Could Michael Moore Screw Universal Healthcare?

Could Michael Moore Screw Universal Healthcare?


As you all well know, Sicko is coming out soon and I’m holding my breath in fear. Why?

Well, of course I sympathize with the notion that things need to change since so many Americans live without healthcare and are one hospital visit away from financial ruin. And as I’ve said on this blog many times, its immoral that we don’t have some form of healthcare for all at this point. However, could Moore achieve the exact opposite of what he proposes? Could he turn even more people against the idea of health care for all?

Well, remember the Cuban stunt? He pulled his old schtick and our Treasury Deapartment took notice.

The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control notified Moore in a letter dated May 2 that it was conducting a civil investigation for possible violations of the U.S. trade embargo restricting travel to Cuba. A copy of the letter was obtained Tuesday by the AP.

“This office has no record that a specific license was issued authorizing you to engage in travel-related transactions involving Cuba,” Dale Thompson, OFAC chief of general investigations and field operations, wrote in the letter to Moore.

In February, Moore took about 10 ailing workers from the Ground Zero rescue effort in Manhattan for treatment in Cuba, said a person working with the filmmaker on the release of “Sicko.” The person requested anonymity because Moore’s attorneys had not yet determined how to respond.

Here’s the best part…

Moore declined to comment, said spokeswoman Lisa Cohen.

Nice. Let’s not forget that Castro has been brutal with dissidents…but I digress…

Listen, I thought Roger & Me was a damn fine piece of citizen activism, but the fame has gotten to Moore and he’s become increasingly hacky, even going as far as saying his movies are satire when questioned about the validity of certain facts. Well, Ann Coulter calls herself a satrist too. I’m not saying he’s as bad as her, but I am saying his excuses allow people to easily place him in a similar group.

And just in case you’re wondering, it’s being reported that Sicko calls for government-run health care, which has been political poison since I can remember…

In “Sicko,” the filmmaker calls for abolishing the insurance industry, putting a tight regulatory collar on pharmaceutical companies and embracing a Canadian-style government-run system.

Oye…here’s more…

Rejecting Moore’s prescription on healthcare could alienate liberal activists, who will play a big role in choosing the party’s next standard-bearer. However, his proposal â€â€? wiping out private health insurance and replacing it with a massive federal program â€â€? could be political poison with the larger electorate. […]

If Moore’s fire-breathing proposal catches on among party activists, who tend to be suspicious of the private sector and supportive of direct government action, the candidates’ pragmatic, consensus-seeking ideas could look like weak-kneed temporizing â€â€? much the way their rejection of an immediate pullout from Iraq has drawn heated criticism from antiwar activists.

So could he screw us all over? Do know that I think we’ll eventually get universal health care, but could Moore set us back another decade? It would certainly be an ironic footnote that the very film that was made to help the cause actually ended up hurting it.

And here’s the biggest problem I have with Moore in all of this…he’s calling for something that will NEVER happen, and I think he knows it. So he’ll always have something to fight against. Because even if we do get universal health care in some form (most likely a mix of private and public), he won’t be satisified.

Weigh in with your thoughts…

  • Jim S

    Wouldn’t we have to have a realistic chance of achieving universal health care for Moore to affect anything? I disagree with you that there is any realistic chance of achieving it any time soon. And by soon I mean the next several decades. The amount of power wielded by corporate “health care” is just too great IMO. I mean, how many people still buy into that “Do you want the government choosing your health care?” schtick even as their employers are the ones making that decision and basing it in large part on what saves them the most money.