Prince Valiant
07-06-2007, 12:26 PM
I have to make several qualifications:
1. I enjoyed the film, and I don't mind the debate...Moore was at times
funny, especially when dealing with canadians (how can you not be?)
2.I work in the healthcare field. Moore's distortions, misdirections, and
omissions were glaring.
The film itself was entertaining. I did feel that he went long, and
could have easily cut the much of the "french socialism rules" portion.
While he may make french socialism look appealing, a more realistic
look at France could have included their near 20% unemployment (much
higher if you are under 34 or a minority) and low productivity. Plus,
isn't this film supposed to be about healthcare?
But how does Moore distort the truth?
First glaring omission was that he left out any "the other side"
entirely in this debate. If the actions of the insurance companies or
Doctors were so egregious, he should have salivated at the prospects of
putting a spokeperson for the industry on the camera about some of the
cases he presented....after all, his contention is that the insurance
company "caused these people's deaths." How could they explain this
away? Sadly is, the only reason they couldn't present their side was that Moore doesn't
give them the opportunity to.
If we are searching for truth Mr. Moore, why not present two sides of
the story?
We are shown one individual who dies....DIES, 5 days after he's denied
approval for a bone marrow transplant, to which he had the "perfect
donor" in his little brother. The insurance company surely has blood on
it's hand after denying him this "life saving surgery."
Or does it? First, we never get the whole story. What stage renal
cancer did this individual have? What was his prognosis? Did he receive
conventional treatment (there are a myriad of conventional
treatments out there...so how did he find himself at a point of
searching for experimental treatments?)? Was there complicating
factors?
What was omitted seems to suggest to this observer a very sad case. He
probably had a very aggressive or was at a very advanced stage of the
disease that was not responding to any conventional treatment. Sadly,
when the disease advances to a certain point, and treatments are
proving to be ineffective, the prognosis for the individual is
certainly death.
Bone marrow transplant in the case of renal cancer, even very advanced
stages is certainly a new one to me. To suggest that it's experimental
is an understatement to say the least. That the surgery was even
offered at this late stage is mystifying, even. With the individual
dying 5 days after his final denial (even considering the purported 3
week prognosis offered by his doctors) suggest that his condition was
probably known to be terminal for some time.
No countries healthcare system, despite it's "ranking," would have
likely offered this option to the patient and his family. I feel that
sadly, the board of trustee's were made to be the bad guys in a case
where the patient and his wife were simply in stages of denial,
including bargaining and anger. The appeal commitee had to do
what no one else would....be the ones that said "no, we won't pay" because
he was in fact, already handed a death sentence by his disease a long
time ago.
But, it wouldn't be like Moore to look at the whole
picture...especially if it doesn't work toward his agenda. To add race
into this case was even better (But Moore could have pointed out that
in the US, blacks have better survival rates than whites with this
particular disease).
Was using cases like this to create a false impression of US healthcare
the exception in this movie? No, it was the norm. Many of the cases used had omissions similar to this. Maybe he was afraid of HIPPA? Why did he not make the case what kind of treatment these individuals would have recieved in other countries? Would the deceased patient above have received a bone marrow transplant in Canada?
Literally, I took a notebook to the movie....I was writting the entire time. A book could be written refutting many of Moore's distortions.
A favorite claim was that "so and so have longer average life spans than americans!" or "lower infant mortality rates," etc. Here's how Moore works...he tells a truth (the stats are true in fact), but then draws a false conclusion. Niether of the above is a measure of the quality nor the access of US health-care. So while he touts them as proof of superior canadian care, or superior cuban care, they aren't.
Life-expectancy has many, many, many factors that are wholely divorced from the quality of the care delivered. Ethnicity and local diet are the key contributers to expectancy. Look at a Cuban diet, why not...not many fat cubans in cuba, is there?
Infant mortality rate is also misleading....do you REALLY think that the US is behind Cuba in neonatal care? One must consider that the cuban abortion rate is almost 60%!!!!!! There is no such thing as a "dificult pregnancy" in cuba. One abnormal peep out of the kid, and it's the surgical coat hanger for the little guy :(. Here in the US, there are many dificult pregnancies, premature births, women having birth later in life (another complicating stat)...considering all things, the US infant mortality rate is unparalleled.
But this is Moore. He doesn't really make films to make honest
contributions to debate, but to make money. He knows his base of fans
will eat his stuff up, lining his own pockets with millions of dollars
in the process. Does he make stuff they'll enjoy? You bet.
Is this to say our system is perfect and in no need of reform? No, not at all. When we deal with the problems of the "uninsured" in the US, then let's focus on the unisured, and how to get them insured...this in and of itself doesn't require a complete overhaul of the system.
But, here's a question for those that favor canadian/british/french style care: IF, HMO care is so atrocious here in the US, why then would we overhaul a system that would make for essentially, a bad, nationwide HMO?
I know it's a loaded question, but cosider this: All examples of nationalized healthcare are run virtually identical to that of HMO's in this country. So if US citizens hate it so much now, why will we LOVE it in the future?
