I think it comes out today.
It's based on the false premise that 45M people in the US don't have healthcare.
Everyone in America has healthcare, although some people choose not to utilize it.

I would guess that Bill is basing this on a hatred of Michael Moore, instead of having watched the movie, since he posted this on the morning that the movie was released.

Bill, do you plan on watching Sicko?

Micheal Moore is a story teller. He had a story to tell. You only consider it propaganda because you don't like the subject of his story.

And to dispell your myth. I live in Canada in one of the socialized systems that you describe. You are wrong about choice. I can choose any surgeon I want, I can get as many second opinions as I want. The difference is, if I decide to go to a particular surgeon after "shopping around," I still pay the same amount....zero. I really don't understand where this myth about having no choice came from *shrug.*

Socialized health care works...I don't understand the resistance.

prop•a•gan•da ˌprɒp əˈgæn də –noun

1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

Please correct me if Michael Moore’s aim is not to assail the US healthcare system.
My aim is to be objective. Michael Moore usually isn’t.

As far as Socialism is concerned, it is a question of economics.
Talent, that which makes one surgeon "better" than another, is a scarce commodity.
The question to be addressed is how to most compassionately ration scarce commodities.

On the one hand, the commodity could be divided equally and shared among everyone.
If that is the course that is taken, those who need the commodity the least will receive an amount equal to those who need it the most. Acknowledging that the commodity is limited and again, scarce, this leads to shortfalls for some of those who require the commodity. This is the challenge of a socialistic distribution of resources. It leads to waste and a devaluation of scarce resources and black markets to try to fill in the gaps.
History has demonstrated the problems with this approach time and again, most egregiously in the "scissor effect" in Stalinist Russia, or in gas shortages in the US in the 70's. Just imagine if the government decided they were going to control foodstuffs the way they control healthcare in Canada. Everyone would be ensured a “free” meal (the money is purloined from the country’s citizens through taxation), but you would have little control over what you ate. What would the incentive be to become a master chef, training around the world so that you could work in a cafeteria serving federally sanctioned macaroni?

The alternative is a merit based system.
One in which talent, or any other commodity is rewarded, let's say by some form of remuneration.
This results in a stratification of available resources.
In this model, individuals who need access to the commodity can provide the fee required to purchase the commodity, or pay a reduced fee for a less attractive option. This model not only creates an incentive to be the most talented, but reduces the likelihood that people will waste the commodity. Prices of the commodity are determined by contrasting the need with the relative amount available --supply and demand.

Unfortunately, the situation that we have in medicine in the United States fits neither of these models, to its detriment. The pharmaceutical industry, to some extent does. That is the reason that the vast majority of medicines that are invented are invented in the US. As a result, new medications are available to countries around the world that do not compensate the drug companies. Of course if the majority of legislators in America get their way and end the ability of the pharmaceutical industry to be profitable, there will be an end to the productivity of these companies and the world will have to rely on the generosity of 2nd and 3rd world countries to begin to develop medicine.

Capitalism works. Every time it is tried.

Politicians continue to convince the great masses that more and more things are guaranteed by the rights of their constituents which have to be secured by legislation. The more power the government has, the less the people do. While I don't argue that you can get an infinite number of second opinions, I'd prefer to go to the best practitioner in the field, get the right opinion and get the treatment that will offer the best outcome. I would not want to be at the mercy of bureaucrats, and accountants who decide that a procedure is not advisable because of its cost. This happens to countless Americans with HMO's as it does in places like Canada and the UK. The difference in the US is that you can get off the carousel, go to a physician and be a self payer. The first thing that universal healthcare in America aims to do is make this illegal.

Although there is no easy solution, it seems to me that eliminating insurance in the US would be a good start. Those of us who are concerned about our health would then go to any physician we found acceptable and get the treatment that we believe is most appropriate. Physicians would charge what consumers would pay, not some abstract fee dreamed up by some failed CPA sitting on a Medicare board in DC.
Non-profit groups would create clinics to help underprivileged individuals and the cost of healthcare would go down.

