Michael Moore's "Sicko" lies!

[Rebochan]

I've been rather unsuccessfully trying to sway my parents on the nationalized healthcare thing. I can thank Michael Moore for making my job so much easier

So in response to that, my mom forwarded me this e-mail she got through her Townhall.com mailing list today. Have fun ripping it up, I'm on vacation so I'm not really thinking straight enough to do more than scream incoherently at it. Well, I can of course point to how the e-mail never quotes anything from the film. Without even having seen the film, I can already assume that this is being twisted beyond belief.

------------------------------
Dear Friends:

Michael Moore ends the movie "Sicko" with a lie. It may not be an intentional lie, but it is a falsehood, nonetheless. Michael Moore ends the movie saying that every European country offers "free" health coverage to their citizens and every European country provides such coverage through a "single payer" system.

Both statements are untrue. It is a sad commentary on the pathetically, uninformed state of the health care policy debate in America that health care journalists and American political leaders do not simply know that both of the statements are untrue and that they have not responded clearly and quickly to correct the error.

So what makes these statements untrue? Reality. Most European countries directly charge their citizens for their health coverage. It is not "free" anywhere. Some nations require people to buy coverage from health insurance companies that look very much like American health insurance companies. Other countries use a payroll tax on everyone's paycheck to pay for health coverage. In those countries, each citizen pays a portion of their weekly paycheck for health insurance - - just like our Social Security payroll deduction. In Germany, each employee pays 7 percent of each paycheck for health care and each employer matches that 7 percent. People also can spend additional money to buy better coverage.

The government of the Netherlands takes 9 percent of a worker's paycheck every week to purchase health coverage - - it's hard to figure out how Michael Moore can legitimately call such a payroll deduction "free."

Also, when the government of the Netherlands deducts that 9 percent, or when Germany deducts their 14 percent -- they do not use, as Mr. Moore incorrectly claims, a "single payer system" like Canada to provide the actual health insurance for each citizen. Each of those countries has multiple health plans - or "sickness funds" -- that people choose among. Citizens of Switzerland and the Netherlands choose between competing health plans to purchase their coverage.

So "Sicko" ends with a double lie: Coverage in Europe is not "free," nor is it provided through a pure, Canadian-like single payer system. "Sicko" either deliberately misleads us or is unintentionally wrong.

Each country in Europe has found its own unique path to universal coverage. Switzerland has no government health program at all. Everyone in Switzerland is required to purchase from one of nearly 100 competing insurance companies. (The Swiss government pays for coverage for the poor.)

What about France - - a country Michael Moore described as Eden in "Sicko?" The government uses a sales tax approach and uses that money to buy a basic (not comprehensive) package of coverage for about 80 percent of the French people. The basic government benefit coverage is somewhat incomplete, however, so 92 percent of the people in France now purchase additional private insurance to fill in the 20 - 40 percent gap in various parts of their government benefits. About 20 percent of the French people skip the government program completely and purchase only private coverage. In either case, the coverage isn't free and is not handled through a Canadian single-payer model.

It's unclear from the movie whether Mr. Moore knows that he is not telling the truth about Europe's health care systems, or whether he is still low on a learning curve relative to health care financing and delivery. The learning curve seems pretty steep. He criticizes the U.S. government Medicare drug benefit in "Sicko," and he claims with some passion that the Canadians handle drug coverage much better. So how does the Canadian government actually handle drug coverage? Seven out of eight provinces do not cover non-hospital drug costs for anyone other than low income seniors. The federal government does not cover anyone.

People in those seven Canadian provinces might actually prefer the American Medicare system of partial coverage (favored by over 80 percent of enrollees), which Mr. Moore seems to sneer at in the movie. American Medicare drug coverage can have a "donut hole" in the middle. Seven of eight Canadian provinces skip the donut and give the citizens only the hole.

