Are HMO's Undermining Heath Care in America?

I recently got a chance to view Michael Moore's new documentary"Sicko," about the state of American health care system compared to that of European socialist systems and Cuba, where health care is 'free' or paid for by taxpayers. I was so moved by the story I got up and applauded more than twice during the showing. I have never done that at any movie whatsoever in my entire life.

I will point out two reasons of many why this documentary was highly significant and should be viewed by ALL Americans, no matter whether they agree with Moore or not (and surely those who oppose his point of view will try to discredit him). One reason is it is highly believable. Many of us have experienced the high cost of the American health care system from the over-priced pharmaceuticals to the very expensive specialists we need for our ailments and our senior citizens. The ones who suffer the most are our seniors, who (if they aren't rich) have to shell out a large portion of their retirement money to pay for over-priced meds and doctor care. Many of our senior's offspring have to take them in under their care because of how screwed up the health care system is here. I'm sure many of the senior's children don't mind caring for their parents but geez almighty! There has to be a better system to care for the elderly here in America.

The second reason is we should evaluate the European so-called 'socialist system' of health-care of countries like France and Great Britain. It appears to be quite efficient, even though many of Moore's detractors will try to point out flaws that in my opinion are weak attempts at trying to defend what can only be determined to be 'greedy conglomerates'. One such notion is that the idea of taxpayers footing the bill for universal health care probably would not sit well with most here in America. The fact that we are taxed anyway doesn't seem to matter much to those detractors. In the documentary a former British parliament member pointed out the whole idea of the American health care system and even other aspects of this society while not directly naming the U.S by saying, "there are two ways to keep people under control in order to continue the policies that primarily benefit the rich corporations. One is to frighten them, by speaking mostly of the 'disadvantages' of adopting foreign ways of doing things, and not clearly defining the repercussions but claiming such movements as inevitably disastrous ( in my opinion more than likely to the powers that be). The other is to demoralize them." He goes on to say, " an educated, healthy and confident nation is harder to control and there is more of an edge in keeping people poor, hopeless and pessimistic. They keep their mouths shut and just hope for the best."

Now many may argue all this Moore stuff is unpatriotic. Perhaps they are the ones who make up the segment of our society defined by the Brit. Of the reasons the health care and education systems in especially France seem to 'pamper' their citizens is because, as one observer pointed out, " this is one society where the government is afraid of the people, not the people afraid of the government." That France has a record of fierce demonstrations and protests because it's citizens are deeply involved in it's politics is no secret. That the government would grant them so many amenities, albeit taxed amenities out of fear of protest is hard to fathom. But as it stands their 'socialized system' of health care seems to be working, as it is in Britain and yes, Cuba. So why is this country the only one in the industrialized world not utilizing a system, or a variation of a system that seems to be efficient and far reaching in terms of preventable health treatment? It is fairly obvious really.

Money and greed.