'Sicko' is boffo' -- Jack Mathews (NY Daily News, 6/19/07)

Vital signs strong for Moore's health care documentary--

MrKen is planning to view Michael Moore's film essay, "Sicko", which takes on America's profoundly profitable and catastrophically inefficient health care system.

Some excerpts from Jack Mathews' review in the Daily News (6/19/07):

Anecdotal in nature, "Sicko" shows what's wrong with our health care system by comparing it with those in Canada, England and France, where universal health care is as ingrained in the social fabric as their national anthems.

Asked what would have happened in England if Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair had tried to dismantle the National Health Service, an elderly British statesman answers without pause, "There would have been a revolution."

In the U.S., politicians in the pockets of medical industry lobbyists respond to any universal health care movement by screaming, "Socialism!" And, as Hilary Clinton learned, it works...

...this is a picture about the big picture, showing that the U.S., while investing far more money in health care than any other country, ranks 38th in the world in effectiveness - far, far behind every other Western industrialized nation.

The reason for this poor return is that most of the money ends up in the bank accounts of the insurance and pharmaceutical companies, both of which are driven to improve the financial health of their stockholders...

...insurance company examiners ...find reasons not to approve claims, even if the patient is fatally ill...

...In England, where the motto is "Pay according to your means, get treated according to your needs," government-paid doctors receive bonuses for improving the health of their patients. What a concept.

Follow this link to read the full review: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/2007/06/19/2007-06-19_sicko_is_boffo.html

A Health Care Plan So Simple, Even Stephen Colbert Couldn't Simplify It

Excerpts from 'The New York Times' (Business Day page C3) 2/15/07 - Economic Scene, Robert H. Frank

'In his State of the Union address, President Bush proposed tax cuts to make health insurance more affordable for the uninsured. The next day, Stephen Colbert had this to say on his show on Comedy Central:'

"It's so simple. Most people who can't afford health insurance also are too poor to pay taxes. But if you give them a deduction from the taxes they don't owe, they can use the money they're not getting back from what they haven't given to buy the health care they can't afford."

'...That Mr. Bush's proposal will not shrink the ranks of the uninsured is not its most serious problem. Far more troubling is its embrace of a system under which we spend more than twice as much on health care, on average, as the 21 countries in which life expectancy exceeds ours. American costs are so high in part because the reliance on private insurance multiplies administrative expenses, currently about 31 percent of total outlays...'

'Most health economists agree that government-financed reimbursement is the only practical way to control these expenses, many of them stemming from insurers' efforts to identify and avoid unhealthy people. Canada's single-payer health system, which covers everyone, spends less than 17 percent on administrative expenses...'

'...If the single-payer system embraced by virtually all other developed countries is clearly the best solution, why doesn't the United States adopt it?...'

Link to the full article: http://www.nytimes.com/