After Watching Micheal Moore's Film, Sicko, (Part 2)

So, the initial thoughts after watching the film are located in my part 1 blog. (http://www.politics.com/blog/7114/after-watching-micheal-moores-film-sicko-part-1/) Now that a near month has gone by and people have brought the subject up to me, where am I with this issue? I will get back to that in a minute, but first here is what happened in the first blog.

To sum it up: In the 1st blog I brought up, how the current system is broken with insurance companies that deny payment for life threatening surgeries. They do this for profit. They create pre-existing conditions whether you have them or not just by looking at your past medical records. For example, because you said you had headaches, they will call a tumor pre-existing condition.  I also brought up the current forms of socialism that we have such as schools or libraries. I discussed Hillary who wanted to regulate the industry. We've regulated the power companies, the water companies, the phone companies, etc. Yet people in general don't want to treat this as a needed utility. We need energy, water, and communication services.  Are we not equal in our need for healthcare?

The response in the first blog: Mostly attacks Micheal Moore instead of going after the issue intact. People attempt to call him a propagandist as a negative term, like an insult. People do this when they call someone liberal or conservative in this culture as well.

In my daily life after watching the film: When I've discussed politics with people and then they bring up an opposition against Universal Healthcare without a why. So I ask and and ask and ask. And only one person had a good answer which was a financial motivation to do well in school. He said he knew someone that put up 145k on his dorm room which was the average first year starting salary for students out of his medical program. So my question to him was, do you really want a doctor who is motivated by money rather than motivated by helping the person that is sick? He brought up law school and lawyers as an example as well. I responded to him. People go to law school for different reasons. I have seen a few surveys ranging financial motivation between 9-14% which isn't a lot. If you were innocent of crime, you wouldn't want the lawyer defending you to have been part of that 9-14%. Yet his reasoning is the only one that is pro-privatized healthcare with at least some guts.

Sometimes, I'd bring up Micheal Moore's film "Sicko" and then someone would respond, "You know that film isn't true" And I'd tell them to please tell me which parts so that I could go back and re-watch it. Yet the scare tactics get people to not watch the film.

Where was I on this issue before I watched this film?  I didn't like the idea of loads of insurance company workers being  out of work. That was my sole reason for being against universal healthcare. They are legalized crime. They murder people for profit. End of story.

What happens when it is you? Half of the families in 2005 that filed bankruptcy had filed at the onset of a serious medical problem or accident. Many of you might say, so what that they didn't have insurance? 75% of those families who had filed bankruptcy had medical insurance at the time of the serious medical problem or accident. They played by the rules, had education, had a mortgage, and even had health insurance.

A doctor, Elizabeth, from India, here in America for quite some time called what insurance companies do as inhuman. She is the first person and only person that I have invited into that issue. Out of everything she said, my favorite quote, "You can't have too many ethics and still be a millionaire." It makes sense. 

These millionaire and billionaire CEO's are murdering people. Yet the middle class  proponents of privatized healthcare don't see that this this could be them filing bankruptcy or dying as a result of these crimes against humanity. You could lose everything. This isn't an argument for the uninsured. The film is about you, who have played by the rules the entire time. This film is about you, who have insurance. Don't criticize the film about being inacurate until you can pin point exact points of the film just because you don't want to watch it.

Micheal Moore brings this discussion to the fore front and does it well. A Harvard Professor said that there are two myths in healthcare in the USA today, one is, "I have health insurance, so that means I'm safe" (or really safe if I pay a lot) The other is that universal healthcare doesn't work. She says, "there is some really embarrassing data....." According to the film, the system is NOT being altered to fit the needs of the people; but, the people are being changed to fit the needs of the system. 

They say, people grow conservative. - well, maybe those are thoughts for  (part 3)

After watching Micheal Moore's film, Sicko (part 1)

My initial response after watching this film is that universal healthcare in America is necessary. I think that Hillary's idea was great to keep the health insurance companies at the table, but now they had their chance. This film made me angry, SICK! It really is common sick. A human life is priceless. What would you pay to save your life? What amount would you pay to save your life? It is infinite. They know this and yet you don't act on it.

We have socialized fire department. We have a socialized school system - A socialized library. The view that you might want to argue: Why should I pay for someone else? Well that is a rather individualistic view. Is it not. I would say that the individualistic view is selfish. You want a child to not receive a surgery because the health insurance company doesn't want to pay for it? This film isn't about the child without health insurance. It shows stories about those that do have health insurance. It is people's jobs to deny claims. Then if you are not somehow denied, after the health company is paid, they look for reasons to retroactively take their money from you. (by looking at your medical records  and creating a pre-existing condition) - that means if you had a headache ever so now and then that you reported to your doctor, prior to coverage, they could say that your brain surgery was a pre-existing condition and retro-actively cancel your health insurance.

