Sicko

I recently saw Michael Moore’s new documentary Sicko. Most critics’ reviews have given Moore’s latest indictment on the US government a thumbs up. Going into the theatre with this in mind I was expecting a revealing film that exposed the many fallacies of health insurance.

The Upper West Side theatre, the only cinema in Manhattan showing the film at the time (June 23^rd), was packed. It was hard to find even one seat in the balcony section. Yes, this theatre which was most likely used previously as a live performance theatre was renovated for film. It is a different movie watching experience seeing a film on a huge movie screen at eye level. Unless squished up in the front row, you never really think that you are always looking at a movie screen. I think that has a lot to do with the grandeur and larger than life feeling many people hold about films. Furthermore, I believe this is part of the reason why (subconsciously) desire to go the movies even though cinema ticket prices have steadily increased to appr. $10.

Sicko condemns America’s private health care system. Moore frames his picture around the premise that health care should be a universal right controlled by the government. Sicko makes a very solid case for his claim. There are few shining points made in the movie that made me firmly believe in the movie’s cause.

The incentive of health insurance companies is to deny the most claims to its policy holders. The reason for this is very simple. Insurance companies, many of which found on the NYSE, can make the most money by denying the most people. The less money the insurance company has to pay out to claim holders the more money available to go towards the company’s bottom line and the higher the dividend payout will be for shareholders. The logic is simple enough to follow but the problem is that the classic corporate model is not appropriate when people’s well being are being compromised for a dollar. The incentive model should not reward health insurance employees for denying health care but should evoke their workers to do the opposite. Help more people get a raise!

Moore looks at several nations around the world and their government run, universal health care systems. He focuses on Britain, France, and Cuba. There are many strong arguments made in this part of the film but the Moore converted me to firmly believe in his point while interviewing a British doctor. The doctor was speaking about the NHS (Britain’s universal health care service) and how we likes working for the government. During his interview he said (& I paraphrase to the best of my memory), “Our incentive is to help as many people as possible. We try to perform the most surgeries, see the most patients, treat the most diseases and ailments because the more people we help, the more we get paid.

For a doctor this makes sense because it’s the same here. The more people your local doctor can say, the more payments he receives from insurance companies. The difference here is that this doctor does not need to check with any health insurance companies about whether this patient will be insured. The doctor is allowed to treat the patient on the spot, no questions asked. Also this doctor is not working in a private office since all medical care is free, there are no private offices. So this doctor, who is a government worker, is not deterred by the socialist structure of the health care system and is able to help the maximum number of people.

I don’t remember the exact reason why that stood out to me so much since there are many fascinating facts revealed in the film but it really hit me. The dichotomy between the incentives between our health insurance agencies and health care system versus that of the British, French, or Cuban systems was a stark reality. While I don’t remember the film too vividly to clarify my argument made above, I still was inspired and pushed to support universal health care by Moore’s film. I could have discussed other parts of the movie which I remember more succinctly but I wanted to stay true to what really did it for me even though my logic had blurred.

Even Stephven

For those of you who do not know, I am a devoted viewer of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report. Being back home in LI on Saturday night while doing laundry has led me to the inevitable browsing of Facebook and random websites. I came across this video of a recurring segment that use to run on The Daily Show when Stephen Colbert and Steven Carell were Senior Stephven Debate Correspondents (my own take on Daily show titles). This is by far one of the best segments to have run on the show, only parallel to This Week in God which was hosted by Stephen Colbert. It is amazing how both actors in this recurring segment now star in their own shows and movies. Watch a couple episodes of Even Stephven and This Week in God and see how funny these guys are!

Even Stephven link

Evolution Schmevolution

Did you know that three Republicans running in the primaries for president attested to believing in creationism? This is appalling! The president of the United States should have firm educational roots which are not swayed by the guiding of religion.

It shows good moral character for the President to walk out of church every Sunday morning whether he believes the stories discussed or is just there for the positive press. This should only support the President’s faith and spirituality. When his religious teachings interfere with scientific data, research, or progress there is a major impediment to the nation’s well being.

The scientific method is a hallmark of education. In its simplest forms, the scientific method teaches a student in order to solve a problem several steps must be taken in coming to a valid conclusion. The disregard for science amongst our nation’s potential leaders sends a message saying that religion triumphs over science. I disagree! Not only based on my own personal beliefs but also because this states that you are in the holds of one religion. What about the rest of the people who do not follow your dogma? This leads to a slipper slope where church and state should not come to.

Taryn Simon's An American Index of the Hidden and Unfamiliar

I moved into NYC last Monday for an upcoming internship which starts tomorrow. Taking advantage of my new surroundings I visited many of the cities museums. The Met, Frick Collection, and most entertaining and visually stimulating the Whitney Museum.

One exhibition currently being displayed at the Whitney is Taryn Simon's An American Index of the Hidden and Unfamiliar (the link brings you to a site which has some of her pictures). The exhibit was a room housing about 15 photographs like the one featured here on the left. Some of the photographs contained easily identifiable objects but you did not know why Simon took that picture, like the Playboy cover on the left. Others leave the viewer unable to fulfill there confused state. This Playboy magazine picture was not the one used in the exhibit but it is close. Simon's Playboy's cover was much clearer and the magazine's cover was flat on the portrait, as if the cover was against the glass frame.

Simon attaches a small paragraph with each picture which makes everything clear. I could not find her exact words attached to this image but I tried to remember somewhat of how it went, with my own slant of course.

This is Playboy for the blind, Braille Playboy. It is distributed by the Library of Congress. Playboy magazine contains articles by Noam Chomsky, Kurt Vonnegut, Tom Clancy and interviews with Bob Dylan, Bill Gates, and Kevin Spacey.

I found this picture to be the most amusing but not all of her works is amusing, most of it is not.

The exhibit was extremely powerful and moving. When you view some of the other works (by following the link up top) it is evident that she is a gifted artist with the gift for creating messages with strong meanings.