Michael Moore's Latest Target: Your HMO

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by dmek25

its not that i think he banked anything. it just seems like when you and your family are NOT in need of any care, everything is fine with the insurance company. but once you need them, they run and hide. New Orleans is a perfect example of this. and to say they cant pay for a procedure like a heart transplant is just plain crazy. if they cant, who can? now my sister and their family are probably going to be financially burdened for maybe the rest of their lives

The HMO can't b/c it didn't collect premiums for years based on supplying it or other catastrophic losses like that. If the HMO had rated its premium for those types of costs, your brother would have had significantly higher premiums through the years. I pay for the most expensive family plan (a PPO) that my employer offers. It is significant expense BUT (having read the plan) it covers just about everything under the sun. The HMO offered by my employer costs about one-fifth the premium but simply doesn't provide enough coverage to make feel comfortable.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The problem with Moore is that he started out by presenting his arguments as authoratative "documentaries" - not "fact based", but "factual" documentaries.

Sure everybody now knows that he is simply a demagogue in the vein of Sharpton, who has an agenda (including his own aggrandizement) and who resorts to half truths, omissions and hyperbole. Originally, however, Moore presented himself, and allowed himself to be presented, as honestly portraying the facts of the subjects of his "documentaries". Go look up the Fahrenheit 911 thread - As I recall their were several defenders of Moore's "truth".

Sorry, Moore played the "I honestly portraying the facts" card and has since been called on it. He is in the same class as Sharpton, Limbaugh and others of that ilk and deserves to be reviled by any one who values honesty in approaching and solving the problems that confront us as a society.

As for being corrupt, I am not so much accusing him of being corrupt as dishonest in both his method and in his motives.

I think that sums it up excellently

[hagams]

Being that I have Tri-care, and I'm in the Military, I can't judge on the Health care in the Nation. However, Michael Moore is no better than any other conman. But, what everyone seems to be forgetting is that he's making a movie about this, not taking it to court, not challenging anyone directly which tells me he's out to make a couple bucks doing this. Take it with a grain of salt. If our Health Care is that jacked up, this isn't the way to fix it.

[Sammy Baugh Fan]

[MTK]

Originally Posted by hagams

Being that I have Tri-care, and I'm in the Military, I can't judge on the Health care in the Nation. However, Michael Moore is no better than any other conman. But, what everyone seems to be forgetting is that he's making a movie about this, not taking it to court, not challenging anyone directly which tells me he's out to make a couple bucks doing this. Take it with a grain of salt. If our Health Care is that jacked up, this isn't the way to fix it.

Well, making movies is what he does, he's not an attorney.

I really disagree that no change can come from a movie. Look at what 'Supersize Me' did to McDonald's. That movie put a lot of heat on McDonald's (even though they don't acknowledge it). Soon after that movie they cut the supersized meals from their menu and introduced healthier offerings. While I don't think that movie was soley responsible for the changes, it certainly had an impact.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Sammy Baugh Fan

Nice, rather than debating the issues let's just cut to the lowest common denominator. Classy.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Well, making movies is what he does, he's not an attorney.

I really disagree that no change can come from a movie. Look at what 'Supersize Me' did to McDonald's. That movie put a lot of heat on McDonald's (even though they don't acknowledge it). Soon after that movie they cut the supersized meals from their menu and introduced healthier offerings. While I don't think that movie was soley responsible for the changes, it certainly had an impact.

I have to disagree. I guarantee you McDonalds performed a business plan analysis on the healthier menu items, and projected out a pro forma financial projection, and it showed a positive bottom line. They made that move for one reason: money. They thought that adding those items would result in incremental revenue and profits to the firm. Adding apples and milk to the menu didn't cut into revenues from burgers, fries, and shakes. It added onto the existing cash flow.

Now, they may have spun the move as taking an active interest in the obesity epidemic in America, but as always, the real motivation was money.

Business is business. Michael Moore can shine all the light on things that he wants, but in the end, companies are going to do what's in the best interests of their shareholders.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I have to disagree. I guarantee you McDonalds performed a business plan analysis on the healthier menu items, and projected out a pro forma financial projection, and it showed a positive bottom line. They made that move for one reason: money. They thought that adding those items would result in incremental revenue and profits to the firm. Adding apples and milk to the menu didn't cut into revenues from burgers, fries, and shakes. It added onto the existing cash flow.

