SiCKO: "please know how deeply it pains me to admit this - it was absolutely briliant.

Twice, I was moved to tears."

(from an apparent right wing poster. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/06/sicko.html )

Suffering is good for the soul, as our fundie brethern would say.

in order to make it the first week is critical. This is the kind of movie/documentary, that doesn't need the first week, in fact it will build as more and people see it, and word of mouth gets out

And there's a lot more coming down the pike...

and the right.

Sure, you'll still find rabid righties who honestly believe that we'd be giving up some of the "fantastic" research and development in health care by nationalizing health care, but, for the most part, any working person who is trying to make premium payments while their services are being cut will stand in support of a national health care plan.

Yes, the media will still try and press the phony line that nationalized health care in all those other industrialized countries is far inferior to our own, but any working person who sees their cars, house and jobs wiped away whilst trying to overcome the financial burdeon associated with one traumatic disease will stand in support of a national health care plan.

THIS is the "wedge" issue - if only our so-called leaders would support something of substantial change (only Kucinich is, as far as I know).

sadly, though... the front runners on our side kowtow to the insurance industry as much as the corporatists on the right.

You have hit the nail on the head. This is the one unifying issue for most Americans. Everyone needs health care at one time or another and the cost are getting unbearable. We should never look for "wedge issues". We don't want to divide America, that is the Republican's way of doing business. We want to unite America and make it healthy in every way possible.

"Hands Up. Would you make single payer health care a reality in as short as time possible if you knew you would win the votes of every American eligible to vote who is covered by insurance and Americans who are not covered by insurance"?

edited for spelling

I liked Michael Moore's comment during the q&a in the lobbyists' screening video in regard to the downfalls of socialized medicine in those countries who have it: why not take the successful aspects of each country's program & incorporate them to make our own?

Sullivan makes the argument that under the US system there is more incentive (profit) for research and development of new procedures and drugs. It's actually a good argument but as was mentioned earlier, why can't we find a "work around". (I'd add that there is a down side like big pharma pushing drugs.)


This was also interesting. Last December Sully posted this: In 2005 "Fox News journalist David Asman. His wife suffered a stroke during a trip to London, and was treated at London's Queen's Square before being taken back to the US. As he followed her progress, Asman had a chance to consider the strenghs and weaknesses of both systems:

' When I received the bill for my wife's one-month stay at Queen's Square, I thought there was a mistake. The bill included all doctors' costs, two MRI scans, more than a dozen physical therapy sessions, numerous blood and pathology tests, and of course room and board in the hospital for a month. And perhaps most important, it included the loving care of the finest nurses we'd encountered anywhere. The total cost: $25,752. That ain't chump change. But to put this in context, the cost of just 10 physical therapy sessions at New York's Cornell University Hospital came to $27,000--greater than the entire bill from British Health Service!

There is something seriously out of whack about 10 therapy sessions that cost more than a month's worth of hospital bills in England. Still, while costs in U.S. hospitals might well have become exorbitant because of too few incentives to keep costs down, the British system has simply lost sight of costs and incentives altogether.'"

But, first, something needs to be done about corporate donations to political campaigns & corporate/government cronyism through lobbyists. The pharmaceutical companies shouldn't be allowed to place corporate profits above the patients' rights. And contrary to Sullivan's opinions about where the profits go, I'm not sure that they go toward research & development but rather in the pockets of the pharmaceutical CEO's. My guess is that research & development relies on grants from the government, and Lord help them if corporate-loving Rethugs are ruling the laws & the allocations of Congress.

Thanks for your post. :)

because it is something that directly affects them too.

It is sad, but for the most part, the RW cannot be bothered to get upset over anything that does not directly impact their lives.I'd bet this poster is up against the wall with rising premiums and costs and is hurting from a personal standpoint for a change.

It is too bad that they don't care about other people, but if a personal punch in the gut is what it takes to wake them up, then good, let 'em get hit hard and repeatedly.