Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Books, Movies, Food, Wine, and Whatever -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mephisto who wrote (12664)	7/5/2007 11:52:55 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 51710

I agree that Moore failed to show the problems of single payer systems. It's a relatively short film, and it wouldn't be possible to do justice to this issue in any short film. I think all systems, all decent systems, have waits, unfair denials, and deaths caused by mistakes. My husband and I talked this over a lot after seeing the movie, and what we have come to think is that some sort of universal care would be optimal simply because of the huge cloud of worry it would lift from the poor, the lower middle class, and even the middle class. Right now it is possible for even a middle class couple with insurance to be ruined by health care problems, if they have insurance that caps out, or if they made some mistake about their coverage, which allows their insurance company to deny them. It seems to me a rich country like ours should try to alleviate those sorts of worries, and also, I think universal care is much more easily structured to attack preventative care, which is a type of care that we are sorely lacking in the US. The incentives in our system are geared to treating people with disease- very few companies make money on preventing disease. Preventing or curing diabetes, for example, would deal a huge blow to many companies- just look at JNJ and its profit centers. While I am sure there would be problems with universal health care, I do think the benefits for trying it would far outweigh the risks.

To: Mephisto who wrote (12664)	7/7/2007 9:55:34 AM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 51710

Why ‘Sicko’ Is Striking a Nerve (6 Letters) July 7, 2007 To the Editor: Re “Some Thoughts on Sickness After Seeing ‘Sicko,’ ” by Philip M. Boffey (Editorial Observer, July 5): Despite his criticisms of “Sicko,” Mr. Boffey does agree with Michael Moore’s asking “how a country that spends so much more on health care than any other nation can’t take care of everyone who is sick.” Although the film falls short of an academic work, this fundamental question is critically important. With some 45 million Americans lacking health coverage and thus access to the sophisticated care possible in the United States, our country lags behind much of the developed world in outcomes ranging from infant mortality to life expectancy. Research has demonstrated that the uninsured are more likely to delay or not receive treatment. According to the Institute of Medicine, about 18,000 Americans die prematurely each year as a consequence of lacking health care coverage. “Sicko” received a standing ovation at my local theater. Maybe critics should consider the film’s ability to generate a public desire for meaningful change in our current health care system. Bonnie Le Var White Plains, July 5, 2007 The writer is vice president of the Institute for Socioeconomic Studies. • To the Editor: Philip M. Boffey does well to highlight Michael Moore’s emphasis in “Sicko” on the increasing difficulties of our middle class and those who already do have health insurance. It is becoming ever more apparent that those who have insurance remain at significant financial risk of becoming impoverished if they fall ill. Health “insurance” becomes essentially meaningless if it does not protect us from this avoidable consequence of falling sick. That anyone anywhere in America should be denied needed medical care because of its cost is a terrible indictment of our society. As adequate health care increasingly becomes available only to those who can buy it, we need to move to a system that is based on social justice and is affordable to all. Michael Moore points us to the solution: a single-payer system, which is the only way to provide quality health care for everybody without making us all go bankrupt. Jeffrey R. Kaplan, M.D. Ellicott City, Md., July 5, 2007 • To the Editor: While Philip M. Boffey makes an apt point in addressing Michael Moore’s undocumented generalizations about health care, it may be useful to rise above details like comparative wait times for emergency care or elective surgeries and examine attitudes that affect a country’s response to its citizens’ health needs. In Scandinavian countries, for example, a clear value for children is expressed in available care for newborns, support for mothers and generous maternity leave. Child care is widely available. Research relating to infectious diseases and childhood illness is financed. While one can quibble about whether specific high-tech equipment and techniques can compare with those of the United States, it is the way these countries value the well-being of their children — and, for that matter, adults — that makes the difference in available care. A feeling that someone cares more about one’s recovery than about the cost of treatment might be not only refreshing but indeed therapeutic. Barbara A. Cleary Dayton, Ohio, July 5, 2007 • To the Editor: Philip M. Boffey protests that Michael Moore didn’t mention that the United States ranked two notches above Cuba in a World Health Organization study on health care. Is this proof that the American system is still better than Cuba’s? It doesn’t seem like much to brag about, considering how much more money the system in the United States has at its disposal. Anastasia Hudgins Philadelphia, July 6, 2007 To the Editor: For decades I’ve been complaining about the health insurance industry to my representatives in the House and the Senate and have received nothing in return but form-letter platitudes about how great our health care is in the United States. Since the 1980s, I’ve been telling everyone I know that health care should be paid for as we pay for services like the police and fire departments. I was ecstatic to see that thought manifested in Michael Moore’s excellent film “Sicko.” Finally, along comes a film that tells the other side — my side — of the story, that the health insurance industry is ripping us off and that we could do a better job of covering all Americans through a system of universal health care. I can’t thank Mr. Moore enough for making such a “one-sided” film about health care in the United States. Linda Coleman Dallas, July 5, 2007 • To the Editor: Philip M. Boffey is correct to point out that Michael Moore’s bias shows in his portrayal of the various health care plans around the world. He notes that Mr. Moore didn’t acknowledge “the months-long waits to see specialists in Canada and Britain.” Last year I waited two months to see a specialist. American women face six-month waits for mammograms. This shows no sign of improving and every sign of worsening. Where is the advantage in our “free market” health care system? Patty Quinn Elkins Park, Pa., July 5, 2007 Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company nytimes.com