Only a narcissist would dare go on national TV with such a lame argument thinking rational people would buy it.  Moore’s continuing defense of the Cuban health care system should be put in a psychology textbook under the topic of denial.

I love how Moore, first says there is no debate on this, then after being backed into a corner goes, “This isn’t really what I want to debate, change the topic.”

So typical of Moore, debate until you’re losing then change the subject to something else.  I hope 20/20 rips his butt on the whole thing but I doubt they will.  However, after saying that, I have seen Moore’s favor with the media go down quite a bit here lately and there has been no real mainstream coverage of this latest movie.  I didn’t even know Moore was creating it until it was brought up by a group “watching Moore’s every move.” Just from what I saw of Stassel here he seems to be challenging Moore something that certainly wasn’t done to F9/11 or Columbine in the mainstream.  So who knows… maybe Moore’s can fly.

sorry for the previous post, but somehow my earlier comment (below) didn’t show up. I hope it does now…

Hello dear Forum-Members,

greetings out of a country, which was not featured in Moore’s film sicko, but still has the standard medical system, as in Great Britain and France.
I think you guys are missing an objective point of view! Maybe I can provide that out of Germany.
Am I a Moore’s fan? Well, depends on the definition of fan - I don’t buy any T-Shirts, cups or caps with Moore or any movie he made on it. But I consider his points and think he manages to point out things, which especially you - the American people - turned out to have been blinded on. So, I’d say I am not a Moore’s fan.

Let’s get into detail about the movie sicko and let’s not talk about Cuba… But the US! I found it EXTREMELY strange that somebody in the US has to decide, which finger should be healed, and if he can afford the treatment. I thought, how strange it’d be, to first get asked for your ability to cover the cost, when going to a hospital. I found it hard to believe that insurances are by standard procedure denying any treatment, which might be a little more expensive - furthemore unbelievable that they are actually able to deny payment. (Now lets get not picky if they are denying payment or treatment - it IS the same.)
Don’t you see that there is something wrong with that? Are you just saying everything is great, just because you are so much against Moore? Or because you haven’t had a need to go to a doctor because you are young? I agree with you that he uses some - a lot - of tricks while editing, dubbing and commenting his movies - picking out just the bits and pieces that meet his goal. But is that so wrong?

There IS something wrong with your health system.
Moore is pointing that out. Not as a holy person, I am sure one of his main goals is to make money out of his movie - why not? - but still he is right about things! I wouldn’t want to get sick in the US.

Eager to get to know your thoughts about my comments - Marc

PS: I am US citizen and a German citizen as well! Living in Germany, 30 years old, had 1 hospital stay in my life and do not take any medications. But I had enough regular visits to know what I am talking about on German health system. I can tell you more, if you want to about our system.
One thing that Moore didn’t say in his movie, or at least just scraped and then covered with showing nice flats, which is really bad: All the systems he showed are not for free in General (neither is the German one) - of course somebody has to pay. The payment for insurance is deducted from everybody’s salary and insurance is obligatory. These payments are considerable, but of course - as Moore showed - you can still live pretty well with it and it is to be paid in relation to your salary.

I agree with you that he uses some - a lot - of tricks while editing, dubbing and commenting his movies - picking out just the bits and pieces that meet his goal. But is that so wrong?

Yes, it is.  And Cuba is a great example.

Here we’re trying to argue that free universal health care will have just as good care as we have now, but available to everyone.  To prove that, we point to a nation with free universal health care that is just that.  But oh wait, it turns out that the free health care isn’t the same for everyone, and unless you’re part of an elite class, you pretty much get no health care and like it.

Now once a major point to prove the argument is seen as a complete fallacy, well now the rest of the argument is held to greater scrutiny.  The more lies and half-truths, the less substantial the argument.  All we have now is propaganda and instead of intelligent debate, we’re shouting sound bytes at each other, whoever is loudest wins.  Next thing you know, we’re watering plants with Gatorade, since “It’s what plants crave”.

wizard: There IS something wrong with your health system.

Moore is pointing that out. Not as a holy person, I am sure one of his main goals is to make money out of his movie - why not? - but still he is right about things! I wouldn’t want to get sick in the US.