The current system is broken. I have spoken with a person here on politics via email. Yes, there is something wrong with profiteering off of people. These employees that work for these health insurance companies get bonuses for denying claims that could save your life. Meaning, chemotherapy for cancer. The health insurance company could deny your claim if you have cancer and say that it isn't terminal yet. The film Sicko is filled with people who have health insurance.

Basically to quote the film, "If they weren't able to weed you out in the application process or deny you the care your doctor said you needed and somehow ended up paying for the operation, they send in Lee. [Lee's] job is to get the company's money back any way he can. All he has to do is find one slip up on the application or a pre-existing condition you didn't know you had."  - They go through your health history for the last five years and look for stuff that you may of concealed or jack the rates so high that you couldn't pay them. Lee says, "They're supposed to be fair and even handed, but with an insurance company, it's their freaking money. So it's not un-intentional. It's not a mistake. It's not an oversight. You're not slipping through the cracks. Somebody made that crack and swept you towards it. And the intent is to maximize profits." People this is

Folks this is unacceptable! What health insurance companies are doing...The idea not to cover pre-existing conditions are ridiculous. Do you breathe? Exist? Are you mortal? The film showed an airing on CSPAN on May 30th 1996. Dr. Linda Peeno, former medical reviwer at Humana,  testified before US Congress, "I am here today to make a public cnnfession. In the Spring of 1987, as a physician, I denied a man a necessary operation that would have saved his life, and thus caused his death. No person and no group has held me accountable for this, because, in fact, what I did was I saved the company a half a milion dollars for this. And furthermore, this particular act secured my reputation as a good medical director, and it insured my continued advancement in the healthcare field." 4 times as many healthcare lobbyist than congressman.

 

 

 

 

Merry Christmas - If that Offends You, Get a Life

So, recently I recalled a letter written on an attorney billboard on a previous Christmas season. It said, "Merry Christmas - If that Offends You, Get a Life." I didn't understand the profound effect it would have on me about 3 years later. Recently people are offended by public displayed Christmas trees. They aren't holiday trees. The University of Carolina banned all Christmas trees this season from its libraries on campus; why? People are offended! If I saw a minora on campus, would I be offended, would I care? When I see the Jewish star, do I care? No, I don't. I don't celebrate HOLIDAY...the only people that would celebrate holiday are same that celebrate giftmas, who could also be the same that don't have a God. "If I saw Happy Kwanza on someone's door; I'd say, great that person's celbrating Kwanza. Who's offended by a Christmas tree? What do we get rid of next? Do we take Santa out of the mall because people are offended by him? Do we stop showing rudolf the red-nose reindeer on tv? I thought in this country we were supposed to be tolerant of other people's beliefs. We're supposed to be tolerant of other people's religions. When are people going to be tolerant of our beliefs? When are people going to be tolerant of our religion? You people offended by Christmas, are you going to be working this December 25th? NO! You're going to wake-up late. You're going to have a big breakfast and hang around your pajamas all day, drinking on egg nog and sucking on candy canes. You're not going to be offended by Christmas then - So why are you offended by Christmas now? I'm sick of it" Bob Well, you know, I'm sick of it too. Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! It's America and others should be tolerant of my beliefs as I am supposed to be of theirs. Am I offended by atheists? Yeah. Do I go on a public protest at city hall? NO.Media sits on this idea of "reporting to you live. It is the 23rd and only 2 more days to shop until HOLIDAY." (Yeah, I shop for holiday)-[sarcasm] So, Merry Christmas - If that Offends You, Get a Life Happy Kwanza, Happy Hannukah, Happy Giftmas And Merry Christmas....If that Offends You, Get a Life

Safer with the Patriot Act? (Rambling complaint)

