“Sicko” reminds me more of “Bowling for Columbine” than “Fahrenheit 9/11”, which I think most people would agree is a good thing. Another bonus, healthcare is a more relevant issue than gun control. Maybe it is stupid that anybody can buy a gun, but I am not losing any sleep over it. The fact that people want to kill other people in the first place is a bigger concern to me than the means they use to do it.
There are 2 separate issues that Moore somehow co-mingles.
First – he had a Kevin Hinton style attack on Special Interest Groups. Insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are clearly evil, and their obscene influence on Capital Hill is driving up America’s health care costs to an absurd level. This was the better part of the movie, and I agree. Those SOBs need to be put in check.
Second – universal, government sponsored, socialist health care is better than private health care. Is that even true?
I don’t really know, but I don’t really think it is the slam dunk that Sicko makes it out to be. There is too much focus in Michael Moore films on individual stories that play the sympathy card. I want more facts, less propaganda.
How much are our taxes going to go up if there is universal health care? Isn’t that the most obvious question that should be answered? Healthcare isn’t free. We can either pay for it with taxes, or directly through a private market. Is there any data that suggests a bureaucratic government run health care system is more efficient than a private one? Although capitalism has its flaws – it is typically way more efficient than our piece of crap government.
Moore implies that health care is free in the UK – but fails to mention that payroll taxes there are like 5o%. How much of that goes to health care? I don’t know – but it is not like there is some magic going on over there, somebody is paying for it. Standard Moore propaganda where he misleads you with just part of the story.
In Moore’s extended interview with Tony Benn, an old English dude/labor leader, he explains the socialized healthcare as “Pay according to your means, get treated according to your needs.” This is the heart of what bothers me about socialism and universal health care. People getting punished, because they have greater “means”.
Yeah, it sounds great if you are the poor guy that couldn’t afford your own health insurance to begin with – now you get it for free. But what about the guy that worked hard all his life, and now has to pay for the lazy dudes health care and his own? Well, that guy is me – and I say fuck you. Go get a job and buy some insurance.
Maybe that is ruff – but guess what, that is life. When you were born, you were given the responsibility to take care of yourself. Quit looking for handouts. You are a looter. Why do I owe you anything you son of a bitch? Because I actually went to class in high school? Because I paid for my own college, and now work my ass off for an almost decent salary? Screw off – you got to fuck around all through high school – now it is my time to shine. Enjoy your diabetes.
When poor people are having a tuff time it always seems like an easy answer say – hey, why don’t we just take some more of the rich people’s money to pay for it? Well, because I earned that money. It is not yours to take.
That was a bit of a crazy conservative rant I just went on that I don’t actually believe. But I do think that it raises some important questions that Moore fails to answer. Typically I am fine with socializing things that qualify as fundamental needs that all people should have a right too – like education. Health care probably falls into that category. I just wish Moore would get into how it is actually implemented, and why it will make sense. I am pro socialized health care for kids – it is not their fault their parents are incapable of taking care of them.
On another note – rather than government sponsored health care – why isn’t there a not-for-profit insurance organization? That seems like it would solve a lot of problems, and could prevent the necessity of socializing health care.