'Sicko' leaves top Democrats ill at ease

'Sicko' leaves top Democrats ill at ease
Leading candidates are sidestepping direct comment on filmmaker Michael Moore's proposals for universal healthcare.
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Times Staff Writer
11:08 PM PDT, June 21, 2007

With the release of Michael Moore's "Sicko," a movie once again is adding sizzle to an issue that's a high priority for liberal politicians — this time comprehensive health insurance for all. But unlike Al Gore's film on global warming, which helped rally support on an equally controversial problem, "Sicko" is creating an awkward situation for the leading Democratic presidential candidates. Rejecting Moore's prescription on healthcare could alienate liberal activists, who will play a big role in choosing the party's next standard-bearer. However, his proposal — wiping out private health insurance and replacing it with a massive federal program — could be political poison with the larger electorate...

Instead of greeting the film with hosannas or challenging it head-on, however, the leading Democratic presidential candidates have sidestepped direct comment on Moore's proposals. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of South Carolina all have staked out positions sharply at odds with Moore's approach. But none of them is eager to have that fact dragged into the spotlight.

If Moore's fire-breathing proposal catches on among party activists, who tend to be suspicious of the private sector and supportive of direct government action, the candidates' pragmatic, consensus-seeking ideas could look like weak-kneed temporizing — much the way their rejection of an immediate pullout from Iraq has drawn heated criticism from antiwar activists. In "Sicko," the filmmaker calls for abolishing the insurance industry, putting a tight regulatory collar on pharmaceutical companies and embracing a Canadian-style government-run system. Advocacy groups are already planning to use the film to pressure the Democratic hopefuls.

"The candidates haven't sensed the political fever in this country that fundamental change is called for in the healthcare system," said Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of the California Nurses Assn. "What we are going to do is call on the candidates to reconsider their positions." Stoking the passions of rank-and-file Democrats for a government takeover of the healthcare system amounts to political folly, respond some liberal veterans of Washington's healthcare battles...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-movie22jun22,0,5962985.story?coll=la-home-center

that addresses the grievous state of affairs currently plaguing health care in this country.

universal healthcare for ALL including adults, but should enlighten all on the need for REAL campaign finance reform. As long as both parties are beholden to large corporate donations the leaders will dance with those that brung them and right now that is corporate america.

Sure the Dems will pay LIP SERVICE to caring about the "little guy" but when push comes to shove they will side with the powerful and wealthy because for the most part they come from that class.

This doesn't get a lot play here or anywhere.

... Stupid apathetic candidate fucks.

It's just a matter of time. I don't expect we'll see much in the way of change over the next five years, however. It's going to take more anger by the citizens at the corporate corruption, greed and revamping of campaign funding before we see change.

Sadly, it won't happen in the lifetime of far too many people who are in need of it.

Don't ya want it badly enough?

It's government insurance, not health care providers as government employees. Jeebus.

bureaucrats while those who work at the health insurance companies are not so called? The RNs and MDs who make the decisions to limit care and those who write the computer programs to analyze every code billed by physicians and other healthcare providers are more bureaucrats than anyone working for the government. They are more sinister as well because far too many of them look at a claim as money coming out of THEIR pocket because most companies (not only insurance companies) are very successful at brainwashing even low level employees to view themselves as the company.

I hear it almost everyday...one of my co-workers complains if the company gets a claim from a provider that is not in the network (non-par for non participating). She hates to get those claims because for the most part the charges are paid in full. I don't care. The person went to the doctor and the claim needs to be paid, regardless of the doctor's status with the insurance company.

I could save a company a million dollars and I am still going to get a lousy 2-3% raise while the management staff get bonuses on the back of my hard work because "they" met their goals!

I live in Canada and the system here is great. The insurance industry fear a Canadian-style system because American's will NEVER look back.

I lived the first 23-years of my life in the United States. I am now 25. Since living here, I no longer need to take blood pressure and cholesterol pills and lost 40+ pounds!