Now, they may have spun the move as taking an active interest in the obesity epidemic in America, but as always, the real motivation was money.

Business is business. Michael Moore can shine all the light on things that he wants, but in the end, companies are going to do what's in the best interests of their shareholders.

The timing of them pulling the supersize menu items is curious. Perhaps it had nothing to do with the movie, but I really doubt it. McDonald's obviously took notice of the movie and it's success, issuing press releases denouncing the film and they went as far as taking out full page newspaper ads and placing 30 second ad spots in the opening movie trailer section of the movie.

You're right about the money, the movie threatened to hit them where it hurts, the wallet, and they acted accordingly.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

The timing of them pulling the supersize menu items is curious. Perhaps it had nothing to do with the movie, but I really doubt it. McDonald's obviously took notice of the movie and it's success, issuing press releases denouncing the film and they went as far as taking out full page newspaper ads and placing 30 second ad spots in the opening movie trailer section of the movie.

You're right about the money, the movie threatened to hit them where it hurts, the wallet, and they acted accordingly.

That's true about pulling the supersize items. They saw ridiculous class action suits on the horizon, and rather than fight them, they eliminated the supersize items, thereby eliminating that income stream. But they compensated by offering the healthy items (milk, fruit) to add incremental revenue streams. Net effect of the moves as a whole was positive to the bottom line.

Good movie. But don't you find it curious that since that move by McDonald's, Burger King has pounced, adding more and more unhealthy choices to the menu? The BK Stacker, which came out recently, (oh my God that thing is so good) is advertised as simply MEAT AND CHEESE. It's a friggin heart attack on a bun. And yet Burger King is somehow getting off scott free for being so unhealthy for consumers.

That film was good, but seeing people go after McDonald's for it was completely unfair. McDonalds certainly felt it was unfair, but rather than fight the tide, they went with it and summoned the ingenuity to maintain their revenue stream in other ways. Meanwhile, Burger King is capitalizing on the opportunity to capture market share amongst consumers who want to eat a buttload of fries, regardless of how bad it is for you. You can't blame Burger King, they're not caught in the crosshairs of this movie, and there's an opportunity in front of them to make money. The real root problem? Americans simply have unhealthy eating habits. You shouldn't blame McDonald's, it's not their fault that people like to eat a buttload of french fries. The demand for unhealthy food is the problem, not the supply.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

JoeRedskin,

We're on the same page about Moore. I don't hold Michael Moore to a higher standard than that which I subject guys like Rush Limbaugh to. I think a lot of people who disdain Limbaugh for his political views harp on his dishonest protrayal of various issues, yet adore Michael Moore because they love his politics even though he is equally dishonest. I disdain both Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore for their political views and their dishonesty.

Matty,

I tend to agree with you that films can have a powerful impact on society and "documentaries" are no exception to that rule. If anything, I believe that documentaries can have a more powerful impact on people and society than mainstream feature films. BUT, that is what scares me. Instead of debating issues civilly and honestly, Americans politics (including Moore's films or Limbaugh's talk radio) are becoming highly partisan and devolving into mudslinging and intellectually dishonest monologues. Guys like Moore and Limbaugh polarize people and turn complex issues into very simple ones at the expense of full disclosure and honest examinations of important issues.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

ALL insurance companies have big time profit margins. should i start by posting links to the salaries of the ceos? insurance is almost bordering the pyramid schemes, where they want your money, but you play hell getting yours if something happens. if your looking for pity for the mega money insurance giants, your looking the wrong way. and this lies the problem. why should the same procedure have 3 different costs, for 3 different people/ its how they balloon their profits. no one in that business goes hungry. and the lobbyists in Washington are some of the richest, most powerful in the world.

We all would probably admitt that CEO's pay is excessive in most industries and not just insurance. Why not post the profitts of the insurance co which would tell the true story. The Chinees have purchased some of the best Co's in Americia and there's a reason that they do not buy Ins. Co.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

Published on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 by Agence France Presse
US Health System Ranks Last Compared to Other Countries: Studies
WASHINGTON - The US health care system ranks last among other major rich countries for quality, access and efficiency, according to two studies released Tuesday by a health care think tank.

The studies by the Commonwealth Fund found that the United States, which has the most expensive health system in the world, underperforms consistently relative to other countries and differs most notably in the fact that Americans have no universal health insurance coverage.

