Huh? How does Sicko ignore people without health insurance? The film is about implementing Universal Health Insurance in the U.S. so that no one has to get by without health insurance. It is about people with no health insurance as much as is it about anything. Certainly it covers the issues of incomplete coverage and claim denials for those who do have insurance but to claim it ignores people without health insurance is mistaken. I saw the film last week and I think it's his best piece by far. The film has a much more specific point than his previous films. Universal Health Insurance in the U.S. now.
The film may not use the word "socialism" directly with health care but it mentions socialized services repeatedly. Could Moore have added more information about the history of socialism as a driving force in countries with socialized medicine? Sure, but the film is long already and has lots of information. How would that have improved it? If your goal is to attempt to remove some of the stigma the word socialism has in the US then including this fact might make sense, but if your goal is to get Universal Health Care in the U.S. now then consciously linking that effort with the word socialism may do more harm than good in the US. Many Americans might oppose "the health care system of socialist countries" as a knee-jerk reaction to that word when they actually favor universal coverage. Exactly how would that help implement Universal Health Care in the U.S. right now?
Herod is just wrong when he says the word Capitalism "was not mouthed once by anyone in the film" however the film isn't an anti-Capital film, it is a Universal Health Care film. If Herod wants an anti-Capital film he should make one himself rather than complain about the fact that Moore didn't make one. (And never claimed he was making one) Herod's critique is very weak. He seems to want to dislike Moore's work regardless of it's merits and is attempting to find some reason that will allow him to do just that. What the fuck is it about Moore that makes people dislike him in such irrational ways? Why the need on some people's part to dislike someone who is doing something positive and concrete about a real issue like health care? Why not just be glad someone is doing this work in a high enough profile manner to get noticed and possibly get results instead of lamenting that he isn't doing enough or isn't doing it the way someone else wants it done? For fucks sake if you want a Pro-Socialist film about health care make the fucking thing yourself.
I for one am glad Moore has brought the idea of Universal Health Care to the forefront. I've been told by list members here on more than one occasion that this issue is dead and won't happen in the next several years. Maybe, but it looks possible right now. I heard Trent Lott mention in an interview recently that we may have a U.S. Government run health care system five years from now. He wasn't happy about that but he seems to consider it a real possibility so why the hell shouldn't I or anyone on this list?
John Thornton