By the way, Canadian Medicare is government FINANCED NOT government "RUN". It is run LOCALLY and health care decisions are made between doctors and patients.

and since seeing Sicko it's my personal mission to rile up as many Americans as possible into demanding the level of service that most of the civilized world takes as their right.

Do you have a levy? What percentage?

Ours is 1.5% (or thereabouts) of taxable income.

...and his mother American. He moved to Canada from America because his wife was pregnant and he feared the high cost of medical care here. His wife sadly had a miscarriage, and he told me that the cost for her medical care was something under $100, whereas if he'd been across the border in the States, the bill would have been in the thousands!

It's time for change!

Watching "Sicko" made me simultaneously sad because I recall the miseries we endured under the US non-system, and relieved because I'm here now.

At the same time, those of us who do live where there is decent health insurance need to be ever vigilant - the US health-gouging companies are CONSTANTLY using their puppets in the US government to pressure other countries to adopt US-style pricing and coverage schemes. I recently read a whole list of recommendations the US government made to the Japanese government about health care and prescription drug coverage. As though the US is qualified to advise any country on health care! LOL! They even insisted that US health insurance companies be given an active role in any changes made in the present Japanese system.

If they are putting these pressures on Japan, you can be assured they are putting the same pressures on all the other countries with universal health care. It must never be taken for granted - privatization of the commons and of fundamental human needs is like a cancer and must be guarded against at all times.

inroads to the German health care program in the 1990s but I don't know what came of that.

The difference between the US and most other industrialized countries is that when other governments threaten to decrease or do away with social programs, those folks get in the streets. Here, a Democrat can sign into legislation something called welfare reform and the poor are not in the streets. Heck when Matt Blunt, governor of Missouri, removed thousands from Medicaid and slashed Medicaid spending there was some protest but Jefferson City MO or St Louis MO was not really inconvenienced; not the way Paris is brought to its knees during a demonstration.

People here are too complacent or too aware of the fact that the politicians are bought and paid for by corporate america. It is in the interest of corporate america that there not be universal healthcare for if there were people would be more likely to go from job to job, not having to worry about whether one has insurance coverage. Companies might actually have to compete and pay higher wages than they do now, knowing full well that most people will not leave a job that provides health insurance.

Heck the Republicans even had a plan to tax as income the amount the employer pays for the premium...it would go like this: if the employer pays $400 per month on your insurance premium, that $400 would be considered as income for which the employee would pay taxes. I am sure they still want to do that.

Believe it or not, about 75% of Aflac's business is in Japan, and it is primarily selling healthcare plans that give Japanese additional coverage beyond what is covered through government insurance. Aflac is at least a $12-13 billion company in terms of revenue, meaning that a good $9 billion is sales in Japan.

Unfortunately, hospitalization is one of the chinks in the armor of the system here, and companies like AFLAC have been quick to exploit that.

I will definitely be encouraging all my Japanese acquaintances to see Sicko when it comes out here.

Unfortunately, complacency is a big problem here as it is in the states, and in a society where docility and not making waves are a big part of the culture, it can be difficult.

But then again, there large and loud labor and university protests over government policy here as recently as the 1970s. I hope that spirit of resistance can be revived here before the entire economy is remodeled on the Reaganomics model. Koizumi and his gang already did a great deal of damage and Abe doesn't look to be much better. But that's not your problem - I know you have your hands full over there!

I spent the first 25 years of my life in Canada and now live in the US. Since moving to the US, I have more prescriptions and have gained weight. On top of an extra $2000 per year medical expense.

He's achieved a nice mix of pathos and outrage. Thrown in a touch of psy-op, propaganda mind-control. And you just wait till they take off for Cuba. Mate, I was cheering aloud.

Oh, I know it's all film, but he's really hit the sweet spot.

And ain't the timing of the release exquisite, with several dozen hopefuls jumping hoops for the hearts and minds of the faithful on both sides.

A few pesos. For what is, here, $120.