...

I agree with you that he uses some - a lot - of tricks while editing, dubbing and commenting his movies - picking out just the bits and pieces that meet his goal. But is that so wrong?

...

Eager to get to know your thoughts about my comments - Marc

Well Marc[wizard], first off, I’d say the general problem with Moore--whatever one’s political stripe--is that he’s a liar. He potrays the other healthcare systems as perfect and the American system as completely broken: neither is true. Even if you agree that the American health care system needs changed and want to persuade folks to change it, you have a duty to present the facts AS THEY ARE.

Lying is NEVER right.

Second off, regarding “an objective point of view,” I think you’ve been blinded to the fact that that there are different value sets at work.

I found it EXTREMELY strange that somebody in the US has to decide, which finger should be healed, and if he can afford the treatment. I thought, how strange it’d be, to first get asked for your ability to cover the cost, when going to a hospital. I found it hard to believe that insurances are by standard procedure denying any treatment, which might be a little more expensive - furthemore unbelievable that they are actually able to deny payment. (Now lets get not picky if they are denying payment or treatment - it IS the same.)
Don’t you see that there is something wrong with that?

No, actually, that’s how it works: you sign a contract with an HMO [an invention of Ted Kennedy (Democrat)] or an insurance company, and you are BOUND by that contract. If you want more coverage, you buy it. And these companies--when a claim occurs--work to ferret out fraud.

For a time, I sold insurance. And it was cheap, with expansive coverage. Many pay into insurance, and the company gambles that you’ll be healthy and not need it. That’s how it works. The problem is, no one wanted it until they were sick--and by then, it was expensive as hell because they were sick. Even a Populist deskjockey like me has little sympathy when my cousin refused to spend $160.00/year to get a cancer insurance policy “cuz that’ll never happen to me” [history of cancer in the family, 8 out of 10 living relatives on her dad’s side with cancer? Naaaaw...] {while she blew $500 on a new TV} and then, two years later, she gets pissed when she couldn’t get coverage after she got diagnosed with cancer in her leg. DUH!

The system works IF YOU USE IT. For every tear-jerker story about the system screwing someone [and every system has those], I got about 10 more where someone was cheap/dumb/whatever and didn’t get coverage.

I think the disconnect here is that of healthcare coverage as an entitlement vs. healthcare as something you choose to buy.

Another disconnect is with this:

The payment for insurance is deducted from everybody’s salary and insurance is obligatory.
These payments are considerable, but of course - as Moore showed - you can still live pretty well with it and it is to be paid in relation to your salary.

I think that’s HORRIBLE. For starters, I DO NOT WANT the government handling my healthcare. To any extent. EVER!

Second, IT’S MY MONEY. I don’t want to be FORCED to pay for a consumer good unless I choose it. EVER!

Now, I’m not “just saying that everything is great, just because [I am] so much against Moore [because he’s a rich liar who gets richer from lying].” We’ve had plenty of examples on this website on how the healthcare system can ram-rod folks when a family member gets sick. I recently got hurt on my job and my employer is denying my workman’s comp claim, so I can relate to having something denied. And yes, I was smart enough to buy insurance--Thank God--when I didn’t think I “needed it at the time,” so I wasn’t nailed on my hospital bills.

But the American system DEMONSTRABLY has better medical technology, better access of care, and shorter wait times as a result of the freeness of the market. While even my Populist self would like to see the government get active in healthcare in SOME ways [notably the catastrophic scenarios--and maybe even a mandate to get insurance ala car insurance laws here in Ohio], I don’t want it making my healthcare decisions for me.

So, while you say:

There IS something wrong with your health system.

I’d reply that, while that may be true, it kicks the snot out of every other system. Granted, that’s based on the competing value sets, namely:--

One thing that Moore didn’t say in his movie, or at least just scraped and then covered with showing nice flats, which is really bad: All the systems he showed are not for free in General (neither is the German one) - of course somebody has to pay.}emphasis supplied{

--that I think the person who foots the bill should call the shots. ME, and NOT the government.

Long story short Marc, my thoughts are that 1) Moore’s a liar, 2) I would like to see the American healthcare system change, but 3) not in the way that Moore would like and 4) [no offense] not in a way that would mimic any European model.

