| Author |
What do you think of Michael Moore's "Sicko"? |
smerd
Joined: Nov 16, 2006
Posts: 6 |  Posted: 2007-07-03 12:40
Love him or hate him, people have an opinion on Michael Moore. What do you think of Moore and his latest movie, "Sicko"? We'd love to hear what you think about a single payer health care system and what employers can do to solve the health care crisis. Please post your comments on Michael Moore, his latest movie "Sicko", and the related Workforce Managment article "Employers Lash Out at Moore's 'Sicko' Agenda."
|
AndyMatts
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Posts: 79 | Posted: 2007-07-03 13:14
I thought the Workforce Management article was very sparce and superficial.
Some groups and people (some with vested interests in the status quo) don't like Moore or his movie.
The movie, so I hear, shines a spotlight on the shortcomings of our health care system. Instead of dealing with specific issues in the debate, we're left with bland, broad platitudes and very general personal criticisms. The article didn't leave me any more informed about Moore's points or the arguments against his points.
|
wrodgers
Joined: Aug 06, 2003
Posts: 1 | Posted: 2007-07-03 15:12
As usual those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, for profits sake, bellow and deride any notion that might help insure the nearly 50 million Americans without insurance coverage. They have no social concience!!!
|
roseburns
Joined: Apr 18, 2007
Posts: 3 | Posted: 2007-07-03 16:45
This article seemed one-sided and already gunning for Moore. I do feel after seeing this movie that he stuck to the facts here and pulled less punches than usual. He merely used stories submitted to him by 25,000 people. Moore points out that our taxes pay for fire fighting, emergency rescue, etc. and yet basic health care is not provided to citizens. The free market doesn't belong in the health care business unless it's for development of new technology to be used by health care providers paid for by our tax dollars.
|
tomperez
Joined: Jul 03, 2007
Posts: 1 | Posted: 2007-07-03 16:49
Unlike the majority of hired flaks interviewed in the article, I saw the movie this weekend. It was excellent. I recommed all HR professionals struggling to pay for benefits for their employees see the movie and make up their own mind on this issue. Moore pointed out many of the probelms with the US healthcare system. He then goes to Canada, France, England and even Cuba to see how their systems work. In the process he debunks all the tired issues the "hired guns" trot out. Go see the movie and make up your own mind.
|
dszip
Joined: Jul 05, 2007
Posts: 1 | Posted: 2007-07-05 07:26
When did it become employer responsibility to provide health insurance? As an HR director, I am tired of this argument. Our business is providing high quality goods and services, while returning shareholder value and providing jobs. It’s time to get this monkey off the backs of employers. Whether we have single payer or required private insurance doesn’t matter. If medical insurance is to be truly portable, let’s get a better way of delivering it.
|
goldenhinde
Joined: Jul 05, 2007
Posts: 1 | Posted: 2007-07-05 11:35
I have not seen the movie and so I cannot comment directly on Moore's take on the health care crisis. That said, the ERISA industry council and others have entirely the wrong approach to "fixing" the system. The quality of health care services is NOT the issue that is at the crux of the matter. The crux is represented by the incentives built into health care such that the end user, does not have to be responsible for their well being. Be fat, drink too much, smoke cigarettes, eat too much sugar in your diet and not to worry about the consequences of your choices - someone else will pay for it.
That is NOT really insurance. We have a perverse system of incentives that reward dysfunctional behavior by removing the reponsibility for the consequences from the individual who conducts himself or herself in an irresponsible manner.
As long as our health care system rewards dysfunctional behavior we will get what we don't want. That is pure Adam Smith.
|
howard7
Joined: Sep 13, 2001
Posts: 2615 | Posted: 2007-07-06 10:38
Goldenhinde-Well said.
However there is a group of folks who have issues/illness that came with their DNA. One of the questions we need to consider is if these folks cannot afford to obtain the "minimum required care" should "society pay for it? If yes how?
Another big issue is who we should include in any program. Once you open this discussion regarding the so called "uninsured", where do we draw the line?
Do I want to pay for the health insurance for the "illegal" immigrants? Not really.
I understand that their needs may be "legitimate" but my wallet is just not that big and I do not want my health care "parsed" out with long queing lines.
As Goldenhinde stated in so many words, is health insurance or the provision of medical assistance an entitlement program? Is it something we just "give away" to everyone who happens to be sitting inside our (sic) borders? Or does their need to be rules of engagement? And where does the money come from?
If you want a glimpse into what the economic impact of this is consider the Medicare program for just our already retired population. The deficit in this programs is THREE TIMES the deficit for the basic Social Security program and we all know it will not survive as currently consitiuted. Social Security benefits will have to be reduced.
Can you imagine what happens if we have a medicare program for 300 million?
|
Hrpro
Joined: Mar 16, 2007
Posts: 809 | Posted: 2007-07-07 06:59
Michael Moore wouldn't know a fact if it hit him in the forehead.
His fiction is presented as fact while he enjoys the income from those not so grounded in reality.
