Have you seen Michael Moore's "SiCKO?"

Post Reply New Topic

There's one thing that surprises me about this post.....

Nobody who's posted here that's seen the movie has mentioned the part where it's revealed that one of the major, unnamed health insurance companies in the USA doesn't give health insurance to people with Autism or Asperger's. In other words....us. What do you guys think of that?

Due to my immense displeasure at Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, I was going to pass on Sicko. However, I read a review at The Nation of it. They claim it's not nearly as partisan as F 9/11. They say that it speaks to a broader audience. They also state that the part covering Cuba nearly ruins the film and point that Moore is making.
Moore has a lot of flaws, but he is capable of raising good questions without providing his own condescending answers (like he did with F 9/11). I really like his Bowling for Columbine and some of his sketches on that series he had.

Who doesn't cover autistics? Is it the patient they refuse or so-called treatments (procedures and/or meds) for autistic traits? I'd like to know because we've just switched to private insurance for my son.

You may have enjoyed the film, but it's also full of lies and half-truths.
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysi ... it-911.htm

Moore is a lying sack o' poo.

It's the only Michael Moore film I haven't seen yet.

Tim

It doesn't name the insurance company (sadly). The most it mentions is that it's a "major" company. It's also the patient they refuse. So if you're applying for that company's health insurance, and you reveal that you have Asperger's, they'll deny you. I won't be surprised if your insurance company will deny treatments and meds...because insurance companies are horrid (I already thought this before I saw "Sicko").

Sorry, but this is standard Michael Moore BS. If it's really true, and you could prove it, what would be the harm in naming names? A defamation lawsuit? Surely the truth would protect you, eh?

I call BS.

Companies can sue for libel. It happened to my best friend's grandpa, and the bastard company ended up sucking him dry. Maybe the person who worked for the company that revealed the information is afraid of being sued for libel, not Michael Moore himself. They'd probably come up with some sort of lawsuit and defend themselves with their 20-strong team of professional lawyers. I don't think you realize how much power corporations have....they control the consumer, and our government.

UncleBeer, just how are you contributing to the conversation? Anything original? Okay, so you don't like or believe Michael Moore and you have links to sites that claim to disprove him. Pasting a link doesn't make for a very good conversation.
Did you watch Bowling for Columbine? If so, did you research all that information yourself? Did it ruin the movie for you? I think Michael Moore is a self-serving jerk, with too much hubris to make a difference anymore. That doesn't change the fact that I was very impressed with Bowling for Columbine and it raised a lot of good points about the military industry in this country.
If I thought Sicko would be another F 9/11, I wouldn't waste my time. I'm hearing that it's different and not nearly as partisan. I'll try it out.

Don't like my posts?

Don't read 'em.

It definitely isn't partisan. He blames both sides.

UncleBeer, I'm addressing the fact that you responded to my post with a nonresponse, a link. We're not walls that are talking at each other. If you were talking in person, would you hand someone over a sheet of paper that contains someone else's theories in reply? It just doesn't make any sense. I mean if you don't want to have a conversation, then don't quote me (out of context, no less) and just post nonanswers.

Golly; since the link I posted was absolutely relevant (goes directly to Moore's credibility as a "documentary" filmmaker), I thought if you were really interested in having an on-topic discussion, you might avail yourself of that information. Of course, I could also have cut-&-pasted the entire page into the thread, but it's rather long.

Again, the link I posted is rife with proof of Moore's disregard for hard facts, and thus entirely relevant to this discussion. I haven't a clue what your problem is.

I saw it two weeks before it hit theaters.

It's a good movie, has a lot of subtle humor in it. I haven't seen Moore's other films, but I'm interested in seeing both "Bowling For Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9/11".

the main difference between the scandinavian and american health system is that in scandinavia the doctors care about making you healthy, in america the doctors want to make the most profit out of your misery. in scandinavia you can always expect to being given the utmost of care and attention, regardles of your a buisnissman or a tramp. in america the only way to get well is a meaty wallet.


..its called "welfare" and i like it!

I won't agree that doctors are all like that here in the US. Afterall, they aren't the ones that decide who gets in or not. It's the insurance companies and hospital administrators that prioritize money. Doctors just send the bill and hope someone pays it.
I remember my obstetrician would go to this "big book" on acceptable procedures and medicines so that he could treat me effectively so that the insurance would cover it. They had to research a lot of drugs to see which ones would be covered or not.

I remember I had to have my labor induced and it was Y2K week (last week in 1999). All these women scheduled their babies voluntarily. I could hear my doctor yelling on the phone, trying to get me into the hospital. He didn't succeed on that phone call but an hour later, the hospital called for me. I wonder how loud he got.

Glad I'm not the only who noticed that. I specifically looked for that in the list shown, and it was there.

What do I think? I don't think a health insurance company should pick and choose what illnesses or disabilities a person is allowed to have in order to get coverage. Nobody picks these things to happen to them. I thought the purpose of their companies was to provide a means so regular people could get health care, but I guessed wrong. The reality is that only a few "easy" ones get covered so they can maintain a profit. Obviously I'm living in the wrong world to think they should live up to their assumed purpose.

I say get the capitalistic profit nonsense out of health care. It's a moral conflict to me since they have to juggle profit maintenance with people's lives. It shouldn't have to be that way, and certainly doesn't have to be.