Well wizard,

picking out just the bits and pieces that meet his goal. But is that so wrong?

Why don’t you decide:  Here is what YOU said… (Remember these are your words)

Hello dear Forum-Members,

I am US citizen.  I, a Moore’s fan, buy any T-Shirts, cups or caps with Moore or any movie he made on it. So, I’d say I am a Moore’s fan. I am pointing out that I found the US! it IS in Great Britain and France, in Germany. 

I found it hard to believe that Cuba had 1 hospital in which German people do tricks.  Moore’s EXTREMELY holy finger should be healed for free.

Now if that quote represents what you had to say and you still think that editing and dubbing and all of the usual Moore tricks that I just used are OK you have serious geographic issues and a few problems with Moore’s fingers.  I hope you get my point, please don’t tell us that editing people’s points of view and using it out of context is OK.  It isn’t their point of view if you do that and it isn’t OK.

There IS something wrong with your health system.
Moore is pointing that out. Not as a holy person, I am sure one of his main goals is to make money out of his movie - why not?

You’re right.  And if Moore had stopped there, all would be fine.  Or, more accurately, if Moore had pointed out the correct and unbiased problems within US healthcare all would be fine.  But he wants to not only point out problems with US healthcare (and do so with great exaggeration), but also PROMOTE an agenda toward UHC, portraying it as utopian-like, which is not only false, but silly.

Its not the message of problems in the US healthcare system people have a problem with.  Its the false and exaggerated manner in which these problems are presented that people have a problem with, not to mention the false and misleading view with which alternatives such as UHC are portrayed.

Right. “Don’t kill the messenger just because you hate the message”
Theres nothing wrong with Moore’s meessage so long as it holds up to scrutiny, which it doesn’t.
Then you ask yourself what Mikey’s message might really be, and you find its all about Mikey, as evidenced by his new “film”.
He, like his heroes Cindy Sheehan and Castro, are ideological absolutists forever posing as champions of the proles, which is an insult to proles. Of course if the collective masses weren’t so dim, they’d realize this.

And who are Mikey’s fans but fellow one-dimensional arse-kissers nobody in the real world hangs out with?

There IS something wrong with your health system.

So tell me again why there is such a thing as private health care in good old Germany.
Can rich people buy themselves into better health care over there? 
I would think free health care must be sufficient. Free heatlh care is all anyone anywhere would ever need.

Well, bluesambas, ok.
I exaggerated a bit. Of course you should not do that and yes it is wrong, definitely wrong if you are deliberately interpreting one’s opinion with a contrary meaning, which would otherwise have clearly been seen without magic editing - especially in a documentary (general statement - I don’t see sicko to be a documentary).
I was trying to say that, if the goal is a noble one, you might bend the rules a little - at least in such a movie. BUT you are right, it creates a biased truth. [I still think this is correctly verbalized - calling it “a lie” would be jaundiced, too!]
If the real intention of Moore would have been to offer the viewer all the objective facts to create an own, unbiased opinion, then he definitely failed.
I guess it was not his intention…
The question is, if his goal was noble and I think it is: creating an awareness of these problems, starting a discussion.
and earning money… which is not so noble, but neither really bad for anybody. It’s not at the expense of others (except of the movie-goers).

Of course the discussion gets all the more intense, if one polarizes the masses. Moore is very good at that.

ups - you are quite fast. Another comment again! First of all thanks for all of the comments and that my slightly other point of view gets not blown away by answers, which might be out of line.
I am glad for this nice discussion - am just wondering, if I am the only one here, who actually is -a little- in favor of Moore’s topics?

Hi biafra,
yes I wanted to point that out, too - you were faster.
In Germany you can decide, whether you want to be privately insured (PKV) or to be in the governmental system, called “gesetzliche Krankenversicherung” (GKV).
In the GKV is everybody - by default, if you are working. The whole family is insured, when one parent has a job (and is therefore paying for the GKV). The GKV has various organizations (Kassen), which offer slightly different rates and services. You can choose, which “Kasse” you want to go to.

