Michael Moore on Obama and Edwards: "I can tell you why their healthcare plans won't work."

Hillary Clinton may have a feature role in Moore's new movie, Sicko, but he isn't sparing the second and third place contenders, either. Saying he was not ready to endorse any specific candidate, Moore said he would be closely reading the health care plans of the other candidates. "I'll look at Clinton's plan if she produces one. And I can tell you why the Edwards' plan won't work, and why the Obama plan won't work."

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,127477.shtml

>>
A week before award- winning film-maker Michael Moore will begin to ask Presidential candidates to sign a pledge to make dramatic reforms in the U.S. health care system, Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich -- in Moore's own words -- "is 100 percent on board."
....
By contrast, Kucinich's contributions have come from individuals supporting a bill sponsored by Kucinich and U.S. Rep. John Conyers to create a national, not-for-profit health plan that would cover all medical, dental, mental health and long-term care for all Americans. Moore endorsed that legislation earlier this week.
>>

--and hers won't work either.

and that goes for Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. Unless they're prepared to cut out the middle man and make true universal healthcare...we won't see much improvement in the system.

...and many medical professionals.

This has to be incremental. Putting all the marbles on single payer healthcare AND NOTHING ELSE will keep the system exactly where it is now...and will get worse.

Let's start with universal and affordable healthcare first.

there is no fucking thing as "affordable health insurance".

Single payer is the ONLY way I'll ever be covered along with most of my 47 million uncovered brothers and sisters.

HR 676 is all ready to go. It's been PROVEN to work, be efficient and effective and is popular with the VAST majority of folks (like my parents) who are already on it -- HR676 is Medicare FOR ALL.

HR676 - Already works, Already loved by those on it.

Incremental is BULLSHIT -- please urge what MUST BE DONE or get out of the way!!!


On Edit: "pharma and insurance industries......and many medical professionals." (the richest of docs, I suppose -- NO nurses want the current system)

This is a rather small minority of greedy leeches. Shouldn't be hard to roll over those assholes.

Plus medicare is not single payer. It's a whole hodgepodge of outsourced contracts to private insurance companies and states. If you have a rare illness in Ohio and the best place to get treatment is in Texas, your Ohio medicare doesn't cover you in Texas at all.

These issues have to be worked out. I hope HR 676 does that but I don't think it does (it can certainly be amended).

Standard, NON-HMO Medicare is universal and national. Basic Medicare IS a single-payer system.

HR676 is an improvement on the current Medicare.

And YES, rich folks and businesses would have to pay more "taxes" to support universal, national single-payer but what they would pay in to the Single-Payer System would be substantially less than what they pay to the for profit leaches -- and there'd be electoral accountability (if we ever get truly clean elections). Right now the insurance and pharma mafia are NOT accountable to anyone but their rich shareholders.

Have you checked out HR676 yet?

http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676_2.htm

My father has basic medicare in Ohio and contracted a rare form of cancer. He wanted to seek treatment in California and was told his medicare is only valid in the state of Ohio - excepting basic emergency lifesaving care. He is not in any privatized Medicare plan. We took this all the way to his congressman (Steve Chabot) who's office very clearly told me, myself, that medicare grants are given to the states and the state itself runs medicare within minimal guidelines set by the feds.

I contacted the state of Georgia just out of curiousity and was told the state of Georgia's medicare laws allow only for basic lifesaving care outside the state of Georgia.....which, in fact, mirrors what we were told by the state of Ohio. I called Cynthia McKinney's office (my former Georgia Rep) and was told the same thing I was told by the Ohio Congressman.


Now, my mother joined Humana Medicare HMO and was very clearly told her coverage will be in her own metropolitan area only - excepting basic emergency lifesaving care.

Now if these 2 states and the respective Reps told me wrong then so be it. But I did spend quite a lot of time and quite frankly tears on this.

Eventually, his doctor worked with a doctor at the Texas facility to set up a treatment plan and to amend it as necessary -- but we had to do a lot of tripping over problems with chemotherapy drugs that Medicare in Texas has approved and Medicare in Ohio has not. My father has suffered more than would have been necessary with the "ideal" drugs but unfortunately my family is not wealthy enough to take him to Texas and pay cash for his treatments. -- It's clear now he will be a survivor but his treatment lasted more than twice as long as what it should.