Lastly,

Mediocrity, is not necessarily a bad thing.
Lord knows I'd rather receive a lobectomy from an average surgeon than a spectacular auto mechanic.
No one would admit that they fall into the center of the bell curve, but since 98% of any sample group do chances are the surgeons you know are average.

I loved the movie!

MJ

The only free screenings that I know of were the outdoor ones that occurred last Monday in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Oakland. I missed out on it too and ended up paying full price.

I haven't seen this film yet, but from the reviews it sounds like it will have a positive effect on the national debate.

FavoriteA: The Quebecois (Canadian) medical system sure has its faults, but there are many upsides too, such as universal coverage. Americans are often surprised to learn that the United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship. What's your biggest beef with the Canadian system?

I'm not a fan of long waits for treatments and doctors appointments, but my biggest beef is that most white-collar Canadians have supplemental coverage through work, effectively it's a two-tier system where the well-to-do receive better care. For some reason Canadians are really insecure about the perception of their system and want to make sure we in the US view it as utopian, and they tout this system endlessly but are mum on the topic of supplemental insurance. All limited goods are rationed - basic economics. The Canadian system has gaping holes just as the US does, let's not pretend otherwise.

I saw the trailer for SICKO at the movies last week and can't wait to see it! Whether you like Michale Moore or not, he's great at getting people fired up!

Most of my friends in Canada go to independent clinics. There are some clinics outside the system that cost thousands per year to join. I am not sure legally how these things fit in. They do not wait a million years to get an appointment with a regular family doctor, that's all but impossible.

I don't want the governmet that brought me the lost VA computers with thousands of SSNs, and the evaciation of New Orleans handling my healthcare system. The government that governs best governs least. The feds don't need to run the hospitals and I don't want to be a GS employee. If I, an endurance athlete, have to pay for the care of a chain smoking drunk, I want no part of it! A little personal responsability would go a long way to "fix" our healthcare system

I would agree with dmorse in that the federal government has proven that it can hardly handle the simplest things (laptop security) or much larger things (national disaster responses). I say we need public healthcare, but it should be regulated at the state level similar to what Gov. Schwarzenegger is proposing her in California.

BILL, BILL, BILL! To make such a comment like that: EVERYONE IN AMERICA HAS HEALTHCARE BUT SOME CHOSE NOT TO USE IT! Well, where were YOU when my elderly neighbor of 4 grandkids was at the emergency room the other day with 2 of 4 kids and made to wait 12 hours before they were seen? I was there with her and you were where? Be careful of what YOU are saying because EVERYONE means EVERYONE, ALL, ENTIRE. That's just not true of EVERYONE. Try being just a bit more compassionate. Remember, the shoe doesn't fit if YOU'RE not wearing it!

The alleged 45 millions Americans who are without health insurance, often choose to go without.

Mitt Romney had a great answer for Massachutesetts...MANDATORY INSURANCE. If your employer offers health insurance, you MUST take it. If you proove you cannot afford it, the state will subsidize the cost. If your employer does not offer insurance, the state will subsidize the cost.

This solution satisfies both sides and does not turn our health care system into another huge federal government beauraucracy.

I often wonder why the left is so fixated on our healthcare system....

Not every American has insurance and not everyone can afford it. It is true don't go there until you've walked in thier shoes. I have not seen the movie, not a fan of micael moore but there was a time when injured, not getting paid, short term disability and Worker Comp were fighting over liability, I was not getting paid, so did not have health Insurance. Another thing is when you call the insurance company for preapproval you do not talk to a professional in medicine. Be sure to ask for the RN advisor or to speak to the reviewing physician before you setlle for the denial. Also, and I am sure others have had this experience, my uncle was seeing a specialist and supposedly had the reputation of being the BEST in the area. Well after 6 mo of being missed diagnosed he finally listened to me and went for a second opinion, and lo and behold it was not his heart but has a lung disease which needs specific treatment. So affording the BEST is not a guarantee of the BEST treatment. Health care needs reform. Insurance Companies are getting rich. Many companies in Maine are struggling to offer their employees insurance and the amount the employees have to pay is increasing as well cutting into their available spending monies. This affects the local economy. I don't have a good answer. But let's keep the debate going.