You are right - the PKV is for people, who earn more. You are eligible to select between PKV and GKV, if your yearly salary is above 47.250 €. Then you can switch to PKV. Once in the PKV system, you cannot go back to GKV!
The benefits of PKV are:
- you can chose your doctor to treat you
- you get a one-bed room in hospital
In general: with PKV you can define more clearly, what you want to have insured and how much you would be willing to pay on your own, if you get sick in that ...section (I am missing the right word there). These possibilities to alter the contract are:
- the insurance company pays only 60%/80% of dental expenses
- for mental treatment only x number of stays are covered
- if you get coverage for using alternative practitioners as well
- ... and so on
BUT NEVER CAN YOU EXCLUDE SOMETHING, WHICH WOULD CAUSE YOUR DEATH!

Well, the system is quite complicated and I will have to read a little myself, if I want to discuss things in greater detail.
So, yes, if you earn more, you might get better treatment, cos you are in PKV. (This statement is still a big discussion in Germany - some say it is like that. I know a nurse and she says it’s not like that. well...)
But the “better treatment” is only to be registered in things, which are not life threatening - as mentioned:
- more liberties when setting up the contract
- better room
- better service
- and OK, this is a big one: free selection of any specialist doctor

So, of course, the German system has some big flaws in it. Never said otherwise. But the thing is, that you will never experience anybody to get turned down, if s/he comes to a hospital with a major injury, neither does he need to be worried to be broke after the treatment! Neither in PKV NOR GKV.

What you’re saying is the ends justify the means if “good” comes from it; Robin Hood with a lttle Don Quixote thrown in.

wizard, when Moore tells the world that regular, average Cubans get perfect health care, THAT.  IS.  A.  LIE.

There’s a lot more lies in ALL his films, but let’s just start with that.  How do you defend that one lie?  And it IS a lie - it’s a statement of “fact” that is not true.

So how do you defend it?  How do you defend Moore repeating over and over to anyone who will listen?

The main difference between PKV and GKV is an ideological one:
In the GKV everybody is paying for those who need it.
In the PKV you are paying for the needs of yourself. By joining the PKV you are leaving the social thought, to be willing to help other people with your money.

But the thing is, that you will never experience anybody to get turned down, if s/he comes to a hospital with a major injury

Typical misconception.  You do know this is how it is in the US as well, right?

Prozyan:
you didn’t quote me in total:

neither does he need to be worried to be broke after the treatment!

So, you get those 2 fingers attached to your hand again? Get chemotherapy if you excluded that in your contract? Get all the scans necessary, if you are not insured? Probably - but afterwards you are in debt, right?

Actually there is not SOOO much wrong with the American system (it is similar to our PKV). But it should be regulated by law, WHAT the insurance company can offer to exclude, and WHAT should always be included in any insurance.

The PKV must offer better care otherwise nobody would join. As per Mikey, this is unfair to those who can’t afford it.

Everyone deserves the exact same care for free; this is common in virtually every devoloped country.

Thanks to Mikey, I expect this “Americans who have no health insurance are left to die” will invariably become another International Wisdom up there with “the US has 52 states”.

Posted by wizard on 09/08/2007 at 05:06 PM (Link to this comment | )

“The main difference between PKV and GKV is an ideological one:
In the GKV everybody is paying for those who need it.
In the PKV you are paying for the needs of yourself. By joining the PKV you are leaving the social thought, to be willing to help other people with your money.”

Actually, your failing to include wait lists and rationing… they add another dimension to ‘public’ systems… and expose so called ‘public’ and ‘social[ist]’ systems for what they are. Which is definitely neither public (it’s run by the state and its organs) or social…. The end result is simply putting healthcare 100% in the political realm. The majority vote on what they value and they tend to get it. The minority are shit out of luck and get the pushed off on the ice sheet to die treatment.

biafra:
The differences between PKV and GKV are not as big as you think they are. I pointed them out before: altering the contract, so that you get more coverage for special treats IS the main difference. There are more, as sl0re mentioned: the topic waiting lists applies especially, if you consult a specialist.
The main reason to join the PKV is indeed better health coverage. That does not mean that the GKV offers bad services!
I think it is still a lot better than the US system. You have to compare like that:
---------------------------contract in US-----------------contract in GER
1)no coverage_________possible____________not possible
2)extr. lim. cov_______PKV,cheap____________not possible
3)basic cov__________PKV,average____________GKV
4)extended cov_______PKV,exp._______________PKV