"Sicko" also tells the story of a Canadian on a golf vacation in Florida to illustrate the alleged superiority of the Canadian insurance and care delivery system because - - Mr. Moore claims in the movie - - the Canadian actually rushed home to Canada when he needed health care rather than getting that care in Florida. A valuable piece of information that "Sicko" conveniently does not mention at that point is that the Canadian government health coverage does not travel. Americans who are insured almost always have health coverage that covers at least emergencies whenever we travel. Canadians, however, have such long backlogs for care in so many places that the Canadian government benefit program can't afford to let people simply leave Canada to access care elsewhere. So the Canadian system that Mr. Moore so eagerly advocates decided not to let its health care benefits "travel" outside of Canada. Canadians in Florida, therefore, actually do return to Canada for care when they can... not because they don't think Americans deliver quality care, rather because their government does not cover care in America.

Again, it's not clear if Mr. Moore is low on the learning curve on that point, or more directly duplicitous. We will probably learn which statement is true as the debate progresses.

There are rumors Mr. Moore offers $10,000 rewards for anyone who can prove that any point in his movies is untrue. Since he says that "every" country in Europe uses the Canadian model, and since there are quite a few countries in Europe, does he owe $10,000 per country or just $10,000 for getting Europe wrong as a package? Or is it $10,000 per country on "single payer" and another $10,000 per country for "free"?

We can let his conscience decide. Money is owed, however.

Thank you.

Sarah Berk
Executive Director, Health Care America



Health Care America is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit advocacy organization devoted to promoting the fundamental principles of access, choice, quality, innovation and competition in our health care system.

For more information please visit www.healthcare-america.org.

[Canuckistan]

Of course it's not "free" in the sense that no one has to pay.

It's "free" in that I won't be charged when I visit the emergency room. Nor will anyone else with a valid health card.

Seven out of eight provinces do not cover non-hospital drug costs for anyone other than low income seniors.

Which is all fine and dandy, until you realize that there are, in fact, 10 provinces in this country.

[Tarquin Farquart]

Originally Posted by Rebochan

Health Care America is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit advocacy organization devoted to promoting the fundamental principles of access, choice, quality, innovation and competition in our health care system.

Competition in health care??

[BamaRainbow]

Well, considering that the vast majority of Moore's usual decriers gave overwhelmingly positive reviews of Sicko before the film's release, it might come as a bit of a surprise that Moore's getting such flack after the release. The trouble, of course, comes from the fact that the health "care" industry started attacking the film's claims AFTER the film opened. And, naturally, where do the health "care" industry's media dollars typically go? Right-wing, neoconservative groups like FoxNews Network and TownHall.com. (Let's also note for the record WHO is writing this little diatribe--or at least, who's attributed with this diatribe: A so-called health "care" industry professional. This is hardly an unbiased source.)

I'm not going to try dissecting each point in the OP, but I will tackle the one about the Canadian golfing in Florida.

"Sicko" also tells the story of a Canadian on a golf vacation in Florida to illustrate the alleged superiority of the Canadian insurance and care delivery system because - - Mr. Moore claims in the movie - - the Canadian actually rushed home to Canada when he needed health care rather than getting that care in Florida. A valuable piece of information that "Sicko" conveniently does not mention at that point is that the Canadian government health coverage does not travel. Americans who are insured almost always have health coverage that covers at least emergencies whenever we travel. Canadians, however, have such long backlogs for care in so many places that the Canadian government benefit program can't afford to let people simply leave Canada to access care elsewhere. So the Canadian system that Mr. Moore so eagerly advocates decided not to let its health care benefits "travel" outside of Canada. Canadians in Florida, therefore, actually do return to Canada for care when they can... not because they don't think Americans deliver quality care, rather because their government does not cover care in America.

Um, I'd like to start off with the fact that the man was told his insurance wasn't valid in the US by the HOSPITAL AUTHORITIES. Well, who among us has travelled to a foreign country (Canadians visiting the US are visiting a FOREIGN country) and attempted to use our Blue Cross (or any other AMERICAN-issued) health insurance in Canada or Mexico or Aruba or France or Japan following an emergency? I don't see Townhall.com raising THAT point. The simple fact is that BlueCross, as an example, uses the words "may" and "might" in their policy information dealing with foreign travel, but even discounting those qualifying verbs, an insured person STILL has to pay a deductible (in California, a $250 deductible has to be paid BEFORE BlueCross pays a dime--even then ONLY 80% is covered by BlueCross) and then has to present BlueCross with the bill (that he's already paid in full). (Of course, if an American in London doesn't have to pay for emergency services he's received in London, there's little point in filing a claim with BlueCross when he returns to the States, is there?) The Canadian gentleman in question had little choice but to return to Canada if he wanted to avoid an exorbitant extra vacation "fee". Also, Mr Moore did interview some of his CANADIAN relatives who buy INSURANCE before visiting the US to ensure that they DON'T have to interrupt a trip in case some medical emergency comes up; they relate an anecdote about a friend whose trip to Hawai'i nearly bankrupted him because his health insurance wasn't accepted in the US. Townhall.com seems to conveniently ignore that point.
BUT the most egregious error in the Townhall.com diatribe (written by a health "care" industry professional) comes here:

