His utopian views of a single-payer system may be doing more harm than good to those who support a government-run, “free”, health care system:
And there’s another problem with his documentary work: a lack of subtlety that delights many of his fans, but does not draw serious consideration from students of the problem. Negative attacks have made this critic of capitalism rich and famous; unfortunately they have not led to the changes that he advocates. It’s likely that, even if America does go for national health care, the final product will fall short of his own political goals.
Related posts:
- Ezra Klein on mainstream media’s fear of Michael Moore
- Attacking Michael Moore
- More on Illinois’ single-payer death
- Medicare and single-payer
- Single-payer: Read the fine print
- A single-payer compromise?
- The meltdown of Michael Moore
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 12 comments }
My training was Midwest, and some of it was in Michigan.
I remember Michael Moore from “Flint Voice” days.
Let’s just say, he has had no credibility with me for decades.
Well, if opening up the issue again for public dialogue is an obstacle, then I would suggest we all stop blogging right now!
Moore has done much more to get us talking about health care in this country than any politician that I know of.
You may not agree with him, but that is not the real issue. he’s getting us to think about it and put it on our agendas.
For me, that’s equivalent to removing obstacles, not creating them.
IMHO,
John Mack
“Let’s just say, he has had no credibility with me for decade”
…and yet you are dismissing Sicko out of hand rather than on the merits.
The criticism of Moore’s proposal less than perfect ring rather hollow given the US health care industry’s cost/benefit ratio–which is pathetic
It cannot be argued that Moore’s documentary hasn’t raised the issue to the fore and once again inspired people to look beyond the status quo and the interests of the insurance industry.
Moore isn’t a politician. I think those who rail against him do protest too much. If you don’t like his suggestion come up with one of your own. But up to now, the US healthcare industry has gone nowhere and gone there slowly with no systemic change in sight.
“…Moore has done much more to get us talking about health care in this country than any politician that I know of…”
huh? Nice try but you couldn’t be further from the truth. A quick scroll through Kevin’s blogroll will show a number blogs that have been discussing the issues for years before Moore came along. Plus, HC has been on the top 5 list of voter concerns for years. Furthermore, the medical community is in a constant state of debate on the issue.
Nothing new here. Just another johnny-come-lately…
Let me add to that.
Yes, he’s had the reputation for a long time. I remember that rag he printed, it tried to go statewide and is now out of existence.
He was shown the door at Mother Jones.
He made Roger and Me, pretending Roger Smith was ducking him, when in fact he had met Roger Smith, twice.
Part of my training was in Flint. I know the town well enough to say that any attempt to blame it’s condition on Roger Smith is questionable, to put it mildly.
In regards to Fahrenheit 9/11, Dave Kopel wrote his “fifty-nine deceits” paper, you can access here: http://davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
The title number does not exactly match the number of deceits on the paper, as Kopel added and retracted “deceits” as new ones were pointed out, or when he became convinced what he thought of as a “deceit” could just as easily be a difference of opinion.
Kopel was willing to hear the other side.
Unlike Michael Moore.
So, yes, I would dismiss anything Michael Moore did, out of hand, because he is a fraud. He has a long track record of being a fraud.
He’s done nothing in “Sicko” that would change my opinion of him.
And when actually challenged, you see what he does, as in the post above this one.
“And when actually challenged, you see what he does, as in the post above this one.”
Can’t say that Wolf Blitzer was much better about being challenged than Moore.
Either way, at least the issue is being discussed seriously.
As for “deceits” in Fahrenheit 9/11, it is quite accurate for a piece of pure advocacy, and it’s 1000% more accurate than Fox News–who’s viewers receive counterfactual information on a daily basis and believe that Sadam Hussein was involved in 9/11.
Michael Moore constitutes “serious discussion”?
That’s a good one.
>>As for “deceits” in Fahrenheit 9/11, it is quite accurate for a piece of pure advocacy,
It’s a piece of something all right.
Obviously you haven’t read Kopel’s paper on the subject. The link is above, I’ll leave it to the group to read if you haven’t already.
You physicians who constantly criticize the healthcare system are no different than Moore. You both are bitching. You’ve just got less of an audience for your solutions. Hell, you don’t even have any solutions, so he’s way ahead of you.
“You physicians who constantly criticize the healthcare system are no different than Moore. You both are bitching. You’ve just got less of an audience for your solutions. Hell, you don’t even have any solutions, so he’s way ahead of you.”
Sure we do – you just don’t want to hear them or basically disagree with them. Fix malpractice. Increase reimbursement. Take the government out of healthcare. Take the bullshit we go through out of managed care. And even if we get the system Moore dreams of – where are you going to get the docrors? It will be great when everyone has insurance, but the supply of doctors a’int gonna change unless our working environment changes. Yeah right that we don’t have any solutions.
“Fix malpractice. Increase reimbursement. Take the government out of healthcare. Take the bullshit we go through out of managed care. “
Those are nice slogans, but you’re not going to get very far legislatively with slogans.
“Take the government out of healthcare”? And replace it with. . . ? How do you take an entity paying nearly 1/2 of all expenditures out?
“Increase reimbursement”? Well, you just took the party that reimburses you out – so who is going to increase it for you?
That’s why you’re going to get single payer – because you just summed up all the depth of your side’s ideas.
“Those are nice slogans, but you’re not going to get very far legislatively with slogans.”
Neither will you with the mantra – excuse me, slogan – of single payer. Again, you can fix the insurance side of the equation, but there aren’t going to be enough docs to fill the demand. It’s already happening in endocrinology, primary care, neurosurgery, ObGyn, hand surgery and more. So – carry on all you’d like about how single payer will cure our ills. It won’t unless the “solution” addresses the doctor supply side of the equation, and that means fixing all of the above that I mentioned. Of course, if we really do get single payer, then at least I’ll be a federal employee with hours from 9 to 3, 2 hour lunch breaks, and most importantly, malpractice caps.
Comments on this entry are closed.