Someone stated, "of course after 9/11, we all wanted to give the government free reign to investigate and question anyone and anything." I am in no way a part of that 'everyone'. In many political blogs I have read or conversations I've had, statements like this have been said. I disagree. Of course, I wanted someone to get caught and go to jail but by no means 'anyone' or 'anything.' I didn't believe in the government then, especially not now. If I wanted anything for the government to do, it was to stop the murdering of people living in the United States because they were of Arab descent. I wanted kids to not to get beat up at school because of their skin tone. Wanting protection at the expense of freedom is no way of the American life at all. The rest of the global world, call the United States of America, 'the free world.' We are anything, but free. Benjamin Franklin says, "They that give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Both John McCain and Barack Obama voted for the renewal of the Patriot Act. That individual also stated, "he may have actually believed a strong central government, with strong powers, was essential in such times to protect us from danger." I disagree. This is beyond outrageous. Never have a centralized government. Who is to declare when people are no longer in danger? Also, "essential in such times to protect us from danger." No, all times are essential. Freedoms are essential and we should have the same and fair opportunities to live a free life as others have before us. Warrant-less wiretapping is not okay. Mail tampering is not okay. The Patriot Act will not stop terrorism. They are not terrorist in their minds; to themselves they are freedom fighters. Look at our history that we have studied in this classroom. The Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact, and The Declaration of Independence are documents that show that liberty does not die. These terrorists fight for liberty. No law can stop them in their tracks. So, can we expect for our freedoms to just return? Before answering this, what great legislation has occurred while the people just sat around to wait for politicians to pull a rabbit out of a hat? Women's right to vote? no. The voting rights act? (removed literacy tests and other barriers for blacks to vote) no George Bush said, "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists." Can anyone say loaded question? Scare tactics? I didn't buy into this then; I am not buying into it now. Media addressing our concerns for us by telling us that we should be concerned about Paris Hilton going to jail instead of Senate Bill 1959. No, I am not a part of that 'everyone' and I don't understand how many parts of academia could be. The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism act of 2001, also known as, The Patriot Act (an acronym) was printed up in the middle of the night. Our representatives were told to pass it without reading it six weeks after September the eleventh. Hamilton would have demanded the reading of this document or most in full. The Patriot Act infringes the constitution and it infringes on our future. We either have a constitution or we don't and we should live by it, period. A classmate stated "We have, in my opinion, given up personal freedom in exchange for more security. My personal thoughts are that it is probably OK in the day and age we are living in, however we need to be ever vigilant that our civil rights are not trampled." I interpret these two statements as, I have given up my personal rights for more security, which is okay, but I need to make sure that our personal rights are not trampled. If one finds it okay, then there is no need to make sure our rights are not trampled on; it is inherit in the constitution. On the other half of the statement, if we do not want our rights trampled on, then it is not okay to lose any freedom for security. She didn’t respond to me on that one.

Marbury V. Madison ??? Supreme law of the Land (ranting)

That other thing is, who is to decide if a law contradicts or interferes with the Constitution's authority? Did the Constitution say Judicial Branch? In an article published at Cornell, they went so far to say that they didn't even explicitly state for there to be a separation of powers, but didn't say explicitly state that they should all be together either. Now, Marshall makes this huge statement on how the Supreme Court gets to decide on Constitutionality on issues. Boom! All of this power that he just granted a group of people with which would be just as corrupt as some elected officials. Lincoln and his executive order called the Emancipation Proclamation. Boom! All of this power. It is like, they sat in this corner pondering to themselves, how can I give myself more power? And someone yells, 'I know destroy the constitution and call it the USA PATRIOT ACT.' This Supreme Law of the Land, where was that phrase coined? It doesn't say Supreme United States Constitution or Supreme Declaration of Independence. And if no state may contradict or interfere with their authority then that is something rather scary. Word choices: pick yours~ Pro-life/Pro-choice and/or Anti-Abortion/Pro-Abortion Now, in South Dakota, doctors are forced "to inform women that abortions “terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being” — using exactly that language —" "this past June, the full United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit voted 7 to 4...allow the statute to take immediate effect. The majority argued that it is objectively true that human life begins at conception, and that the state can force doctors to say so." This occurred in June 2008. So, this Constitution is the highest law; who argues with that? I don't know. But who is to tell me that the Supreme Court is the one to rule on it? Do we have a law saying so? The statute was created out of thin air and should hold up like a steel brick floats in thin air. This strategy by the Founding Fathers was to create in their minds to attempt a balance among people. Spending two months without air conditioning arguing over a cause of hope that this document could somehow work. Yes, they left a lot out and thereby flawed, but in order to fix it, certain laws in place would need to be fixed along with certain practices that are in place such as the "Supreme Law of the Land" That is too much power! Executive orders are too much power! These powers were not granted to them in Constitution nor have the people or legislators passed laws to allow it. 1.Posts categorized "Fifth Circuit" 2008 October. 29 http://standdown.typepad.com/weblog/fifth_circuit/index.html 2. Cornell Article http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag1_user.html