Media Influence, SiCKO

Oh boy, first, my apologies for the lateness of this blog entry, but it's taken me some serious time to decide just what it is I think about healthcare. Granted this is really about the influence of media on public opinion and the way in which movies, like all art can direct thought, make you believe something, make you question something..... I think my stance on healthcare in the U.S. is an important part of that. So let's begin with my reaction to SiCKO and the Kurt Loder article.

To begin with, I was born and raised republican, though taught to stand by my beliefs. I'm sure my dad's kickin himself for that one. Every time I bring up a topic like this, we spend hours fighting about it. This was a particularly heated one, I actually called my brother un-American. Here's my synopsis of what I believe is the basic idea of capitalist medicine is (mostly dictated by my dad's capitalist idealism):
Americans will pay for the healthcare they need because they know that if they're willing to pay for it, someone is willing to compete for that pay. Therefore, not only will competitors battle for price, but also for the best procedures, the best materials, the best service. Also, new research will flourish because of the promise of financial payoff for discovery. Cancer research will continue because a cure for cancer can be sold on the open market.
Here's the problem with that:(in my opinion)
When capitalism is applied to goods and services, cheeseburgers for example, the price is dictated by what the consumer will pay; those who simply cannot afford what most can afford must go without. This is fine for cheeseburgers, not so good for medical attention.
If your house is on fire you expect, in many communitites, that it will be responded to and put out by a tax-paid service implemented to protect the community. If your child is kidnapped, you expect to be assisted by trained and tax-paid professionals. But when your child has a broken leg or a brain annuerism you should have to shop around for the best price? Does that sound right to anyone?
I understand that a totally tax funded healthcare system would still be costly. MRI's still cost money, hip surgeries still cost money, blood transfusions, doctor salaries, administrative structures, etc etc, they all cost money. But why is this service, which I consider essential, so different? Because a profit can be made from it; enter health insurance, or "regulation on the wrong side" as I call it. You saw the movie, you know what they can do and can't NOT do. It's a collossal hose job. It's capitalism at work. The people making money realized they could all make more money if they all made a shit show of it. It's collusion. It attempts to regulate need, not cost of healthcare. This is why healthcare is such a different issue; everyone needs healthcare.
Enter my dad's "better idea": regulation.
Regulate healthcare like electricity. The government determines that one entity is a monopoly (i.e. capitalism has failed) and regulates the cost of services, and therefor the profits of the company. Regulating the cost of an MRI or a doctor's consultation, therefore regulating the salary of the doctor, and the profit of the hospital. That's all fine and dandy, or is it? It's no different than socialism for doctors and hospitals, but we've still gotta pay for it, and it doesn't regulate insurance companies, so john q. public is still gettin reemed for an "essential service"
Americans consider themselves a generous people, we give millions of dollars to struggling countries for food, hospitals, and healthcare education. But we do that of our own freewill right? Why should we be FORCED to pay for other people's healthcare? Bull. Everyone pays for my fire department and my house has never burned down. Everyone pays for my police department, but i've never been robbed. Everyone pays for my postal service, but I rarely enjoy the mail I get.
This discussion ultimately ends in the "oh my God, I really AM a democrat" epiphany on my part, and my dad walking out of the room pissed off at his heretical socialist son.

On to the actual point:
OF COURSE movies are supposed to make us think, feel, belive something.
In most drama, and fiction that's usually something more universal: love, hope, friendship whatever. Non-fiction (especially documentaries (especially political documentaries)) often carry a more creator-specific tone. In this case, socialized healthcare. Now I think Michael Moore is just as much of a giant douche (both in size and attitude) as anyone else, but lets face it, the healthcare system we operate under is a turd sandwich. Why has nobody done a documentary on the word "socialism" every time I said it at my house, someone else's ears perked up and ran for a flaming torch. Just because it didn't work for everything at once doesn't mean it can't work for essential services. And just because the Russian's tried it doesn't mean American's have to hate the word just because....... well just because. This reeks of the lack of universal good and evil, and the human inability to determine it if there was.
As long as there are cheap people, republicans will oppose universal healthcare, but as long as there are sick people, democrats will support it. Take a number and have a seat folks, your in for a ride, either way.