Anyways, you have my rant...........

for passage of HR676.

This WOULDN'T happen if HR676 were the law of the land.

Yes, I know Kucinich's bill requires the ability to be treated by any legal provider. However, you told me I was squalking repuke talking points by saying Medicare is not currently portable. And you are mistaken.

I brought the point up because it's extremely important that we DO NOT ALLOW the portability provision of the bill to be amended out. If all we do is take the current form of medicare and extend it to all, we create a system that has failure built into it -- namely because the current medicare system is failing.

...so what are you going to do?

If you have a logistical, practical and doable plan to make the pharma and insurance industries say to themselves that they should get rid of 50% of their workers (where do these workers go?) and lay down like a limp rag, then please offer that plan.

It's easy to say we need single-payer style healthcare in the same way that we need to end the war. How do you do it without the votes and with a mountainous barrier to getting either done?

Life is not like TV and remote control. Click...change...

Healthcare reform has to be incremental. Start with possibly having the same healthcare plans as senators and congressmen and perhaps government workers with very affordable monthly payments. Then move toward more universal healthcare.

Like SaveElmer said, you won't get anything accomplished with a nearly impossible Hail Mary pass.

As long as you surrender before you start -- you lose.

The health insurance corporations have NO BUSINESS IN OUR HEALTH CARE!!!

There IS a proven better way!

HR676

Pharm production is already automated. Mail order prescriptions are filled through automation now. Likely the only jobs cut at big Pharm are a few lobbyists, if even that. More likely the CEO's will quit and go find another job where they can get rich off someone else's suffering and a new "cheaper" CEO will have to be hired.

I agree with this...

And it isn't just the bigwigs at big pharma and health care companies...they have 10's of thousands of employees as well....

Holding out for single payer is going to keep things static....

I think all the Democratic candidates (except Kucinich) accept this, and are crafting plans, and in some cases have implemented policies, which get us closer a step at a time...

Paradoxically, I think this approach will not only get us closer, but will achieve 100% coverage faster than waiting for a hail mary to work...

How many more deaths of uninsured and underinsured people will it take?

Get the for-profit leaches out of the system.

Quite a few of the people who do the real work (not the fucking leaches at the top) can gain employment in the new Single-Payer system.

For the rest, they will be outsourced soon anyway (if they haven't already) so they'll be in the same boat those of us in the computer programming business have been rowing for over a decade now. I feel their pain but they will survive. (Hell, the real workers ain't paid shit anyway.)

because they cannot afford one (there are many uninsured young single people who think that they can go without one).

On many occasions on DU and elsewhere, the ones currently covered by their employer like what they have yes, even the HMO and many are afraid of Canadian style system.

And do you really think you can sell Americans a "Cuban" style system? Or a Russian one?

As Hillary says: she has the scars to prove how complicated the issue is, selling it to the American people.

was pandering to the insurance companies -- who were the MAJOR corporate contributors to her hubby's campaigns.

For Profit = EVIL

Single-Payer = Good!!

How do you create a system that the people who actually do the work don't want?

It isn't as if we are inventing the wheel. It has been invented and been tested in other countries. If insurance companies want a piece of the action and if some doctors feel that national health care won't work, then they can offer an alternative system for extra money and let the rich use that system if they want. BUT, all elected representatives would have to be on the same plan as all other Americans.

If so, could you detail why?

Why would you even proffer such a notion? I liked Roger and Me a ton. The Awful Truth was well done. Bowling for Columbine was decent. But Fahrenheit 9/11 and now Sicko make Democrats look foolish and gives the President (administration) ready made ammo for the Reich Wing crowd. For example, when Murtha came out against the war Bush in China called Murtha a disciple of Michael Moore (clearly, he's not) but it made for a good sound bite for Clear Channel and FAUX News. I don't think he needed to go to Cuba to make his point just like he didn't need the Bin Laden family flights to make a damning Iraq movie. Quite simply, he's an awful propagandist in a media system that both encourages and lynches propagandists.