Seven out of eight provinces do not cover non-hospital drug costs for anyone other than low income seniors. The federal government does not cover anyone.

People in those seven Canadian provinces might actually prefer the American Medicare system of partial coverage (favored by over 80 percent of enrollees), which Mr. Moore seems to sneer at in the movie. American Medicare drug coverage can have a "donut hole" in the middle. Seven of eight Canadian provinces skip the donut and give the citizens only the hole.

Perhaps the writer needed to do a bit more research (as if research is ever needed in neocon writing), but the last time I checked Canada has 10 provinces (not eight), so which two provinces are excluded from Townhall.com's "research". (The 10 are, from west to east, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador. There are also three territories: Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. I guess no one in those territories receive any type of insurance if the writer's "research" is to be believed.)

I will also note that the "provides free coverage" is well understood to mean that BASIC health coverage, including EMERGENCY SERVICES, is provided from the government. The Townhall.com screed IGNORES the fact that in THIS COUNTRY, an individual WITHOUT ANY INSURANCE has to pay for EVERYTHING with NO help from the government. Every American has to pay into Medicare BUT that government service (paid for by withholding about 1.4% from EVERY worker's paycheck) is not generally available to the people who are CURRENTLY paying into the system. That's a far cry from what happens in Europe where EVERYONE WHO PAYS INTO THE SYSTEM can actually BENEFIT from it when he or she needs it, rather than having to wait until retirement or disability sets in.

Oh, one last interesting bit. I note that the Townhall.com diatribe notes that Sicko ends with a lie. However, what should be noted is it fails to note that the film begins with a very specific message: That the film is NOT about those people without insurance; instead, it's about the people WITH insurance coverage, such as the white woman who works at a hospital whose black husband died because the hospital's insurance people REFUSED to cover a necessary transplant that would have saved his life because, despite the actual MEDICAL need, the transplant was deemed to be experimental. The film is showing the discrepency between the US health "care" industry's services for those who HAVE health insurance with other countries which cover ALL their citizens (even those who are there as "resident aliens"--such as the Americans living in France who are conveniently ignored by the Townhall.com diatribe. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM is pleased with the care they receive from the French health care service.)

[RBCal]

According to SourceWatch

Health Care America was one of several industry-funded organizations to engage in media outreach around the Michael Moore movie "Sicko," released in June 2007.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...h_Care_America


Thus, they certainly aren't biased or anything. Its not like the pharmaceutical industry would lose business if health care costs were controlled or anything.

Getting your health information from Health Care America is equivalent to getting global warming information from the oil industry.

[Troberg]

Sure, health care is financed through tax money in Europe. Did the author of that mail really expect that health care would magically appear without any cost to anyone? Money has to come from somewhare, and at least tax money is a burden that is more or less fairly distributed, compared to the "pay when you need it" health care which tends to put the heaviest burden on the the people least likely to be able to handle it.

I think the big problem people have is that for many, the type of health care system is somehow believed to be linked to the quality of the system. This, of course, is dead wrong, as both systems have the capacity to provide either good or bad services.

[ganzfeld]

Originally Posted by Canuckistan

Which is all fine and dandy, until you realize that there are, in fact, 10 provinces in this country.

But "8.75 out of 10" doesn't scan.

[Tarquin Farquart]

Originally Posted by Troberg

Sure, health care is financed through tax money in Europe. Did the author of that mail really expect that health care would magically appear without any cost to anyone? Money has to come from somewhare, and at least tax money is a burden that is more or less fairly distributed, compared to the "pay when you need it" health care which tends to put the heaviest burden on the the people least likely to be able to handle it.