I don't think anyone could blame her for wanting to do that....

in Las Vegas, I think it was March, two of the other liberal sites said, altho they were not pushing Clinton's candidacy she had a VERY good plan for health care. And that John Edwards was almost as good. So what is the LA time talking about. Did they go over to the dark side also.

Then you have to believe that the pols are fully and irretrievably committed to enacting the plan. Otherwise it's just campaigning. I'd be wanting to see it in writing.

In other words instead of a 10% overhead like medicare, the plan would end up having a 40% overhead like private insurance does, so they can pay the lavish salaries of CEOs, marketing, etc.

The only way to make health care truly affordable is to

A. keep the private sector OUT of health insurance

B. All people would be covered, with premiums on a sliding scale based on income.

That's how it is here in Japan - there is a small copay, so it may not be as cheap on the consumer side as the UK or Canada, but the premiums are reasonable, probably comparable or lower than what the other countries pay in taxes.


What a lot of people don't realize is that with a universal system, the vast majority of people would end up paying much, much less for insurance. Since we are dealing with Americans, who are brainwashed to balk at any tax, it's best to simply call it a "premium".

> two of the other liberal sites said, altho they were not
> pushing Clinton's candidacy she had a VERY good plan for
> health care.

Any plan that allows health insurance companies to live
is a bad plan. Clinton's (eventual) plan in '92 was a
bad plan and so is her current plan.

Our current scheme of profit-taking health insurance
companies should be given the death penalty and completely
replaced by a single-payer, government-administered health
plan. We even have an existing name for it: Medicare.

Tesha

It's what he's been saying all along and yet it's like he never existed.

He doesn't even get much respect here. I heard him speak recently and he was great. Is it because we keep hearing he's unelectable? Exactly who says that?

> Is it because we keep hearing he's unelectable? Exactly who says that?

Many of the people who say that would never consider
running for office themselves or have, in fact, proven
or will soon prove that they themselves are unelectable.

Right now, Kucinich has the Tesha family's votes in
the NH primary. This will change if Al enters the race
but is otherwise a done deal.

Tesha

progressives are. You can vote for who you think will win and who you want to win. The Dennises of the world would go way up in the percentages.

Or at least he did in 2002.

Does anyone know if he's commented, or been asked, about "Sicko?"

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1115-07.htm

excerpt:

Gore, the 2000 Democratic presidential nominee and a potential candidate in 2004, offered his views in response to a question at a synagogue in New York during a tour promoting his book "Joined at the Heart," written with his wife, Tipper.

"I was planning to wait and make a major speech on this and I probably should, but I'll just answer your question candidly," Gore told the moderator.

Gore's comments Wednesday night were first reported by ABC News' Internet political report "The Note" and were confirmed by Gore spokesman Jano Cabrera, who said any details would come in a future speech on health care.

"I think we've reached a point where the entire health care system is in impending crisis," Gore said. "I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that we should begin drafting a single-payer national health insurance plan."

we currently have.

Independents and Republicans are denied health care as often as "liberal activists." Some people may hate Michael Moore because of F9/11, but they'll see "Sicko" and identify. Everyone knows someone who has suffered because of an insurance company.

while Democrats did just push for some environmentally-aware enhancements to our energy policy, e.g. CAFE improvements and an increased use of renewables, I wouldn't be all too quick to hand out too much credit to the Democrats or anyone else.

global warming, some experts say, could cause the permanent evacuation of major coastal cities, cause severe breaks in the food chain, cause extinctions of numerous species, cause severe disruptions of water supplies especially threatening parts of Africa and the American west and possibly threaten to extinguish life on the planet.

the Democratic response, while clearly a step in the right direction, has been woefully inadequate.

in my view, we should be doing everything we possibly can do to address the problem. EVERYTHING!!! what's the major missing piece you're not hearing from Democrats? CONSERVATION. this includes a major mandatory reduction in AUTO USE. the Democrats offer us CAFE changes and more renewables. What they don't offer is ANY DISCUSSION at all about whether what they've proposed is sufficient to ward of the crisis. this is yet another case of "we're doing something - aren't we great?" instead of the usual reaction about "you extremists are never satisfied", let's recognize that whether anyone is satisfied or not is IRRELEVANT. What is relevant is whether what the Democrats are proposing will solve the problem or at least make adequate, life-preserving progress. When that question is asked, all you hear is the haunting chirping of crickets.