Moore comes off as a fool to much of America and that doesn't help the cause (don't argue box office receipts equal popularity). I much prefer serious documentaries to satirical documentaries. This is not to say I'm against satire, but as Jon Stewart and Al Gore noted recently on the Daily Show, it is much more effective to blur entertainment and entertainment for satirical effect than it is to blur news and entertainment. Moore is part of the problem, not the solution, not even a part of the solution. I'm not even going to get into the nitty gritty of socialized medicine vs. Americanized medicine. Most Americans do not need Michael Moore to tell them that their health-care system is junk (I've worked in a privately owned urban convalescent home). This movie isn't going to change anyone's mind; preacher meet choir.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/21/MNGUFFRQVU1.DTL

Flame away! :hide::popcorn:

"Most Americans do not need Michael Moore to tell them that their health-care system is junk "

but ... maybe ... most americans need someone to start the fire ... and maybe/hopefully he will be the one to strike the match.

"most americans need someone to start the fire"

Somehow, I don't think so, because really the problem is leadership, not motivation IMHO. I wouldn't say Moore appeals to more than 35% of Americans and that's being pretty generous, and maybe only 5-15% of those folks will see the movie. C'mon even I giv'em more credit than that and I often refer to the "American sheeple." Moore doesn't come off as anymore compelling than Southpark in terms of posing what exactly is wrong with America. He caricatures and that doesn't sell in the electoral marketplace. People don't want pointless negativity, they want to a solution, they want hope.

kicked it up a few notches.

people are talking about it now because of this movie. they're talking and it's making the news. hopefully it will continue down this path and the voices will grow louder and the conversation will build rather than fade.

i can't think of anyone else who has brought this issue into the limelight. can you?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It'll make you cry instead.

I've worked in healthcare. I've seen the worst of it, fraud, suffering, poverty, bureaucracy. I was an occupational therapy aide in a convalescent hospital just west of downtown L.A for a summer. Nothing shocks me anymore. I think I'll save my time and money.

This should be helpful to Mr Kucinich's campaign, in getting it broader exposure. :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

MANCHESTER, N.H., June 22 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A week before award- winning film-maker Michael Moore will begin to ask Presidential candidates to sign a pledge to make dramatic reforms in the U.S. health care system, Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich -- in Moore's own words -- "is 100 percent on board."


PS - nice bit of spin on your part tacking this: " Hillary Clinton may have a feature role in Moore's new movie, Sicko, but he isn't sparing the second and third place contenders, either. " which doesn't appear anywhere in the article, onto this paragraph: " Saying he was not ready to endorse any specific candidate, Moore said he would be closely reading the health care plans of the other candidates. "I'll look at Clinton's plan if she produces one. And I can tell you why the Edwards' plan won't work, and why the Obama plan won't work." "

the article.

that determines Mr Obama and Mr Edwards are "second and third place contenders" - wyldwolf, with no attribution to support that contention. Further, it implies that either Michael Moore, or the author of the piece considers Mrs Clinton to be the front funner.

That is spin.

and she may turn around and support H.R. 676. It would make it slightly easier for me to vote for her in the general, if not the primary.

I didn't think you liked him.

Who inhabits a black and white world, where everyone is either a hero or a villain...and the solution to every problem is easy...

But in terms of what it takes to make progress on the many problems we live with...he knows very little..

What he doesn't understand, or doesn't want to understand, is that we actually live in a world where half the country (or so) disagrees with Moore's outlook, that there are very powerful entrenched interests - companies with huge numbers of employees that wield alot of power, and that easy to understand solutions to problems such as single payer universal health care are impossible to implement all at once...

So rather than wait for that mythical day, when the health care companies, big pharma, and the Republican Party all come to their senses and realize a Canadian style health care system is in everybody's interests, and to their credit in my opinion, Obama, Edwards and Clinton, recognize and are willing to take a more incremental approach to solving the health care crisis...one which will have a far greater chance of success, and paradoxically a better chance of happening more quickly, than the approach Moore advocates...

"So rather than wait for that mythical day, when the health care companies, big pharma, and the Republican Party all come to their senses and realize a Canadian style health care system is in everybody's interests, and to their credit in my opinion, Obama, Edwards and Clinton, recognize and are willing to take a more incremental approach to solving the health care crisis...one which will have a far greater chance of success, and paradoxically a better chance of happening more quickly, than the approach Moore advocates"

It seems to me we settle for something less than good too many times in this country.
Then it takes the next century to get the right thing done because there are those who will say, "Healthcare? We already took care of that."