I am only arguing for case 1 and 2 - you seem to go for 3 and 4.
I think Moore’s movie is mainly on people who chose that case 2. In this case, the real disasters can happen, only due to saving some money and the possibility of the contract to exclude life saving treatments (as in the example of Stewart Hart).
How do you feel about that proposal: Regulate by law only this thin line - move it up, so nobody can drop under basic coverage!
OK, easily said, difficult to accomplish. I can already discuss with myself: Consequences are more expensive rates - true. Possibly people who cannot pay them. So what do you do with those? Where do you get the money from? Supporting these by your tax money seems to be the only way! And - voilá - there we have it, the condemned socialized medicine.  well well

JimK:
1)

wizard, when Moore tells the world that regular, average Cubans get perfect health care, THAT.  IS.  A.  LIE.

hmm I doubt that too, especially the word “perfect” together with “average Cuban”!

2)

So how do you defend it?  How do you defend Moore repeating over and over to anyone who will listen?

Do I have to defend all or any of Moore’s statements? I already agreed that he uses the end to justify the means. If you quoted him accurately and he said it that way, then it is a plain lie - without any euphemism.

But consider this:
According to research found in an article by the University of Delaware publication, UDaily:
“ the cost of surgery in Bolivia, Argentina, Cuba, India, Thailand, Colombia, Philippines or South Africa can be one-tenth of what it is in the United States or Western Europe, and sometimes even less. A heart-valve replacement that would cost US$200,000 or more in the U.S., for example, goes for $10,000 in the Philippines and India—and that includes round-trip airfare and a brief vacation package. Similarly, a metal-free dental bridge worth $5,500 in the U.S. costs $500 in India or Bolivia and only $200 in the Philippines, a knee replacement in Thailand with six days of physical therapy costs about one-fifth of what it would in the States, and Lasik eye surgery worth $3,700 in the U.S. is available in many other countries for only $730. Cosmetic surgery savings are even greater: A full facelift that would cost $20,000 in the U.S. runs about $3,000 in Cuba, $2,700 in the Philippines or $2,500 in South Africa or $ 2,300 in Bolivia.”
[source: wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_tourists]

So, if treatment were so bad in Cuba, I guess nobody would travel there!

More on Cuban health system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_healthcare#Cuba_and_international_healthcare/Cuban_healthcare#Cuba_and_international_ _healthcare

wizard: I think Moore’s movie is mainly on people who chose that case 2. In this case, the real disasters can happen, only due to saving some money and the possibility of the contract to exclude life saving treatments (as in the example of Stewart Hart).

How do you feel about that proposal: Regulate by law only this thin line - move it up, so nobody can drop under basic coverage!

As a Populist (and a realist), I think setting a mandate that everyone has to cover themselves with a basic level of insurance (IMHO accident and life insurance should be the line, but that would be for the public to decide) would be great--ala car insurance laws in Ohio. The government would NOT be involved on the personal level, and people would choose their own providers, etc. And the market would do it’s thing.

Folks may disagree with me, and that’s fine--so long as no one makes a mock-u-mentary unfairly going after the other.<R>

But getting back on topic, JimK is correct: Moore is flat-out lying about these systems as compared to ours. I think this is a double tragedy in that 1) a liar is getting rich off of lying, and 2) it keeps us from having a real debate on the pros and cons of the systems, as well as issues like financial sustainability, medical technology, etc.

The differences between PKV and GKV are not as big as you think they are. The main reason to join the PKV is indeed better health coverage. That does not mean that the GKV offers bad services!

1) Every resident of the US must have free, universal health care for life

2) All health insurance companies must be abolished

3) Pharmaceutical companies must be strictly regulated like a public utility

All and everything must be free for everyone, anytime. End of story.

wizard I really want to blame the communication problem with you, on a language barrier, but I can’t.  You’re just so invested in Moore being a good guy you refuse to talk plainly about things and see what is right in front of you.