The healthcare system in this country has issues but fixing it is not as easy as many would think. Moore once again uses innuendo, fabrication and sensationalism to influence the already gullible. He does however epitomize the saying "a fool and his money are soon parted."
maybe he should fins something else to do instead of playing charlatan to those who buy into his foolishness.
|
cynbrandt
Joined: Nov 11, 2003
Posts: 1782 | Posted: 2007-07-09 12:10
No matter what system is in place, there will always be a gap between the haves and the have-nots. From that perspective health care is no different from any other commodity.
howard7, you already ARE paying for the health care services illegal (no quotes, let's call a spade a spade) immigrants are receiving! Hospitals (unlike other service providers) are required to provide care to anyone who presents himself to the ER. The kinds of jobs illegals can obtain don't offer health insurance, and they often lack the ability to pay for the care they receive. Some hospitals can recoup some of this "charity care" from their charges to paying patients; however most of this care will remain uncompensated. In Maryland the state regulates what hospitals may charge for services.
I've not seen anyone on this thread mention how medical malpractice lawsuits and insurance premiums are affecting healthcare costs and availability. I've read about physicians who order diagnostic tests not because they're clinically indicated, but from self-preservation. I've read about physicians who have closed their practices because they could no longer afford malpractice insurance premiums, which can reach six figures per year.
The flip side of the malpractice issue is that it can be difficult to remove licensure from clinicians who are incompetent or careless. Someone who does lose licensure in one state shouldn't be able to obtain it in another, but it can and does happen. If there is any aspect of healthcare that should be nationalized, it should be that there be a consistent standard for clinicians to obtain and keep licensure, and a consistent system for evaluating and addressing complaints about patient care.
|
slogan
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
Posts: 6 | Posted: 2007-07-09 14:32
Several consideration here: first, undersatnd that Moore comes at all issues from a Socialist point of view, so of course he wants everything to be run by the gove't. Second, because he is an elitist, he won't answer the hard questions posited to him thereby discrediting himself. This is in relation to the questions that were asked him about the making of the movie.
Next, where do we come up with the number of "uninsured". Some people purposefully choose not to purchase health care and take other routes to cover their cost. I personally know of several. And who says that they must be covered, is there a gov't mandate that they be covered?
Then there is the big issue of the gov't running anything efficiently. Those who have come out of country's where the gov't ran the health care system adimimantly stte that they never want to go back under a system like that. And finally, to take a complex issue like this and boil the solution down to one or two things is preposterous.
Managing a $5million+ self-insured health plan let's me know that Moore doesn't have clue.
|
johnst4
Joined: Jul 10, 2007
Posts: 1 | Posted: 2007-07-10 06:30
It's a sad day when business professionals in the U.S. even begin to entertain the idea of taking seriously the opinions of a celebrity political hack to gain "objective" insight on anything, much less the health insurance crisis we have that will require educated and knowledgeable health care professionals, business people, and consumer advocacy groups to solve. Don't you professional human resources and business professionals think you might have at least a little more experience and knowledge in dealing with the health care issues in this country than Michael Moore? If not, it's time you start paying attention. Michael Moore is an extremely liberal celebrity as is 90+% of celebrities in the entertainment industry. All of them, even before Michael Moore's opinions see Nationalized healthcare as the answer for the common person's medical needs. All we have to do is look at Canada with it's failed system. Those poor citizens of that country line up at U.S. hospitals to get the timely critical medical care they need that they can't get in their own country because their nationalized medical system is so bogged down in bureauracracy it cannot function in a timely manner. National health care is NOT the answer. Not to complicate the matter, but has anyone ever even seriously looked at the cost of a U.S based National Heatlth Care plan that factors in a fix to the funding dilemma required for the maintenance of the current payment schedule of Social Security benefits to our aged population?
|
lseales
Joined: Aug 03, 2004
Posts: 22 | Posted: 2007-07-10 06:58
“As usual those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, for profits sake, bellow and deride any notion that might help insure the nearly 50 million Americans without insurance coverage.” Yes, but those with a vested interest are in control of where our healthcare system is headed. They’re steering towards more profit and our healthcare system is headed toward a meltdown. Consider the issues of managing a $5mil + self-insured health plan.
"When did it become employer responsibility to provide health insurance?" Never should have been. We blame collective bargaining for that. But blame is not solving the problem.
"Another big issue is who we should include in any program. Once you open this discussion regarding the so called "uninsured", where do we draw the line? Ah yes, the problem with combining insurance with healthcare. Now we need to find other ways to pay for healthcare and we can’t because of how we’ve funded it in the past. New paradigm? Resources are scarce.
“Michael Moore wouldn't know a fact if it hit him in the forehead.” Maybe, but we don’t have to keep our heads in the sand. We’re stuck like Chuck! Mired in arguments of no return.
“No matter what system is in place, there will always be a gap between the haves and the have-nots. From that perspective health care is no different from any other commodity.” Spoken like a true Capitalist. We need to separate insurance from health. Insurance was not invented to protect health. It was invented to protect goods. Health Insurance is a racket.
LLS
|
dangri
Joined: Jul 27, 2004
Posts: 6 | Posted: 2007-07-10 07:04
Moore's motive in making this film is the same as the drug and the health insurance companies that he demeans in the film. He wants to make money or a profit on the film. To call him an activist for health care reform is the same as calling Jerry Springer an activist for social reform.
|
rludlam
Joined: Jul 10, 2007
Posts: 1 | Posted: 2007-07-10 07:34
Canada's system is far from perfect (as Michael Moore would lead you to believe), but I would hardly call it a 'failed' health care system. The fact that some Canadians choose to jump the que and pay out of pocket for U.S. services does not mean the whole system has failed.
|
= Member Only