Micheal Moore has never said he knows everything or that he has all the right answers. But he damn well has the courage to bring topics people want to ignore out of the closet and into the light. They are topics we very much need to examine and discuss, even if it's painful.

Almost no politician has devoted more hours or effort to health care than Hillary Clinton...

And your characterization of the incremental solution to the crisis is wholly incorrect....

Perhaps you would like to explain that to the millions of children who are covered under the SChip program and the million more that will be covered if Hillary gets her way....

These are the types of efforts that get us closer to 100% coverage that either don't require the input of big healthcare or is something they can get on board with...

Letting millions of people twist in the wind waiting for some pie in the sky solution that may never arrive is not acceptable...

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

--inadequate under the current system, you're just going along with Clinton, Obama and Edwards and advocating opening the taps wider while a lot of those funds are just going down the drain. Maybe just putting in the dsmned plug makes more sense? Ya think?

I really like what Moore does with his movies, but he has to know the specifics of how single-payer healthcare is nearly impossible to do in the immediate future with the way the insurance and pharma industries have a stranglehold on DC. Healthcare reform has to be incremental. Affordable universal healthcare should be the first target....and it is possible.

You're part of the problem.

The health care mafia and big pharma aren't that big and powerful. You're giving them the power. Don't do that!

Work towards the only reasonable solution or get out of the way with your negative vibes...



On EDIT: "Affordable universal healthcare should be the first target....and it is possible."

Yes it is but ONLY if you get the for-profit leaches OUT OF THE SYSTEM!!!!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Even if you're very qualified and healthy??? How do you pay for it?

Who is Eligible

# Every person living in or visiting the United States and the U.S. Territories would receive a United States National Health Insurance Card and ID number once they enroll at the appropriate location. Social Security numbers may not be used when assigning ID cards.

Health Care Services Covered

# This program will cover all medically necessary services, including primary care, in patient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, long term care, mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment. Patients have their choice of physicians, providers, hospitals, clinics and practices. No co-pays or deductibles are permitted under this act.

Conversion To A Non-Profit Health Care System

# Private health insurers shall be prohibited under this act from selling coverage that duplicates the benefits of the USNHI program. Exceptions to this rule include coverage for cosmetic surgery, and other medically unnecessary treatments. Those who are displaced as the result of the transition to a non- profit health care system are the first to be hired and retrained under this act.

Cost Containment Provisions/ Reimbursement

# The National USNHI program will set reimbursement rates annually for physicians, allow for "global budgets" (annual lump sums for operating expenses) for health care providers; and negotiate prescription drug prices. The national office will provide an annual lump sum allotment to each existing Medicare region; each region will administer the program.

# The conversion to a not-for-profit health care system will take place over a 15 year period. U.S. treasury bonds will be sold to compensate investor-owned providers for the actual appraised value of converted facilities used in the delivery of care; payment will not be made for loss of business profits. Health insurance companies could be sub-contracted out to handle reimbursements.

Proposed Funding For USNHI Program:

# Maintaining current federal and state funding of existing health care programs. A modest payroll tax on all employers of 3.3%. A 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners. A small tax on stock and bond transfers. Closing corporate tax loop-holes, repealing the Bush tax cut.


http://www.sickocure.org/
http://www.sickocure.org/materials_and_resources/
http://www.healthcare-now.org/
http://www.sickocure.org/docs/676angellintro.pdf
http://www.pnhp.org/action/letter_to_the_editor_examples.php


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.676:

Here's a good summery of the history and structure
of Canadian 'socialized' medical care.

The plan was created by the great Tommy Douglas;
Baptist Minister, lifetime socialist and grandfather
of Keifer Sutherland. The summery below clears up
a lot of misconceptions regarding the Canadian system.

Thomas C. Douglas:

"The Father of Canadian Health Care"

http://www.mta.ca/faculty/arts/canadian_studies/english/about/study_guide/doctors/delivery.html

Thomas C. Douglas (1904-1986) was not a doctor; he was a politician from Saskatchewan. His contribution to Canadian medicine was not due to a medical skill or great discovery, but as "the father of Canadian health care." He introduced socialized medicine (state-sponsored and salaried-physician medical care) to the province of Saskatchewan during his 44-year political career. Douglas envisioned and worked towards a universal system of health care that moved beyond provincial to national enactment, and today has become the envy of most countries in the world.

