Letters to the Editor
-
The commonality
"The sure sign of a corrupt proposal is when there is a requirement for universal coverage, i.e., no one can avoid being in it. Most of us have no need for a single-payer system, because most of us are healthy"
Health is relative, and in most cases temporay One never knows when one will need serious attention. You can be simply walking your smug, self-congratulating, healthy way down a street when - WHAM! - an out of control driver jumps the curb and smacks into your sorry ass. What then?
Oh sure, you can probably afford the care. But many others cannot. 85% of the American work force are actually only one major health catastophe from being financially wiped out. This should not be.
What you call a "corrupt proposal" of (currently) healthy 'Peters' paying for sick 'Pauls' is really the basis of a commonality - where we are all in this together and the stronger (and more well off) help the sicker, and less well off. THIS is what we call a compassionate society.
Universal care works precisely because the risk is shared over a vast population, rather than focused on a limited, more sickly one. It is the fair way to provide care for the most people at the most reasonable cost. Again, one never knows exactly when the time will come for major health needs, say after a catastrophic accident.
As Adam Smith himself noted in his 'Wealth of Nations' there are needs in civilized society that are not met (or met minimallly) in "barbaric" ones.
The choice before us now is to go forward as a civilized and humane society, or to revert more to the barbaric one that you seem to advocate.
-
Excuse me?
"[Universal coverage] is essentially the use of an extremely regressive tax on the middle class to subsidize a minority. "
This is wrong on so many levels. One of the more asinine comments I've seen posted here in a LONG time.
-
Investing in Health
"As for Big Pharma and so on, the only reason they have as big a voice as they do is because laws full of loopholes allow them to intrude into the political arena and commit graft - by selling their campaign donations as bribes to the highest bidders."
I can't prove it, but my big unhealthy gut says our very rich elected representatives are making lots of additional cash off their Big Pharma investments, as well.
-
Michael Moore, Be Well
I truly hope Michael Moore is able to get his weight down and increase his chances for a long, healthy life. (As others have noted, it's no guarantee, but it helps.) America needs him! Moore, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are the only three truth-tellers out there. Pretty scary, huh?
-
Tommy Douglas
Tommy Douglas is also Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather. An irrelevant fact in this context, I know.
-
Who is the audience?
I disagree with nearly all the criticisms leveled at SICKO by Stephanie Zacharek, not because they are incorrect or unreasonable, but because I believe Moore's film delivers its message in precisely the right way to engage the larger audience that this devastatingly important issue needs in order to evoke some change.
Zacharek admits she believes no sane person can argue with the premise of the movie, i.e. that the US needs universal health care. And I think the heart of the movie, intellectually, is Tony Benn's dissertation on the function of Democracy and its relation to health care and other issues of individual well being. But knowing that what Benn says is FACT does not change the politics or the strong feelings associated with the health care issue, and those are the driving forces of democracy. Moore's film engages the emotions and challenges the political hypocrisy that have kept reform at bay.
I say Michael Moore, as always, has his audience firmly in his sights, and I am very grateful to him for it. If he takes his reward by being the center of attention, I simply do not mind. AT ALL.
-
Cannons to the left and right
I am heartened after having read through all the letters concerning Zacharek's review of Sicko. Readers have shared a lot of important information and have also gone to bat for Michael Moore who not only has to defend himself against the most vicious and reprehensible attacks from the hard right, but also the slings and arrows from "high-minded" Liberal types who cannot stand his populism and popularity, nor the full measure of justice he demands.
However, the review shows its ugliest side in all the snarky and snide remarks, not only about Moore's physical appearance and documentary style (I for one love his use of cartoon stock footage) but the topic of the film. This is especially true of Cuba which like Moore has also been a target of both Liberals and Conservatives alike. Zacharek's blithe statement: "this is also a country that imprisons poets and homosexuals" fits into that tried and true trope of stigmatizing Cuba that has made major strides under extremely difficult circumstances. Then again, the film does show how we've been sold a pack of lies for decades, which I guess has seeped into the Liberal consciousness as much as the hysterical Conservative one. I would suggest checking the Feb 27 2007 USA Today article, "When it comes to gay rights, is Cuba inching ahead of USA?" for the latest.
Anyways, Moore remains one of a kind, a great filmmaker, rabble rouser, and activist.