D. Armenta
PlagmanHealthcare Industry Prepares for Release of Moore's "Sicko"
With the upcoming release of Michael Moore’s Sicko, an unbiased account of America’s fledgling healthcare system, the medical community has begun to prepare for the worst. And although very few people have seen the documentary thus far, there is speculation that it will be the catalyst for change in how America spends billions providing healthcare for fat people, smokers, and illegal immigrations.
Moore’s main focus in the piece meant to be taken as seriously as Fahrenheit 9/11 is the staggering 47 million Americans in the US who are uninsured. By outlining the flaws in the American system, Moore goes on to advocate the socialist approaches of Canada, France, and Cuba, three countries Americans hold in the highest of regard.
Said Moore, “We’re in a battle with these corporations who want to maintain their position. They don’t want to give an inch on this, and we’re out to upset the apple cart. But not the hot dog cart, I could eat those all day.”
Moore’s film is expected to gain a lot of support after large pharmaceutical giants are exposed as greedy “businesses” that try to make “money” to fund their “research,” and the millions of dollars it takes to put a drug through seven years worth of “FDA” trials. “They’re always selling some drug to treat some disease,” said Moore, “then you know what they do? They charge people for it, and why? So they can pay their ‘employees’ and do more ‘research and development.’ Greedy bastards.”
“You know how much a month’s prescription can cost,” continued Moore, “sometimes it’s a few hundred bucks. I mean, it’s only a $10 co-pay for me, but you think uninsured people can afford a $300 bottle of pills? I don’t think so. It’s not like they could watch what they eat and exercise so they wouldn’t even need blood pressure or cholesterol medications, that’s why it’s all the corporations’ faults.”
Already, Sicko has ignited debate among people who have the answer but can’t get time off from McDonalds to put it into action.
Said Pat Aufderheide, a communications professor at American University, “People see Moore as uniquely honest and truthful in a corporate landscape. He has a way of saying the things his audience has already been thinking to themselves and making them seriously consider acting on those thoughts. That’s why back in 2004 when Fahrenheit 9/11 came out Bush didn’t win re-election and the US withdrew from Iraq. He’s just that influential.”
Opponents of Moore have gone ahead and launched pre-emptive campaigns in defense of the healthcare system. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), among which includes leading drug-makers such as Merck and GlaxoSmithKline, issued a statement to dismiss the filmmaker as “a political activist with a track record for sensationalism… a review of America’s health care system should be balanced, thoughtful and well-researched… and just like leftovers, you won’t get that from Michael Moore.”
In addition to bashing the not-obese filmmaker who certainly has a right to complain about any health-related issue in America, Health Care America, a non-profit organization financed in part by hospitals and drug companies, held meetings to point out and document the flaws in government-run healthcare, implying that perhaps adopting the same policies as communist Cuba might not be the best solution. They told of long wait times, as if six months for an MRI is a long time, and posted videos on their site detailing horror stories from Canada’s system. “Mr. Moore is not telling the whole story. He plays fast and loose with the facts,” said Sarah Berk, the group’s executive director. “We’re here to educate the public on what he has left out. Thus far our documentary is 112 hours long.”
In light of such an accusation, Moore replied, “well duh; the other side of the story would’ve killed my argument. That’d be like me talking to the soldiers in the Middle East for Fahrenheit 9/11 who said they wanted to be over there and that’s why they joined the armed forces in the first place.”
Although the disadvantages of nationalized health care are abundant, it would provide some benefits. Currently, the 30% of the US population that maintains a healthy weight and doesn’t smoke pays the costs for the 70% that don’t and do, respectively. With nationalized health care, 100% of the population could pay for fatties and smokers, thus distributing the cost among a larger group of people.
Furthermore, as healthcare goes nationalized, the government can cut down on the extravagant salaries of over-paid doctors. Not only would this entice more intelligent people out of college to pursue medical careers as opposed to more lucrative professions, it would also take away the smugness of doctors who pull in over $100k a year just because they spent their 20s locked away in a room somewhere studying.
Like the rest of his films, Moore has had no trouble convincing the uneducated of the brilliance inherent in his agenda that no less than one nearby communist dictatorship already employs. Said Shirley Baker, a trailer park resident in Kentucky, “I don’t care about no six month wait for an MRI to see if I got the cancer. Shoot, if it’s free I can wait long as you like.”