this thread focuses on the corporate-oriented, insurance industry oriented, health care proposals of Democratic candidates. I just wanted to take issue with the "FREE PASS" the article's author gave to the Democratic candidates, and all Democrats, and of course republicans, on global warming. What is being proposed is far short of what is needed. Gore's important film may have "helped rally support" but thus far that support is a drop in the bucket when measured against the risks we face.

I agree with pretty much everything you say..

But your statement above is so outrageous that I had to respond.

The Chicxsulub impact didn't "extinguish life on this planet" and neither will global warming.

And the Chicxsulub impact was so great that it spread a layer of iridium all over the entire world.

how about "extinguish human life on the planet"?

seeing those massive financial donation figures dancing around their heads.
That was great. Expose all of them. Thanks MM.

Morons. Fucking, hand-wringing morons.

He is widely seen as a fringe figure and a major Democratic candidate "taking a position" on Moore's film is folly.

The overhead figures of 10-15% for government run insurance v 40-45% for corporate run insurance are not Michael Moore's. Why won't Clinton, Obama and Edwards respond to those numbers?

I was referring to the article's comment...

"Instead of greeting the film with hosannas or challenging it head-on, however, the leading Democratic presidential candidates have sidestepped direct comment on Moore's proposals."

they "sidestep" (insert Python-esque "run away! run away!" here) concrete proposals and offer nothing of equal substance as a counterproposal. They need to explain why their notion of "corporate insurance for all" is a better idea than "public insurance for all." Given the overhead figures alone, they got a lot of 'splaining to do.

His TV shows, books, and movies have been wildly popular.

He accepts and even relishes the gadfly role, and he plays it well. But he is undoubtedly a fringe character, even if most of his ideas are not particularly "out there."

There is nothing "fringe" about him unless you use Limbaugh's and Gingrich's definition of fringe. Any liberal or progressive that characterizes him as such is enabling the standards of radical conservatives.



In the quote above, Greenwald was discussing the conventional wisdom towards liberal bloggers but the sentiment could be applied to Moore, as well.

Perhaps you mean that the presentation of his ideas is unconventional or unique because, in politics, fringe is commonly understood to indicate those at the extreme ends of the political spectrum.

by the "mainstream" media.

His ideas are pretty mainstream - Bush is an elitist criminal, GM execs don't care about their workers, America loves guns and our "for profit" healthcare system sucks.

But, if you listen to how he is portrayed by the media, you'd think he's way way to the left of Students for a Democratic Society, the Black Panthers and other radical 60s organizations.

:sarcasm:

:hi:

Not in my community

hasn't seen Sicko yet. I haven't seen it. I plan to, of course. But I wasn't invited to any advanced screening. So, there's not much point in the candidates talking about ... yet.

If, say in a couple of months' time, the candidates still haven't said anything, when most people have had the opportunity to have seen in and developed an opinion, then I'll be more inclinded to agree with the article.

I think this article is jumping the gun a little.

There. I said it.

Nothing makes my blood boil like this issue. It just makes me MAD that we spend hundreds of billions of dollars to wage war while the people die from neglect.

the least they can do is squirm. They're not avoiding a trip to the doctor because they can't afford it.

They should be uncomfortable. "Sicko" supports the plan of their competition. The better plan, HR 676. The better candidate. It's just become a little harder to keep Dennis Kucinich on "ignore." They'll have to disenfranchise even more potential voters to do so.

:shrug:

by LithiumCola on Daily Kos

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/22/84048/1121




Click on the link for more.

Our PAID representatives need to get their heads outta their butts and wake up to the reality that they work for us, WE THE PEOPLE! It is their job to do what is right by each and every one of us.