But taxes are evil! Insurance deductions appear on a whole different line on your payslip.

[BlueStar]

Originally Posted by Tarquin Farquart

But taxes are evil! Insurance deductions appear on a whole different line on your payslip.

And heaven forfend the majority of money people pay for healthcare actually going on healthcare rather than into the offshore accounts of other people.

When the goverment says "Don't hand over control of it to us, that would be socialist and evil!" some people seem to think it's some kind of selfless act and not because with politicians and ex-politicians in the US are so balls-deep in the current broken system that the status quo allows them to have the maximum control over healthcare, to pilliage the maximum amount of money from healthcare, along with the minimum accountability for healthcare.

Actually that's not quite right, they are accountable - but not to the receiver of the care, the citizen, the voter and the tax payer (Whose priorities are not to pay too much and for as much of that money to be spent on health care as possible) but to management and shareholders (whos priorities are to charge as much as possible and spend as little as possible of that money on providing healthcare)

[Floater]

Originally Posted by Tarquin Farquart

But taxes are evil! Insurance deductions appear on a whole different line on your payslip.

To be honest it is not a tax, it is indeed an insurance deduction, but we don't see it on our payslip as Swedish employers pay it before they even concider handing the money over to the employees.

Originally Posted by Troberg

Sure, health care is financed through tax money in Europe. Did the author of that mail really expect that health care would magically appear without any cost to anyone?

I swear that many tax payers in the states think that way.

Here in my local town, people are trying to get a new high school built. Everyone wants it....until they are told it will cause a tax increase. Where do they think the millions of dollars are going to come from? The tooth fairy?

Of course, the OP is its own worst enemy. I think a lot of Americans would be willing to pay 7-16% of their income knowing they would have full medical coverage...

[BlueStar]

Well the US managed to finance a pretty damn expensive war without raising taxes. I think it's quite possible that Dubya believed that money came from the tooth fairy as well...

Originally Posted by BlueStar

Well the US managed to finance a pretty damn expensive war without raising taxes. I think it's quite possible that Dubya believed that money came from the tooth fairy as well...

Yea, by putting our grandchildren into debt up to their noses.....

Besides, you don't want the government to fund healthcare that way. If so, we will be "pulling out" of healthcare after about 6 years....

[MidgardDragon]

Originally Posted by Doug4.7

Yea, by putting our grandchildren into debt up to their noses.....

Besides, you don't want the government to fund healthcare that way. If so, we will be "pulling out" of healthcare after about 6 years....

Same old same old.

[Canuckistan]

Originally Posted by Doug4.7

Yea, by putting our grandchildren into debt up to their noses.....

Out of curiosity, how is government debt up to their noses worse than debt to private companies up to their noses?

[AnglRdr]

So if paying for health care through taxes is bad, what's up with this FICA thing?

[BlueStar]

Originally Posted by Doug4.7

Yea, by putting our grandchildren into debt up to their noses.....

Besides, you don't want the government to fund healthcare that way. If so, we will be "pulling out" of healthcare after about 6 years....

I'll set my alarm now for 6 years time so we can have a quick check as to if the US government is still increasing spending on military operations for a presence in Iraq and the wider War on Terrah in the middle east.

I don't see how paying a 90% "Buy our shareholders another yacht tax" on your health care is a more sensible way of avoiding debt for your kids than having a system where nearly all the tax you pay for health care is spent on healthcare.

Originally Posted by MidgardDragon

Same old same old.

Originally Posted by Canuckistan

Out of curiosity, how is government debt up to their noses worse than debt to private companies up to their noses?

Originally Posted by BlueStar

I'll set my alarm now for 6 years time so we can have a quick check as to if the US government is still increasing spending on military operations for a presence in Iraq and the wider War on Terrah in the middle east.

I don't see how paying a 90% "Buy our shareholders another yacht tax" on your health care is a more sensible way of avoiding debt for your kids than having a system where nearly all the tax you pay for health care is spent on healthcare.

So you are all for increasing the debt even more to fund healthcare?

[AnglRdr]

How about spending 1/3 as much on the military, then funneling the extra 2/3 to medical care?

Net effect on deficet: nil

[Johnny Slick]

America is not Canada.