Douglas entered politics in the 1930s in Saskatchewan as a member of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), the precursor to the New Democratic Party (NDP). He had been horrified and angered by the destitution that the economic depression and drought had wrought in his province. Douglas was a socialist, and he would lead the first socialist provincial government in Canada. From 1944 to 1964, the CCF formed the government in Saskatchewan, led by premiers Douglas and Woodrow Lloyd.

Among many public projects, the Saskatchewan government pioneered the first public hospital insurance and medicare programs in Canada. Universal health care had been Douglas' concept, which he promoted and fought for throughout his political career. But what was Douglas suggesting? What did he mean by "universal health care"?

Various types of health insurance were available in Canada before the CCF government assumed power. There were many doctor-sponsored plans by non-profit organizations as well as private insuring agencies, to which many Canadians subscribed. In some cases, Canadians were provided with health insurance through the terms of their employment. Thus many Canadians had some form of insurance protection. The sick and needy were admitted to hospitals as charity cases. But there were many inequities in the medical care system, as some plans covered only hospital visits or physician care but not drugs or treatment.

In Saskatchewan, the CCF administration of Douglas became the first provincial government to enact hospital coverage (in 1947) and medical coverage (in 1962). It began with province-wide hospital coverage and a pilot project of full medical services in the town of Swift Current. Doctors were paid salaries by the government (via taxes), which in the end proved to be more money than medical practitioners had earned in the past. It proved successful, and full medical services were extended to the entire province in 1962.

Remembering the financial difficulties of the 1930s, Douglas promoted the plan as both ensuring doctor payment and meeting the health needs and demands of the people. The doctors in the province did not agree. The College of Physicians and Surgeons feared that a full medical services program was a major step towards a socialized, salaried medical profession, answerable only to the government. Doctors in Saskatchewan went on strike for 23 days. Doctors' reactions to government health insurance schemes played an important role in shaping the national health care program.

In 1964, a royal commission recommended a national health care system modeled on the Saskatchewan plan. (In 1958, the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act had been passed, providing government-sponsored hospital coverage to all Canadians. The federal government had no plan to extend their commitment to health care with full medical services coverage at that time.) In 1968, the Medical Care Act was passed providing universal health insurance to all Canadians.

It was not socialized medicine; doctors were not paid salaries. Instead doctors work on a fee for service basis, billing not the patient but a third party - the Canadian government. As scholar David Naylor states, it was "private practice and public payment." Canadian physicians have lobbied effectively to secure their position as private practitioners and not salaried employees of the government. In 1984, the Canada Health Act replaced earlier hospital and medical coverage acts.

The Canadian universal health care system, although expensive, remains an important national 'right' or principle of this country. As stated in the Canada Health Act, the federal government is committed to maintaining Canada's world-renowned health insurance system. This system is universally available to permanent residents, comprehensive in the services it covers, accessible without income barriers, portable within the country, and publicly funded. Each province and territory administers its own health care plan with respect for these five basic principles of the Canada Health Act. Studying the Canadian model, our neighbour to the south has been unsuccessful in its attempt to launch a similar public health-insurance system.


• Main | Introduction

he didn't actually make any case for why Edwards or Obama's plans won't work.

Doug D.

and it stands a better chance of passing. I'm unfamiliar with Obama's plan. From what I've heard it is not as specific as Edwards' or Kucinich's.

As I understand it, Edwards' plan is a modified version of Jacob Hacker's Health Care for America plan where the government establishes a plan and private employers must either pay into the plan or provide a privately-run plan that is equal to the public plan. From what I read, Hacker is somewhat critical of Edwards' plan in that he thinks it is rigged a bit in favor of private insurance. I've yet to read the Hacker book, but based on some of the articles I've read on it, it seems like a plan that would eventually turn into single payer as private insurance could not compete with the more efficiently run public plan. And it seems less vulnerable to the scare tactics that would accompany a more dramatic shift to universal single payer.

I'd prefer Kucinich's plan, but I'm not going to trash Edwards' proposal. With minor adjustments to ensure that competition between the public plan and private insurance is really fair, even Edwards' health care proposal would be the most significant social welfare benefit since Medicare and Medicaid. I'd call that progress.