I have to make several qualifications:
1. I enjoyed the film, and I don't mind the debate...Moore was at times funny, especially when dealing with Canadians (how can you not be?) 2. I work in the health-care field. Moore's distortions, misdirections, and omissions were glaring.
The film itself was entertaining. I did feel that he went long, and could have easily cut the much of the "french socialism rules" portion. While he may make french socialism look appealing, a more realistic look at France could have included their near 20% unemployment (much higher if you are under 34 or a minority) and low productivity. Plus, isn't this film supposed to be about health-care?
But how does Moore distort the truth?
First glaring omission was that he left out any "the other side" entirely in this debate. If the actions of the insurance companies or Doctors were so egregious, he should have salivated at the prospects of putting a spokesperson for the industry on the camera about some of the cases he presented....after all, his contention is that the insurance company "caused these people's deaths." How could they explain this away? Sadly is, the only reason they couldn't was that Moore doesn't give them the opportunity to.
If we are searching for truth Mr. Moore, why not present two sides of the story?
We are shown one individual who dies....DIES, 5 days after he's denied approval for a bone marrow transplant, to which he had the "perfect donor" in his little brother. The insurance company surely has blood on it's hand after denying him this "life saving surgery."
Or does it? First, we never get the whole story. What stage renal cancer did this individual have? What was his prognosis? Did he receive conventional treatment (there are a myriad of conventional treatments out there...so how did he find himself at a point of searching for experimental treatments?)? Was there complicating factors?
What was omitted seems to suggest to this observer a very sad case. He probably had a very aggressive or was at a very advanced stage of the disease that was not responding to any conventional treatment. Sadly, when the disease advances to a certain point, and treatments are proving to be ineffective, the prognosis for the individual is certainly death.
Bone marrow transplant in the case of renal cancer, even very advanced stages is certainly a new one to me. To suggest that it's experimental is an understatement to say the least. That the surgery was even offered at this late stage is mystifying, even. With the individual dying 5 days after his final denial (even considering the purported 3 week prognosis offered by his doctors) suggest that his condition was probably known to be terminal for some time.
No countries health-care system, despite it's "ranking," would have likely offered this option to the patient and his family. I feel that sadly, the board of trustee's were made to be the bad guys in a case where the patient and his wife were simply in stages of denial, including bargaining and anger, and had to be the ones that gave them the sad news that "no" because he was dying.
But, it wouldn't be like Moore to look at the whole picture...especially if it doesn't work toward his agenda. To add race into this case was even better (But Moore could have pointed out that in the US, blacks have better survival rates than whites with this particular disease).
Was using cases like this to create a false impression of US health-care the exception in this movie? No, it was the norm. Many of the cases used had omissions similar to this. Maybe he was afraid of HIPPA? Why did he not make the case what kind of treatment these individuals would have received in other countries? Would the deceased patient above have received a bone marrow transplant in Canada?
But this is Moore. He doesn't really make films to make honest contributions to debate, but to make money. He knows his base of fans will eat his stuff up, lining his own pockets with millions of dollars in the process. Does he make stuff they'll enjoy? You bet.
1. I enjoyed the film, and I don't mind the debate...Moore was at times funny, especially when dealing with Canadians (how can you not be?) 2. I work in the health-care field. Moore's distortions, misdirections, and omissions were glaring.
The film itself was entertaining. I did feel that he went long, and could have easily cut the much of the "french socialism rules" portion. While he may make french socialism look appealing, a more realistic look at France could have included their near 20% unemployment (much higher if you are under 34 or a minority) and low productivity. Plus, isn't this film supposed to be about health-care?
But how does Moore distort the truth?
First glaring omission was that he left out any "the other side" entirely in this debate. If the actions of the insurance companies or Doctors were so egregious, he should have salivated at the prospects of putting a spokesperson for the industry on the camera about some of the cases he presented....after all, his contention is that the insurance company "caused these people's deaths." How could they explain this away? Sadly is, the only reason they couldn't was that Moore doesn't give them the opportunity to.
If we are searching for truth Mr. Moore, why not present two sides of the story?
We are shown one individual who dies....DIES, 5 days after he's denied approval for a bone marrow transplant, to which he had the "perfect donor" in his little brother. The insurance company surely has blood on it's hand after denying him this "life saving surgery."
Or does it? First, we never get the whole story. What stage renal cancer did this individual have? What was his prognosis? Did he receive conventional treatment (there are a myriad of conventional treatments out there...so how did he find himself at a point of searching for experimental treatments?)? Was there complicating factors?
What was omitted seems to suggest to this observer a very sad case. He probably had a very aggressive or was at a very advanced stage of the disease that was not responding to any conventional treatment. Sadly, when the disease advances to a certain point, and treatments are proving to be ineffective, the prognosis for the individual is certainly death.
Bone marrow transplant in the case of renal cancer, even very advanced stages is certainly a new one to me. To suggest that it's experimental is an understatement to say the least. That the surgery was even offered at this late stage is mystifying, even. With the individual dying 5 days after his final denial (even considering the purported 3 week prognosis offered by his doctors) suggest that his condition was probably known to be terminal for some time.
No countries health-care system, despite it's "ranking," would have likely offered this option to the patient and his family. I feel that sadly, the board of trustee's were made to be the bad guys in a case where the patient and his wife were simply in stages of denial, including bargaining and anger, and had to be the ones that gave them the sad news that "no" because he was dying.
But, it wouldn't be like Moore to look at the whole picture...especially if it doesn't work toward his agenda. To add race into this case was even better (But Moore could have pointed out that in the US, blacks have better survival rates than whites with this particular disease).
Was using cases like this to create a false impression of US health-care the exception in this movie? No, it was the norm. Many of the cases used had omissions similar to this. Maybe he was afraid of HIPPA? Why did he not make the case what kind of treatment these individuals would have received in other countries? Would the deceased patient above have received a bone marrow transplant in Canada?
But this is Moore. He doesn't really make films to make honest contributions to debate, but to make money. He knows his base of fans will eat his stuff up, lining his own pockets with millions of dollars in the process. Does he make stuff they'll enjoy? You bet.