1. I enjoyed the film, and I don't mind the debate...Moore was at times
funny, especially when dealing with canadians (how can you not be?)
2.I work in the healthcare field. Moore's distortions, misdirections, and
omissions were glaring.
The film itself was entertaining. I did feel that he went long, and
could have easily cut the much of the "french socialism rules" portion.
While he may make french socialism look appealing, a more realistic
look at France could have included their near 20% unemployment (much
higher if you are under 34 or a minority) and low productivity. Plus,
isn't this film supposed to be about healthcare?
But how does Moore distort the truth?
First glaring omission was that he left out any "the other side"
entirely in this debate. If the actions of the insurance companies or
Doctors were so egregious, he should have salivated at the prospects of
putting a spokeperson for the industry on the camera about some of the
cases he presented....after all, his contention is that the insurance
company "caused these people's deaths." How could they explain this
away? Sadly is, the only reason they couldn't present their side was that Moore doesn't
give them the opportunity to.
If we are searching for truth Mr. Moore, why not present two sides of
the story?
We are shown one individual who dies....DIES, 5 days after he's denied
approval for a bone marrow transplant, to which he had the "perfect
donor" in his little brother. The insurance company surely has blood on
it's hand after denying him this "life saving surgery."
Or does it? First, we never get the whole story. What stage renal
cancer did this individual have? What was his prognosis? Did he receive
conventional treatment (there are a myriad of conventional
treatments out there...so how did he find himself at a point of
searching for experimental treatments?)? Was there complicating
factors?
What was omitted seems to suggest to this observer a very sad case. He
probably had a very aggressive or was at a very advanced stage of the
disease that was not responding to any conventional treatment. Sadly,
when the disease advances to a certain point, and treatments are
proving to be ineffective, the prognosis for the individual is
certainly death.
Bone marrow transplant in the case of renal cancer, even very advanced
stages is certainly a new one to me. To suggest that it's experimental
is an understatement to say the least. That the surgery was even
offered at this late stage is mystifying, even. With the individual
dying 5 days after his final denial (even considering the purported 3
week prognosis offered by his doctors) suggest that his condition was
probably known to be terminal for some time.
No countries healthcare system, despite it's "ranking," would have
likely offered this option to the patient and his family. I feel that
sadly, the board of trustee's were made to be the bad guys in a case
where the patient and his wife were simply in stages of denial,
including bargaining and anger. The appeal commitee had to do
what no one else would....be the ones that said "no, we won't pay" because
he was in fact, already handed a death sentence by his disease a long
time ago.
But, it wouldn't be like Moore to look at the whole
picture...especially if it doesn't work toward his agenda. To add race
into this case was even better (But Moore could have pointed out that
in the US, blacks have better survival rates than whites with this
particular disease).
Was using cases like this to create a false impression of US healthcare
the exception in this movie? No, it was the norm. Many of the cases used had omissions similar to this. Maybe he was afraid of HIPPA? Why did he not make the case what kind of treatment these individuals would have recieved in other countries? Would the deceased patient above have received a bone marrow transplant in Canada?
Literally, I took a notebook to the movie....I was writting the entire time. A book could be written refutting many of Moore's distortions.
A favorite claim was that "so and so have longer average life spans than americans!" or "lower infant mortality rates," etc. Here's how Moore works...he tells a truth (the stats are true in fact), but then draws a false conclusion. Niether of the above is a measure of the quality nor the access of US health-care. So while he touts them as proof of superior canadian care, or superior cuban care, they aren't.
Life-expectancy has many, many, many factors that are wholely divorced from the quality of the care delivered. Ethnicity and local diet are the key contributers to expectancy. Look at a Cuban diet, why not...not many fat cubans in cuba, is there?
Infant mortality rate is also misleading....do you REALLY think that the US is behind Cuba in neonatal care? One must consider that the cuban abortion rate is almost 60%!!!!!! There is no such thing as a "dificult pregnancy" in cuba. One abnormal peep out of the kid, and it's the surgical coat hanger for the little guy :(. Here in the US, there are many dificult pregnancies, premature births, women having birth later in life (another complicating stat)...considering all things, the US infant mortality rate is unparalleled.
But this is Moore. He doesn't really make films to make honest
contributions to debate, but to make money. He knows his base of fans
will eat his stuff up, lining his own pockets with millions of dollars
in the process. Does he make stuff they'll enjoy? You bet.
Is this to say our system is perfect and in no need of reform? No, not at all. When we deal with the problems of the "uninsured" in the US, then let's focus on the unisured, and how to get them insured...this in and of itself doesn't require a complete overhaul of the system.
But, here's a question for those that favor canadian/british/french style care: IF, HMO care is so atrocious here in the US, why then would we overhaul a system that would make for essentially, a bad, nationwide HMO?
I know it's a loaded question, but cosider this: All examples of nationalized healthcare are run virtually identical to that of HMO's in this country. So if US citizens hate it so much now, why will we LOVE it in the future?