“I just don’t want to have to deal with insurance companies anymore,” said another local resident, “if the government was in charge, everything would run so smoothly and there would be no hassle, especially when it came to getting reimbursed for something.”
Moore’s main focus in the piece meant to be taken as seriously as Fahrenheit 9/11 is the staggering 47 million Americans in the US who are uninsured. By outlining the flaws in the American system, Moore goes on to advocate the socialist approaches of Canada, France, and Cuba, three countries Americans hold in the highest of regard.
Said Moore, “We’re in a battle with these corporations who want to maintain their position. They don’t want to give an inch on this, and we’re out to upset the apple cart. But not the hot dog cart, I could eat those all day.”
Moore’s film is expected to gain a lot of support after large pharmaceutical giants are exposed as greedy “businesses” that try to make “money” to fund their “research,” and the millions of dollars it takes to put a drug through seven years worth of “FDA” trials. “They’re always selling some drug to treat some disease,” said Moore, “then you know what they do? They charge people for it, and why? So they can pay their ‘employees’ and do more ‘research and development.’ Greedy bastards.”
“You know how much a month’s prescription can cost,” continued Moore, “sometimes it’s a few hundred bucks. I mean, it’s only a $10 co-pay for me, but you think uninsured people can afford a $300 bottle of pills? I don’t think so. It’s not like they could watch what they eat and exercise so they wouldn’t even need blood pressure or cholesterol medications, that’s why it’s all the corporations’ faults.”
Already, Sicko has ignited debate among people who have the answer but can’t get time off from McDonalds to put it into action.
Said Pat Aufderheide, a communications professor at American University, “People see Moore as uniquely honest and truthful in a corporate landscape. He has a way of saying the things his audience has already been thinking to themselves and making them seriously consider acting on those thoughts. That’s why back in 2004 when Fahrenheit 9/11 came out Bush didn’t win re-election and the US withdrew from Iraq. He’s just that influential.”
Opponents of Moore have gone ahead and launched pre-emptive campaigns in defense of the healthcare system. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), among which includes leading drug-makers such as Merck and GlaxoSmithKline, issued a statement to dismiss the filmmaker as “a political activist with a track record for sensationalism… a review of America’s health care system should be balanced, thoughtful and well-researched… and just like leftovers, you won’t get that from Michael Moore.”
In addition to bashing the not-obese filmmaker who certainly has a right to complain about any health-related issue in America, Health Care America, a non-profit organization financed in part by hospitals and drug companies, held meetings to point out and document the flaws in government-run healthcare, implying that perhaps adopting the same policies as communist Cuba might not be the best solution. They told of long wait times, as if six months for an MRI is a long time, and posted videos on their site detailing horror stories from Canada’s system. “Mr. Moore is not telling the whole story. He plays fast and loose with the facts,” said Sarah Berk, the group’s executive director. “We’re here to educate the public on what he has left out. Thus far our documentary is 112 hours long.”
In light of such an accusation, Moore replied, “well duh; the other side of the story would’ve killed my argument. That’d be like me talking to the soldiers in the Middle East for Fahrenheit 9/11 who said they wanted to be over there and that’s why they joined the armed forces in the first place.”
Although the disadvantages of nationalized health care are abundant, it would provide some benefits. Currently, the 30% of the US population that maintains a healthy weight and doesn’t smoke pays the costs for the 70% that don’t and do, respectively. With nationalized health care, 100% of the population could pay for fatties and smokers, thus distributing the cost among a larger group of people.
Furthermore, as healthcare goes nationalized, the government can cut down on the extravagant salaries of over-paid doctors. Not only would this entice more intelligent people out of college to pursue medical careers as opposed to more lucrative professions, it would also take away the smugness of doctors who pull in over $100k a year just because they spent their 20s locked away in a room somewhere studying.
Like the rest of his films, Moore has had no trouble convincing the uneducated of the brilliance inherent in his agenda that no less than one nearby communist dictatorship already employs. Said Shirley Baker, a trailer park resident in Kentucky, “I don’t care about no six month wait for an MRI to see if I got the cancer. Shoot, if it’s free I can wait long as you like.”
“I just don’t want to have to deal with insurance companies anymore,” said another local resident, “if the government was in charge, everything would run so smoothly and there would be no hassle, especially when it came to getting reimbursed for something.”
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan