. Nazi Germany is the first thing I think of when I see films about the state of health care and the environment.

Face facts: You don't like this movie (despite having never seen it) because it doesn't fit in with your Fox Newz view of the world.

Fox News actually spoke highly of it. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273875,00.html).

I can think for myself.

drew_j
3 Jun 2008, 14:27
I'll never watch it. I've been bitten once by Moore and will never watch him again, he has no credibility.

midorigreenwood
3 Jun 2008, 17:38
Nope. Most people haven't seen Triumph of the Will either but they still know its full of shit (although masterfully done).

I'll see 'Sicko' and 'An Inconvenient Truth' one of these days.

then why the snarky comments? :confused:

are you that biased that you'll pan a movie without watching it?

I mean I watched the GW swindle after you hyped it up so much on BF...... at the very least I could make informed comments instead of relying on Fox news.

camsmith
3 Jun 2008, 18:02
then why the snarky comments? :confused:

are you that biased that you'll pan a movie without watching it?

I mean I watched the GW swindle after you hyped it up so much on BF...... at the very least I could make informed comments instead of relying on Fox news.

Like I said, I'll see 'Sicko' and 'An Inconvenient Truth' one of these days.

Do have I to say, watch a film with Brittany Spears in it to know it will be bad?

midorigreenwood
3 Jun 2008, 19:27
Like I said, I'll see 'Sicko' and 'An Inconvenient Truth' one of these days.

Do have I to say, watch a film with Brittany Spears in it to know it will be bad?

Lame excuse....first you use a nazi analogy then even worse .....you use a Britney analogy :confused:

Face it ......your bias is clouding your judgement.

If you haven't watched it ...fair enough....but you have no credibility to make any criticisms about the film.

camsmith
3 Jun 2008, 19:36
Lame excuse....first you use a nazi analogy then even worse .....you use a Britney analogy :confused:

Face it ......your bias is clouding your judgement.

If you haven't watched it ...fair enough....but you have no credibility to make any criticisms about the film.

So if I read up extensively on quotes and info from the film, I can't discredit those without watching it?

midorigreenwood
3 Jun 2008, 19:38
So if I read up extensively on quotes and info from the film, I can't discredit those without watching it?

you have no credibility until you watch it.....its pretty simple to understand.

would you read a movie review from a person who just made a decision off quotes and third hand info?