“The United States stands out as the only nation in these studies that does not ensure access to health care through universal coverage and promotion of a ‘medical home’ for patients,” said Commonwealth Fund president Karen Davis.

“Our failure to ensure health insurance for all and encourage stable, long-term ties between physicians and patients shows in our poor performance on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and health outcomes.”

In “Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative Performance of American Health Care”, the study focused on interviews with physicians and patients in Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United States who were asked to speak about their experiences and views on their health systems.

The US ranked last in most areas, including access to health care, patient safety, timeliness of care, efficiency and equity. Americans were also last in terms of whether they had a regular physician.

“The US spends twice what the average industrialized country spends on health care but we’re clearly not getting value for the money,” Davis told AFP.

She also noted that 45 million Americans, or 15 percent of the US population, have no health insurance, which contributes to the country’s medical woes.

The United States is also far behind in adopting modern health information technology, which translates into spiralling costs and poor care.

“We pride ourselves on being advanced on so many areas of technology but it’s not the case on health information technology,” Davis said. “Other countries have just moved ahead.”

Britain got the top score in overall ranking among the countries in the study, followed by Germany. New Zealand and Australia tied for third followed by Canada and the United States.

The second study delves into why health costs in the United States are so much higher than in eight other countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands and New Zealand.

The study, “Multinational Comparisons of Health Systems Data,” found that even though the US spends the most on publicly and privately financed health insurance, its citizens had the most potential years of life lost due to circulatory and respiratory diseases as well as diabetes.

“This study blows a lot of myths about the US health system,” Davis said. “We spend three times what the average country spends on a day of hospital care and we also spend twice what the average country spends on prescription medication.”

Health care is likely to be a prominent issue in the 2008 US presidential elections with various candidates already promising to tackle rising costs and the burden placed on big business to provide health insurance.

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse.

It seems to me that the larger issue is that we as Americans - who have the most expensive health care system in the history of the world - get less value for our dollar then other countries.

they state this "its citizens had the most potential years of life lost due to circulatory and respiratory diseases as well as diabetes" which is due to over weight which Americia has one of the biggest problems. They say our health care is failing. It seems as they only looked at raw numbers and did not figure in weight and those issue. Not a good source.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

That's true about pulling the supersize items. They saw ridiculous class action suits on the horizon, and rather than fight them, they eliminated the supersize items, thereby eliminating that income stream. But they compensated by offering the healthy items (milk, fruit) to add incremental revenue streams. Net effect of the moves as a whole was positive to the bottom line.

Good movie. But don't you find it curious that since that move by McDonald's, Burger King has pounced, adding more and more unhealthy choices to the menu? The BK Stacker, which came out recently, (oh my God that thing is so good) is advertised as simply MEAT AND CHEESE. It's a friggin heart attack on a bun. And yet Burger King is somehow getting off scott free for being so unhealthy for consumers.

That film was good, but seeing people go after McDonald's for it was completely unfair. McDonalds certainly felt it was unfair, but rather than fight the tide, they went with it and summoned the ingenuity to maintain their revenue stream in other ways. Meanwhile, Burger King is capitalizing on the opportunity to capture market share amongst consumers who want to eat a buttload of fries, regardless of how bad it is for you. You can't blame Burger King, they're not caught in the crosshairs of this movie, and there's an opportunity in front of them to make money. The real root problem? Americans simply have unhealthy eating habits. You shouldn't blame McDonald's, it's not their fault that people like to eat a buttload of french fries. The demand for unhealthy food is the problem, not the supply.

BK is definitely snubbing their nose at the whole health movement. Sad enough, there's a market for that.

I agree that fast food places shouldn't be the one taking the majority of the blame. They are part of the problem, but we need to place more responsibility with the individual who chooses to make these poor decisions.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

BK is definitely snubbing their nose at the whole health movement. Sad enough, there's a market for that.

I agree that fast food places shouldn't be the one taking the majority of the blame. They are part of the problem, but we need to place more responsibility with the individual who chooses to make these poor decisions.

Oddly enough that ties right into the original topic of this thread... healthcare. If more Americans ate healthily, the cost of care would be lower for everybody.

Gotta love it when a tangent comes full circle.

[MTK]

Ahhh I feel complete now.