There is a video attached to this post.  WATCH IT.  Moore tells the very lie I accuse him of in that video.  You said:

I agree with you that he uses some - a lot - of tricks while editing, dubbing and commenting his movies - picking out just the bits and pieces that meet his goal. But is that so wrong?

Yes.  It is.  Unless you can defend telling a blatant lie to further your goal, then the answer is yes.

So can you defend it?  I’m willing to listen to any argument you can think up.

So, if treatment were so bad in Cuba, I guess nobody would travel there!

Stop being a willfully ignorant jerk, wizard.  People travel to the tourist hospitals that regular Cuban citizens are not allowed to use.  This has been proven time and time again.

You didn’t watch the video clip did you?  Tell the truth.

The only reason I can imagine why a specialist was flown in from Spain to check up on Castro - who is doing fine, by the way, and anyone who suspects different is a filthy! lying! imperialist! donkey! Mr. Danger devil! according to Chavez - is because the rather minor illness he had isn’t common on the island paradise of Cuba. Like food and water.

JimK: Truth is: I did see it! Once, and now again a second time. I admit, I was writing on other topics than the video was actually dealing with. I ask you not to insult me. The statement I posed was - you got it right - half ignorant to the fact that there are elite hospitals in Cuba, most likely not open to the public. But the other half still has its validity to be asked: Can you tell me, why anybody would go to Cuba, if their standards wouldn’t be high enough?
So I think, you have to agree to the fact that Cuba has something to offer.

Now comes the second part of arguing - the question, if this great medical knowledge is open to the wide public. Well, this is rather hard to research - I admit! BUT have you considered one possibility? Why wouldn’t 20/20 want to work with the same tricks as Moore does? I found it a little strange, how they try to arise doubt to the fact that the Cuban health system is praised and accredited worldwide (as found in many articles). And that with a lame excuse, that the WHO would base its report on numbers, obtained from Cuba itself as the only source, therefore by definition a lie.
I think the Cuban health system can get credit for its research facilities, but probably not for taking care of non-wealthy Cubans.
However, to come to a final conclusion on this, more research is required, carefully checking the sources.

Anyway, after two hours of reading on Cuban health system, I think I should finally conclude this comment. I found some articles, which describe the Cuban health system as good:
------
http://www.runet.edu/~junnever/law/cuba.htm http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?id=1733 http://www2.cruzio.com/~yogi/health.htm ...

Especially interesting: http://lefti.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.html#715097926935423023 Unfortunately the video is not up any more, but if you scroll down you can find this:
Michael Moore on the “healthcare Olympics”
------

... and some that describe it as bad:
----------
the real cuba
http://www.miamiherald.com/457/story/148897.html http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA557_Cuban_Health_Care.html http://medicinacubana.blogspot.com/2007/03/health-care-in-cuba-two-faces-of-myth.html -----------

Soooo, what is my conclusion?
1) Cuba has great and poor facilities
2) Its good facilities are worldwide accredited
3) I tend to believe the negative reports as well - therefore I agree that the good facilities are only open to the ones that can afford these (just like in the US)
4) Moore is not clearly stating this fact, but: “Interestingly, Sicko offers proof that Cuba’s healthcare system may not be worth crowing about when a list of the World Health Organization rankings is shown. Atop the list is France, followed by Spain and San Marino. The camera pans down until it finds the United States in the 37th spot.

Briefly visible—at No. 39 on the list—is Cuba.” [source: miamiherald (see above)]

So - I’d say enough on the topic Cuba! It’s health system is probably bad. Be happy - the US is ranking two places higher!

The camera pans down until it finds the United States in the 37th spot.

Briefly visible—at No. 39 on the list—is Cuba.” [source: miamiherald (see above)]

So - I’d say enough on the topic Cuba! It’s health system is probably bad. Be happy - the US is ranking two places higher!

You’re an idiot.  Someone pointed out how those numbers were derived.  Why don’t you search previous topics and learn why those rankings aren’t really worth much.

Can you tell me, why anybody would go to Cuba, if their standards wouldn’t be high enough?

If your a foreigner then the commies will give you great healthcare, Mikey showed that. Find an average everyday cuban that gets that, or a hospital/clinic in a country village that you would be willing to check into.